Darlene Sue Singleton v. Shelby Williams, Inc.

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 court's decision awarding the plaintiff compensation of $85,228.8 for a sixty percent permanent partial disability to each arm. Specifically, the defendant argues that the trial court erred: in allowing the introduction of the standard medical report or deposition of Dr. William Gutch into evidence; in accepting the testimony and opinion of Dr. Gutch over that of the treating physician; and by awarding a sixty percent permanent partial disability to each arm. We affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Grainger County Circuit Court is Affirmed BYERS, SR. J., in which ANDERSON, J., and THAYER, SP. J., joined. Joseph J. Doherty, of Morristown, Tennessee, for the appellant, Shelby Williams, Inc. James M. Davis, of Morristown, Tennessee, for the appellee, Darlene Sue Singleton. 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 (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 (Tenn. 1988). Facts The plaintiff is forty-six years of age and worked as an upholster for the defendant company for twenty-four years. She has a 7th grade education and has problems reading and writing. Her duties for the defendant require the use of staple gun, welt gun, scissors, and wire cutter. In January of 2, the plaintiff alleged repetitive use injuries to both arms. She testified that she provided notice of her injuries to her employer on June 8, 2. She was then referred to Dr. Philip Bickers, who referred her to Dr. Robert Ivy for treatment. In November of 2, Dr. Ivy performed surgery on the employee's left wrist; in January 21, he performed surgery on the employee's right wrist. The employee later saw Dr. William Gutch at the direction of her attorney. The plaintiff returned to work without restrictions six weeks later. She testified that she has not seen Dr. Ivy or any other doctor since her return to work. Medical Evidence The medical evidence for the purpose of the issues raised in this trial was provided by the deposition testimony of Dr. Robert Ivy and Dr. William Gutch. Dr. Ivy, an orthopedic surgeon in Knoxville, testified that he first saw the plaintiff on October 3, 2, when she was referred to him by her workers' compensation carrier. At that visit he evaluated her for complaints of pain and numbness in both of her hands. He took her history and performed a physical examination. Dr. Ivy testified that he diagnosed the plaintiff with severe bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and recommended release surgery, which he performed on November 17, 2 (left arm), and January 5, 21 (right arm). He testified that the plaintiff responded well to the surgeries and he placed her at maximum medical improvement on March 2, 21. He rated her at five percent permanent partial impairment to each upper extremity and returned her to work with no restrictions. Dr. Gutch, a retired orthopedic surgeon who currently uses his medical license chiefly for independent medical examinations for the purpose of litigation, testified that he examined the plaintiff on October 1, 21. He testified that he took a history from the plaintiff, reviewed her medical records (including those of Dr. Ivy,) and performed a physical examination, including tests of range of motion and grip strength. He estimated that this process took approximately one hour. Dr. Gutch testified that based upon her history and the results of his examination, he agreed with Dr. Ivy's diagnosis and treatment of the plaintiff, but he disagreed with Dr. Ivy's impairment rating. Dr. Gutch assigned the plaintiff a total impairment of eight percent to her left upper extremity and eight percent to her right upper extremity. He also restricted the plaintiff to avoid excessive and repetitive finger and wrist motion, pulling and tugging, and the use of vibratory tools. Discussion Although we are required to weigh the evidence in a case in depth to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies, we are required to make such evaluation within the confines of -2-