Michael Glenn Binkley v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours &

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 claimant insists the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee's death did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. 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 ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., J., and WILLIAM H. INMAN, SR. J., joined. Charles L. Hicks, Camden, Tennessee, for the appellant, Martha Binkley, widow of Michael Glenn Binkley John R. Lewis, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Company MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee, Michael Glenn Binkley, initiated this civil action to recover workers' compensation benefits for a gradually occurring work related lung disease. The employer, Dupont, filed an answer. After the employee died, his widow, Martha Binkley, was substituted as plaintiff and the complaint amended to demand dependent and other death benefits. Despite the existence of sticky procedural questions, the only issue presented for trial was whether the employee's death was caused by an occupational disease resulting from exposure to fibers at work. After a trial on the merits, the trial court dismissed the claim for lack of evidence that the employee's lung disease arose out of and in the course of employment. The substituted plaintiff has appealed. We have reviewed only the issue presented to and adjudicated by the trial court. 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) (21 Supp.). The reviewing court is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.