Linda Shank v. Wal-Mart Stores, 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. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). In this case, the plaintiff brought suit against the defendant Wal-Mart, alleging she was entitled to workers' compensation benefits as a result of a back injury and sinus injury sustained in the course of her employment. The trial court found the plaintiff's sinus injury was not compensable1 but the plaintiff's back injury was compensable, awarding her 38 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole, temporary total disability benefits, and unpaid medical benefits for the services of Dr. Rex Arendall. The defendant appeals and presents the following issues: "I. Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-12(a)(5) and the facts of this case, the proof at trial preponderates against the trial court's finding that the plaintiff's back injury was causally related to the accident she reported of April 26, 1994. II. The trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff's back injury was subject to the six (6) times multiplier in Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(b) rather than the two and one-half (2 _) times multiplier in Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(a)(1). III. The medical care of Dr. Rex Arendall was unauthorized and should not have been awarded by the trial court. IV. The trial court erred in refusing to admit into evidence release from work slips provided to defendant by the plaintiff and which were included in and became a part of her personnel file." We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1 The plaintiff did not appeal the decision of the trial court with respect to her sinus injury. Therefore, the sinus injury will only be discussed for a clear understanding of her back injury. 2