Willie Wooten v. Wal-Mart Stores East. 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. In this appeal, the employer questions the trial court's findings as to compensability and rate of compensation benefits. The employer also insists the trial court erred in ordering it to pay medical expenses to TennCare, and not directly to the health care providers. The employee insists the employer should have been assessed with a penalty for its failure to provide medical benefits. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the evidence fails to preponderate against the trial court's findings as to compensability and compensation rate, but should be remanded for determining TennCare's subrogation interest, if any. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (22 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed in Part; Remanded JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and JOE H. WALKER, III, SP. J., joined. Jay L. Johnson, Allen, Kopet & Associates, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellants, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Keith V. Moore, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Willie Wooten MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee or claimant, Mr. Wooten, initiated this civil action to recover medical benefits, temporary total disability benefits and permanent partial disability benefits for a back injury occurring on November 15, 1999, arising out of and in the course of his employment with the employer, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. He also sought general relief. The employer denied liability. After a trial on the merits, the trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on 6 percent to the body as a whole, with a weekly benefit rate of $317.73 per week, temporary total disability benefits at the same rate from November 15, 1999 to July 1, 2, discretionary costs and medical expenses in the sum of $12,97.25. The employer has appealed. 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). This tribunal is not bound by the trial court's findings but instead conducts an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance lies. Galloway v. Memphis Drum Serv., 822 S.W.2d 584, 586 (Tenn. 1991). Conclusions of law are subject to de novo review on appeal without any presumption of correctness. Nutt v. Champion Intern. Corp., 98 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Tenn. 1998). On the above date, the claimant was stacking cases of juice when he suffered severe and sudden back pain and fell to the floor, while working for the employer. He reported the accident to his supervisor immediately and the store's general manager a few hours later. He was referred to Dr. Evan Murray, who treated him conservatively for two to two and one-half months, then referred him to a neurosurgeon, Dr. Davies, who diagnosed chronic low back radiculopathy and scheduled corrective surgery. Surgery was performed by Dr. Davies on May 23, 2. On August 3, 2, Dr. Davies released him to return to work with restrictions. The claimant has not returned to work. He continues to complain of pain and inability to work. He has seen a number of doctors. Dr. Parsioon, who had treated the claimant for a prior low back injury, visited briefly with him on April 26, 2. Dr. Parsioon testified that he found no evidence of a new injury as a result of the November 15, 1999 accident. However, the claimant's own testimony, the report of Dr. Davies and the testimony of Dr. Boals reflect that the accident contributed to the claimant's disability, either as the direct cause or by aggravating a pre-existing condition. The employer contends the event of November 15, 1999 was no more than a manifestation of the previous injury, which also occurred while the claimant was working for the employer and for which the claimant received no permanent disability benefits. The employer relies entirely on the testimony of Dr. Parsioon. When the medical testimony differs, the trial court must choose which view to believe. In doing so, the court is allowed, among other things, to consider the qualifications of the experts, the circumstances of their examination, the information available to them, and the evaluation of the importance of that information by other experts. Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 83 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tenn. 1991). Moreover, it is within the discretion of the trial court to conclude that the opinion of certain experts should be accepted over that of other experts and that it contains the more probable explanation. Hinson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 675, 676-7 (Tenn. 1983). Any reasonable -2-