Broderick Kelsey v. Kraft Food Service

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellants contend the trial court's award of benefits based on six times the medical impairment rating is excessive. The appellee contends the award is inadequate because the chancellor erred in "finding three of the four factors listed under Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6- 242 were not proven by clear and convincing evidence" and that the award of benefits based on forty-two percent to the body as a whole is inadequate. The appellee also contends the chancellor erred in failing to award its vocational expert's fee as discretionary costs. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. At the time of the trial, the claimant, Kelsey was thirty-five years old and a high school graduate. Following high school graduation, he served three years in the United States Army, where he worked as a warehouseman and equipment operator. He has worked as a truck driver. He worked for the employer, Kraft Food Services, for about two years until June 27, 1995, when he suffered a compensable back injury while lifting a case of potatoes. He has not worked since. The treating physician, Dr. Seiters, diagnosed a protruding or bulging disc, provided conservative care and estimated his permanent medical impairment at seven percent to the body as a whole. The doctor further opined the claimant reached maximum medical improvement on November 15, 1995 and could return to light work. The treating physician and another doctor who had first examined the claimant were of the opinion that the claimant could be exaggerating his symptoms. At the trial, the claimant gave conflicting testimony concerning his ability to read. On direct examination, he testified that he could not read. On 2