Pam Ogren v. Housecall Health Care, Inc.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial judge found the plaintiff had sustained a 7 percent permanent vocational impairment as a result of an on-the-job injury. The defendant says the evidence preponderates against the award of 7 percent and says the trial judge should have limited the award to 2.5 times the medical impairment rating because the plaintiff failed to return to work when she was afforded a job within her medical limitations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The undisputed evidence shows the plaintiff was injured on December 16, 1994 as she performed her duties as a certified nursing assistant for the defendant. The plaintiff was assisting a paraplegic patient to dress at the time of the injury. The patient had raised himself on a trapeze bar by his arms and the plaintiff was attempting to dress his lower body. The base of the bar moved onto the plaintiff's left shoe. The plaintiff pushed on the bar to free her foot. The plaintiff heard a "pop" in her left shoulder and began to experience pain in her neck, shoulder, arm, and hand. It appears the plaintiff had some medical care at Athens Community Hospital; however, there is little in the record concerning this treatment. On March 27, 1995, the plaintiff was seen by Joel B. Ragland, a neurosurgeon in Knoxville. Dr. Ragland conducted examination and testing and found the plaintiff had a rather large disc rupture at C5-6 and C6-7. Dr. Ragland concluded surgery was required for the plaintiff's injury and this was done on April 21, 1995. Dr. Ragland did an anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion on the effected vertebrae. Dr. Ragland continued to see the plaintiff until October 1995 at which time he released her and found she had suffered a ten percent medical impairment to the body as a whole. Dr. Ragland was of the opinion the plaintiff could return to work with a ten pound lifting restriction. 2