James G. Spears v. Pathway Bellows, 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 defendant, Pathway Bellows, Inc., appeals the trial court's award of twenty percent (2%) permanent partial disability to the left upper extremity.1 We agree with the trial court and affirm. The plaintiff, James Spears, was 56 years old in February, 1999. He dropped out of school in the 1th grade and joined the U. S. Army. While in the Army he worked in communications and received his general equivalency diploma. After being honorably discharged from the Army, he went to work as an assembler and later as a welder. While working for a small machine shop he learned to weld very thin exotic material. This type of welding requires a very steady hand and a tremendous amount of concentration. In 1969, the plaintiff went to work for the defendant. From 1969 to 1997 the plaintiff traveled all over the world welding exotic material for the defendant. On August 4, 1997, he was cutting parts that weighed around 2 pounds. He would push, catch and stand them on the ground. Later in the day his left shoulder began to bother him. He told his supervisor who sent him to Ambulatory Care where he saw Dr. Hilton. Subsequently, Dr. Hilton referred the plaintiff to Dr. Sidney Wallace, an orthopedic specialist, who first saw the plaintiff on September 17, 1997. Dr. Wallace diagnosed the plaintiff's injury as a rotator cuff syndrome on the left side. Dr. Wallace treated the plaintiff from September 17 through November 11, 1997, when Dr. Wallace released the plaintiff to return to his normal work duties. At this time Dr. Wallace felt the plaintiff should have another physician examine him because he had seen a video, showing the plaintiff doing things, which he thought impaired the doctor-patient relationship. 1T.C.A. _ 5-6-27 (3)(A)(ii)(m) denotes the upper extremity as arm. The parties agreed during oral argument that the final judgment mistakenly awarded benefits to the body as a whole and should be amended to award benefits to the arm. 2