Indiana Lumbermen's v. Meade

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 employer insists the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive and the employee insists he is permanently and totally disabled. Additionally, the employee contends "the trial court erred in rejecting the testimony of the vocational specialist in its totality." As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on sixty percent to the body as a whole. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). The extent of an injured worker's disability is an issue of fact. Jaske v. Murray Ohio Mfg. Co., 75 S.W.2d 15 (Tenn. 1988). Where the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses, especially if issues of credibility and weight to be given oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded those circumstances on review. Jones v. Sterling Last Corp., 962 S.W.2d 469 (Tenn. 1998). The employee or claimant, Meade, is 58 years old with a third grade education, an intelligence quotient of 74 and experience as a laborer. He suffered a compensable soft tissue injury to his back, which is the subject of this case. The undisputed medical proof is that he has a permanent impairment of five percent to the body as a whole and is permanently restricted from any repeated bending, stooping or squatting, heavy lifting, working over heavy terrain, excessive ladder or stair climbing, strenuous pushing or pulling, or working with his hands above the level of his shoulders. One doctor restricted him from lifting even twenty pounds occasionally. The claimant attempted to return to work but, because of his restrictions, could not perform his duties, and was not working at the time of the trial. He has no other educational, vocational or job training. A vocational expert testified that he had no reasonably transferable job skills from former employment and opined his vocational disability was one hundred percent. The expert qualified his opinion by saying that although the claimant 2