Tamika Washington v. Federal Express Corporation

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 employee questions the trial court's disallowance of permanent disability benefits. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the evidence fails to preponderate against the findings of the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (21 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and HAMILTON V. GAYDEN, JR., SP. J., joined. Steve Taylor, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Tamika Washington J. Mark Griffee and Robert B. C. Hale, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Federal Express Corporation MEMORANDUM OPINION It is undisputed that the employee or claimant, Tamika Washington, suffered a work related injury when she slipped while working for the employer, Federal Express, on September 29, 1999. She received medical and temporarydisability benefits from the employer, but was denied permanent disability benefits because the treating physician found no permanent impairment and prescribed no permanent restrictions. She commenced this civil action to recover permanent disability benefits on November 16, 1999. The case was tried on August 13, 21. The trial court found that the claimant's proof failed to establish permanency by a preponderance of the evidence, but awarded medical benefits as provided by law. The claimant seeks a reversal of the denial of permanent partial benefits and an award of such benefits by this tribunal. For injuries occurring on or after July 1, 1985, 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 court is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.