Barry King v. City of Belle Meade, and

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this case, the employee contends the trial court erred in failing to award workers' compensation disability and/or medical benefits to the employee based upon his work-related hypertension and heart disease. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the trial court's dismissal of the employees workers' compensation claims should be affirmed. Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-225(e)(3) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed Turnbull, Sp. J., in which Drowota, J., and Loser, Sp. J., joined. Daniel Carlton Todd, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Barry King. Teresa Reall Ricks, Farrar & Bates, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, City of Belle Meade and TML Risk Management Pool, Inc., Appellees. MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee, Barry King ("King"), was employed as a police officer for the City of Belle Meade from January 1988 to September 1997. The City of Belle Meade is insured by TML Risk Management Pool, Inc. On January 6, 1988, prior to his employment as a police officer for the City of Belle Meade, King underwent a physical examination which failed to reveal any presence of hypertension or heart disease. On August 12, 1995, King was diagnosed with an irregular heartbeat and high cholesterol. The following day, he was hospitalized with chest pains. King continued his duties as a police officer for the City of Belle Meade after his release from the hospital. Upon the advice of King's cardiologist nearly two years later, King was referred to and treated by Dr. Marcus C. Houston, M.D., for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, coronary heart disease, carotid artery obstruction, and a history of transient ischemic attacks since June 3, 1997. On September 4, 1997, Dr. Houston suggested to King that he no longer continue to work as a police officer because the stress related to King's job as a police officer constituted a danger to King's health. On September 5, 1997, King terminated his employment as a police officer and submitted his First Report of Work Injury. King claims workers' compensation disability and/or medical benefits based upon his work-related hypertension and heart disease. He argues that job stress caused high blood pressure which in turn caused his heart disease. The employee insists he suffers an occupational disease under Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-31[6]. Subsequent to King's filing for workers' compensation, an independent health examination was conducted by Dr. Hal M. Roseman, M.D., who evaluated King's medical records, checked the calibration of King's blood pressure monitor, performed a physical examination of King, and had a psychological test of King performed. Dr. Roseman concluded to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that King's medical condition was not proximately caused by his employment as a police officer. Neither Dr. Roseman nor Dr. Houston can be characterized as a professional witness who commonly testify in worker's compensation cases. Charles Vincent Perry, Jr., the Chief of Police for Belle Meade, testified that King's duties as a police officer for the City of Belle Meade consisted of general patrol duties, specifically as a DUI enforcement officer. King does not specifically claim that any particular incident or event in performing his duties as a police officer precipitated his hypertension or coronary heart disease. From the above summarized evidence, the trial judge found that sufficient medical evidence rebutted the presumption, supplied by Tenn. Code Ann. _7-51-21(a)(1), that King's hypertension and heart disease were "accidental injur[ies] suffered in the course of employment." The trial court held that the employee failed to cite to a specific event or occurrence that precipitated his hypertension and heart disease. ISSUES Did the trial court properly find and conclude that the employee's heart disease is not compensable? [2]