Richard Scott Stainforth v. Chemetals, 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. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The claimant gradually developed pain in his hands and arms at work, which he reported to the employer on March 9, 1998. He was referred to Dr. Wade Reynolds, who diagnosed tendinitis of the thumbs, restricted him from repetitive use of the thumbs and prescribed non-narcotic medication. The claimant continued working with pain and was later referred to Dr. John McInnis, who treated him for swollen thumbs, but did nothing to alleviate the pain in his hands and arms. Dr. McInnis prescribed pain medication, which was helpful, but the claimant continued to suffer from pain in his hands and arms and swelling in his thumbs. In his deposition, Dr. McInnis said the claimant had arthritis in both thumbs and opined the injury would not cause any permanent medical impairment. The claimant was evaluated by Dr. Joseph Boals, who made a report on a form prescribed by the director of the workers' compensation division and a narrative report, both of which are included in the record. Dr. Boals diagnosed overuse syndrome in both upper extremities, manifested by mild carpal tunnel syndrome, severe arthritis of the thumbs and decreased grip strength, causally related to the work the claimant was doing. He estimated the claimant's permanent impairment at twenty percent to each arm. The trial judge found that the claimant suffered an injury byaccident arising out of and in the course of employment and awarded, inter alia, permanent partial disability benefits based on sixty- two and one-half percent to both arms. 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. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). The reviewing tribunal is not bound by a trial court's factual findings but instead conducts an independent examination to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.