Ronald Geddings v. Imperial Guard & Detectives

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The defendants, Imperial Guard & Detective Services and the Travelers Insurance Company (Imperial), appeal the judgment of the Shelby Chancery Court awarding the plaintiff, Ronald Geddings (Geddings), sixty-five percent (65%) permanent partial disability to the body as a whole as a result of a mental injury and commuting the award to a lump sum in trust to be administered byGeddings' wife. Imperial does not appeal the trial court's award of sixteen percent (16%) permanent partial disability for a low back injury. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the award of sixteen percent (16%) permanent partial disability to the body as a whole for the injury to the low back; reverse the award of sixty-five percent (65%) permanent partial disability to the body as a whole for the mental injury; and reverse the award of benefits commuted to a lump sum. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part MALOAN, SP. J., in which HOLDER, J., and WEATHERFORD, SR. J., joined. Gayle B. Lakey, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellants, Imperial Guard & Detective Services and The Travelers Company. Stephen R. Leffler, Memphis, Tennessee for the appellee, Ronald Geddings. MEMORANDUM OPINION Geddings was age forty-one (41) at the time of this trial. He graduated from high school and attended some college. Geddings first worked for Imperial as a security officer, advanced to general manager, and then to vice president of operations. On December 9, 1996, Geddings and other Imperial employees attended a sexual harassment seminar. After the seminar, Geddings was hit by an automobile while crossing Poplar Avenue in Memphis, Tennessee. Geddings testified the vehicle struck his buttocks and he fell on the street on his stomach. His only visible injuries were cuts and bruises to his arms, hands, buttocks, and ankle. Geddings was able to assist fellow injured workers, then crossed the street, and either sat down on the curb or collapsed unconscious. Dr. John Brophy, a neurosurgeon, treated Geddings for an injury to his lower back. On February 17, 1997, Dr. Brophy performed a decompression laminectomy at L4-5 and released Geddings to light duty in March 1997 and full duty without restrictions on May 12, 1997. Dr. Brophy assigned an eight percent (8%) permanent impairment to the body as a whole for his low back injury. When Geddings returned to his former job at Imperial he began to have forgetfulness and memory loss. He was assigned to the night shift, where he continued to work for one (1) year until he resigned in March 1998. He then worked for a smaller security company, Guardco, performing similar duties, but was terminated eight (8) or nine (9) months later for lack of organization. William Jenkins, Ed.D., a vocational rehabilitation expert, evaluated Geddings for vocational disability. As a result of numerous tests and a review of a neuropsychological evaluation by Nan Hawks, Ph.D.,1 dated January 19, 1998, Dr. Jenkins testified Geddings had a sixty percent (6%) to sixty-five percent (65%) vocational disability for his psychological problems. At trial, Geddings' attorney requested the trial court to make separate awards for the low back injury and the mental injury. Over Imperial's objection, the trial court awarded sixteen percent(16%) permanent partial disability to the body as a whole for the back injury and an additional sixty-five percent (65%) permanent partial disabilityto the body as a whole for the mental injury. Further, the trial court granted Geddings' motion to commute the award to a lump sum in trust to be administered by Geddings' wife. ANALYSIS The scope of review of issues of fact is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of evidence is otherwise. Tennessee Code Annotated _5-6-225(e)(2). Lollar v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 767 S.W.2d 143 (Tenn. 1989). When a trial court has seen and heard witnesses, especially where issues of credibility and weight of oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded the trial court's factual findings. Humphrey v David Witherspoon, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 315 (Tenn. 1987). However, where the issues involve expert medical testimony which is contained in the record by deposition, as it is in this case, then all impressions of weight and credibility must be drawn from 1Apparently, Dr. Hawks' deposition was filed with the trial court, but was never entered into evidence during the trial and is not in the record on appeal. -2-