Harold J. Garth v. Siskin Steel & Supply Company,

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 trial court found the plaintiff suffered 75 percent disability to his right hand as a result of an on-the-job injury, which occurred on March 1, 2. The defendant says the trial judge erred in not finding the plaintiff's recovery for the injury should be limited to the thumb or the first phalange of the thumb. The plaintiff says the trial court properly found the plaintiff suffered an impairment to his right hand but says the trial court should have granted a higher award. 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 Affirmed JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., in which WILLIAM M. BARKER, J. and JOSEPH M. TIPTON, SP. J., joined. Kent T. Jones, Chattanooga, Tennessee, attorney for appellant, Randstand Staffing Services. David D. Moore, Chattanooga, Tennessee, attorney for appellant, Siskin Steel & Supply Company. Richard H. Winningham, Chattanooga, Tennessee, attorney for appellee, Harold J. Garth. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, Harold Garth, is a high school graduate with vocational training as a bricklayer. After serving in the military, he attended Draughon's Junior college where he received a degree or diploma in trucking and has past experience in both trucking and construction. The undisputed evidence shows the plaintiff sustained an injury to his right thumb or hand on March 1, 2 while working as a materials handler with Siskin Steel & Supply Company through Randstad Staffing Services.1 Medical Evidence Dr. Daniel Labrador, Jr., a plastic surgeon, saw the plaintiff at the emergency room on March 1, 2, shortly after he was injured. He testified that the tip of the plaintiff's right thumb had been torn off. The portion of the thumb was reattached to the plaintiff's thumb and treatment began. Dr. Labrador saw the plaintiff on several occasions and last saw him on April 3, 2. Dr. Labrador denied that the plaintiff's hand injury had developed gangrene. Dr. Labrador concluded that the plaintiff's injury had healed on April 2, 2, and testified the plaintiff sustained a 1 percent permanent medical impairment to his right thumb. Dr. Labrador testified he was somewhat limited in his finding because Mr. Garth did not return for a final appointment after April 3, 2.2 Dr. Robert Mastey, a hand and upper extremities specialist, saw the plaintiff on July 27, 21 at the request of the defendant for purposes of evaluation. He found the plaintiff had no bone loss and had normal nerve function in the hand, which was based upon a review of an EMG and CV done previously. He also found the plaintiff had loss of motion in the thumb and loss of digital height. Dr Mastey determined the plaintiff had sustained a 14 percent medical impairment to the right thumb. Dr. Mastey did not consider a loss of grip finding because he felt it was unreliable.3 Dr. Cauley W. Hayes, a hand surgeon, saw the plaintiff on April 6, 2. He testified that the tip of the plaintiff's thumb had been amputated (soft tissue), that the soft tissue had been reattached and that the wound had become necrotic and gangrenous. Dr. Hayes found the plaintiff's right thumb was numb almost past the metacarpal phalange joint and that the plaintiff was experiencing swelling of the hand. Dr. Hayes opined the plaintiff would have a permanent partial medical impairment of 33 percent to his hand, with loss of motion and "fine manipulation." Lay Testimony The plaintiff and other witnesses testified at trial that his right hand continues to swell. On two occasions the plaintiff exhibited his hand to the trial judge for observation, once at the request of counsel and once at the request of the trial judge. The only response by the judge on these 1 Randstad Staffing and Siskin Steel stipulated at trial that Randstad was the actual statutory employer of the plaintiff at the time of the alleged injury and, by agreement, Randstad Staffing Services took on sole responsibility for the jud gme nt. 2 The plaintiff testified he did not return to Dr. Labrador because his finger was swollen and infected and he did not think he was being properly treated. 3 Dr. Mastey appeared antagonistic to questions from plaintiff's counsel and also interjected his legal opinion into his testim ony b y citing a co mpe nsation decisio n by the Sup reme Court. -2-