Daniel M. Johnson v. Schlegel Tennessee, Inc. A/K/A/ Btr

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. The defendant appeals the trial judge's decision that the plaintiff has a permanent disability to the mental faculties which was caused by exposure to chemicals in the workplace. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court is Affirmed BYERS, SR.J., in which ANDERSON, J., and THAYER, SP.J., joined. F. R. Evans, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellants, Schlegel Tennessee, Inc. a/k/a BTR Sealing Systems, North America Operations d/b/a BTR, Inc. and Cigna Property & Casualty. Rex A. Dale, Lenoir City, Tennessee, for the appellee, Daniel M. Johnson. MEMORANDUM OPINION Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial courts in workers' compensation cases. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). Facts The plaintiff was thirty years of age at the time of this trial. He had a twelfth grade education with no college, but was trained vocationally in the Army as a heavy weld mechanic. He began working for the defendants in May, 1991, as a mold operator producing automotive seals. In 1997 he began working as a coater operator, the position he held at the time of the chemical exposures alleged in this cause of action. The plaintiff's duties as coater operator required him to mix and pour toxic chemical coatings, prime, coat, and bake parts for automotive seals. During this process, the various chemicals that he mixed were fed into a reciprocating disk that spun the chemicals at high speed into an aerosol to coat the automotive seals which moved through the coater on a production line. The plaintiff alleges that fumes from this process were supposed to be vented out by an exhaust fan that did not work. When he told his supervisor that the fan did not work, the supervisor told him that it had not worked in quite a while. As a result, the plaintiff alleges, over spray from the spinning reciprocating disk landed outside the area of the coating operation and all around the floor in the area where he worked. The plaintiff alleges that on March 1, 1998, he started having allergic reactions to the chemicals to which he was being exposed at work. The effects of these reactions included rashes, chemical burns on his face, welts all over his body, discolored skin, and loss of motivation. He reported these problems to his supervisor and went to the emergency room for treatment of the symptoms. Over approximately the next eighteen months, as the plaintiff continued working, the symptoms appeared repeatedly and he continued to be treated for them. During this time the defendants paid some temporary total disability benefits when the plaintiff needed treatment and was unable to work. In addition to his physical symptoms, the plaintiff alleges that mental symptoms began to appear from his exposure to the chemicals at work. Several witnesses testified at trial that the plaintiff was emotionally upset, had lost weight, and was nervous and depressed following his exposure to the chemicals. Witnesses also described the plaintiff as panicky, anxious, and paranoid. The plaintiff testified that he now has memory and motivation problems as well as trouble sleeping due to anxiety. The plaintiff saw several different psychiatrists and psychologists for diagnosis and treatment of his mental problems that he alleges were caused by his chemical exposure in the workplace. The reports of these physicians led to the trial court's finding that the plaintiff suffers a psychological problem that was triggered byan initial allergic or toxic reaction that led to subsequent psychological events which resulted in a major depressive episode. -2-