Linda Sue Pinkard v. Findlay Industries, 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. In this appeal, the employer insists (1) the trial court's finding of permanent partial impairment or disability is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence, (2) the trial court erred in denying the employer's request for the appointment of a neutral physician, and (3) the award of permanent partial disability benefits on the basis of 6 percent to the body as a whole is excessive. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (2) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the General Sessions Court of Warren County Affirmed. JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., in which ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., J., and JAMES WEATHERFORD, SR. J., joined. Patrick A. Ruth, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Findlay Industries, Inc. William Joseph Butler and Frank D. Farrar, Lafayette, Tennessee, for the appellee, Linda Sue Pinkard. MEMORANDUM OPINION At the time of the trial on March 17, 2, the employee or claimant, Linda Sue Pinkard, was 36 years old with a ninth grade education and no special skills or training. She did have experience as a production worker and was employed by Findlay, a sewing factory, for more than ten years. On November 24, 1998, while lifting material onto a table at work, she felt a sudden pull in her back. Later that night she felt numbness in her legs and tingling in her toes. She was sent to Riverpark Hospital for emergency care and presented with a panel of possible treating physicians, from whom she chose Dr. Robert Dimick, a neurosurgeon, in Nashville. Dr. Dimick released her after providing conservative care. Thereafter, she saw Dr. John Thompson on the recommendation of her attorney. Dr. Dimick diagnosed low back pain and spasm, degenerative disc disease, a protruded disc and stenosis, with mild to moderate pressure on the nerve roots. The doctor conceded the injuries could have been caused or aggravated by trauma at work. Without measuring her loss of motion or sensation, Dr. Dimick estimated her permanent impairment rating at zero percent. Dr. Thompson, an orthopedic surgeon in Sparta, opined that the claimant's injuries were work-related. He estimated her permanent impairment at 17 percent to the whole body and restricted her from lifting more than 2 pounds occasionally, 1 pounds frequently or 5 pounds repetitively. He prescribed standing no more than 3 minutes at a time or more than 5 minutes of each hour, no more than occasional bending, stooping, kneeling and no squatting, climbing, crouching, crawling or twisting. Dr. S. M. Smith, an orthopedic surgeon in Jamestown, saw the claimant for an independent medical examination and evaluation in July 1999. Dr. Smith diagnosed a ruptured disc at L5-S1. He estimated the claimant's permanent impairment at 19 percent to the whole body and prescribed permanent restrictions. The claimant's own testimony, supported by other lay proof, was that she could not work within her restrictions. She was unable to continue in a janitorial service job that she had held before her injury at Findlay. She did return to work for Findlay at a lower paying job in the parts room, but is concerned whether she would be able to find any work if she lost her job. Upon the above summarized evidence, the trial court found the claimant's permanent medical impairment to be 15 percent to the body and awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on 6 percent to the body as a whole. 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). This tribunal is not bound by the trial court's findings but instead conducts an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance lies. Galloway v. Memphis Drum Serv., 822 S.W.2d 584, 586 (Tenn. 1991). Where the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses, especially if issues of credibility and weight to be given oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded those circumstances on review, because it is the trial court which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and to hear the in-court testimony. Long v. Tri-Con Ind., Ltd., 996 S.W.2d 173, 177 (Tenn. 1999). The appellate tribunal, however, is as well situated to gauge the weight, worth and significance of deposition testimony as the trial judge. Walker v. Saturn Corp., 986 S.W.2d 24, 27 (Tenn. 1998). The extent of an injured worker's vocational disability is a question of fact. Story v. Legion Ins. Co., 3 S.W.3d 45, 451 (Tenn. 1999). The appellant contends the trial judge should have rejected Dr. Smith's opinion because his examination was conducted in the claimant's attorney's office and because Dr. Smith's opinion is -2-