Albert J. Shell v. Abb Combustion Engineering, 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 employee, Albert J. Shell, has appealed from the action of the trial court in dismissing his claim for benefits. The court concluded his condition and/or injury was not work-related. On appeal two questions are presented for review. First, it is contended the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding on the causation issue and second, it is insisted the court was in error at the close of all proof to require counsel to submit a hypothetical question to one of the expert medical witnesses. We have carefully reviewed the record with these issues in mind and are of the opinion the judgment of dismissal should be affirmed. Plaintiff was 54 years of age and is a high school graduate. He has been employed by defendant, ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc ., for a long period of time. In 199 he was involved in a work-related accident which was diagnosed as a disc injury causing back and leg pain. He did not undergo surgery and conservative treatment seemed to heal the injury as he returned to work after a short period of time. He continued to work without any significant problems until March 1995. On March 21, 1995, he testified he was using a hammer to attempt to disconnect metal that had been previously welded when the blow of the hammer caused a piece of the metal to break free and strike the top of his foot; that he immediately had pain in his foot and felt he had bruised it; several days later he began having pain in his leg calf and foot and some numbness; he saw his wife's family doctor whose medical records were filed in evidence and indicated the examination revealed "Left foot numbness and weakness since Thurs. No cause. . . . . . ." On March 29, 1995 he saw Dr. George Z. Seiters, an orthopedic surgeon, who testified by deposition and stated his examination revealed a foot drop condition; that the patient had indicated he had awakened with the symptoms and that he could not recall any precipitating event other than the hammer incident. Dr. Seiters referred the patient to a neurosurgeon for further evaluation. Dr. Seiters testified he was of the opinion there was no casual connection between the hammer incident and the foot drop condition and later diagnosed disc condition. He felt the disc condition which the neurosurgeon found was probably related to the 199 work-related accident. He also stated plaintiff never described any twisting movement during the hammer incident nor did he ever complain of having back pain. The neurosurgeon, Dr. Thomas D. Fulbright, first saw plaintiff on May 1, 1995 and he performed disc surgery on May 1th. He testified by deposition and was also of the opinion the hammer incident did not cause the foot drop condition or the disc condition. He said a bulging disc caused compression of the nerve root which caused the foot drop. In describing the hammer incident at work on March 21st to the company nurse, an insurance adjuster, his wife's family doctor, Dr. Seiters and Dr. Fulbright, 2