David Kee v. Unimin Corporation

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to theSpecial 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. This is an action by an injured employee to recover workers' compensation benefits for three separate claimed injuries by accident occurring at different times. After a trial on the merits, the trial judge dismissed the claim based on an arm injury for insufficient proof that it occurred at work, but awarded, inter alia, permanent partial disability benefits based on 4 percent to the body as a whole for the injuries to the neck and back. The employer has appealed contending (1) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee's claimed neck injury is compensable and (2) the trial court erred in awarding permanent disability benefits for the neck injury and for an admittedly compensable low back injury. 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 Circuit Court Affirmed JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and W. MICHAEL MALOAN, SP. J., joined. Richard C. Manglesdorf, Jr., and Thomas J. Dement, II, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Unimin Corporation Terry J. Leonard, Camden, Tennessee, for the appellee, David Kee MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee or claimant, David Kee, is 59 years old with a high school education and no vocational training. He worked for Genesco for one year after graduating from high school and worked for Unimin, formerly Hardy Sand Company, for 37 years, advancing to the position of shift production and shipping supervisor until he was terminated on February 24, 1999. One of the claimed injuries is to the left arm. It appears from the record, as the trial court found, that the arm injury was an old one, not related to work, although a manifestation of it occured at work on or about April 21, 1998. The testimony of Dr. Lowell F. Stonecipher clearly supports that finding. It also appears from the record that the claim should fail for lack of written notice. No issue is raised in the appellee's brief concerning the trial court's disallowance of benefits for the arm injury. As Dr. Joseph C. Boals, III, understated in his deposition, theclaimant's history is convoluted and confusing. It appears from the record that an injury occurred at work on April 28, 1998, when the claimant slipped on oil and fell,, injuring his lower back. The employer does not contest the compensability of the back injury, but insists it did not cause any permanent disability. The treating physician, Dr. John Neblett, diagnosed acute lumbar sprain with nerveroot irritation at L5-S1 on the left side. The injury was superimposed on preexisting degenerative arthritis. Conservative care was provided by Dr. Neblett. Dr. Boals, to whom the claimant was referred by his attorney for evaluation, estimated his permanent impairment at 1 percent to the whole body. The claimant testified that he fell down a flight of stairs at work on Feb ruary 22, 1999, landing on his neck and injuring it. There is conflicting testimony as to whether the employer had notice of it. A supervisor at Unimin, David Hayes, was nearby when it happened. Hayes testified that he heard a noise and saw the claimant picking himselfup. When he asked the claimant if he was hurt, the claimant said something, then walked away, according to the testimony of Hayes. The claimant believes the supervisor saw more than he is telling. No written report was made. Dr. Neblett diagnosed acute neck sprain and exacerbation of preexisting arthritis. Dr. Boals estimated the claimant's permanent impairment for all three injuries at 33 percent. The trial judge found the employee to be a credible witness and awarded permanent partial disability benefits on the basis of 4 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, 178 (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 appellant first argues the neck injury did not happen. The argument overlooks the -2-