Catina L. Fason v. Spherion

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-6-225(e) (3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, Employer argues that the trial court's finding that Employee's injury was causally related to her October 2, 2 accident is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. We conclude that the evidence fails to preponderate against the trial court's award, and therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed JANICE M. HOLDER, J., in which E. RILEY ANDERSON, J., and ALLEN W. WALLACE, SR. J., joined. Joshua M. Booth, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Spherion. Christopher L. Taylor, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Catina L. Fason. MEMORANDUM OPINION FACTUAL BACKGROUND Catina L. Fason ("Employee") was 23 years old at the time of trial. She has a high school diploma, and her work history consists mainly of positions as cashier, hostess, and waitress. In August 2, Employee began working for Spherion ("Employer"), a temporary service. On October 2, 2, Employee was involved in an accident at work during which she injured her right arm when she unplugged a computer and was shocked. Employee complained of pain, tingling, numbness, and discoloration in her right arm following the electrical shock. She filled out an incident report with her left hand and then was taken to an emergency room. Employee was later seen by a panel physician who referred her to Dr. Cape, a neurologist, for a nerve conduction study. Dr. Cape examined Employee on November 9, 2. He opined that although Employee had "very, very mild carpal tunnel syndrome," her injury on October 2, 2, did not have any causal relationship to the carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Cape noted that Employee did not exhibit hypersensitivity in her right arm and hand, that Employee's skin did not have any changes to indicate a severe shock, and that the nerves that would have been expected to be affected by receiving an electrical shock while unplugging an electrical cord, the nerves of the index and middle fingers, were completely normal. He testified that Employee was not a candidate for carpal tunnel surgery when he saw her and that he could not have assigned Employee an anatomical impairment rating based upon the results of his examination. Employee continued to experience problems with her right arm, so she sought treatment from her family physician, Dr. Faulkner. Dr. Faulkner referred her to Dr. Lindermuth, who performed a carpal tunnel release in January 22. Employee said that although she experienced some relief following the surgery, she has had ongoing problems with pain and numbness. Dr. Joseph C. Boals, III, performed an independent medical examination of Employee in August 22. He noted that Employee had a positive Phalen's test, decreased sensation, and swelling in her right hand. Dr. Boals opined that Employee's carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by the electrical shock she received on October 2, 2. He admitted that a diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of a shock injury is "rare," that he made the diagnosis "simply by association," and that he is unfamiliar with any medical literature that documents this phenomenon. However, Dr. Boals stated that he has personally seen about ten other patients who had no carpal tunnel syndrome symptoms until after receiving an electrical shock. Dr. Boals assigned Employee a 2% permanent physical impairment rating to her right upper extremity. Employee stated that she had no significant problems with her right arm prior to receiving the electrical shock at work. She testified that pain, numbness, and tingling in her right arm continues. Employee said that she has difficulty cooking, cleaning, driving, lifting her child, combing her hair, and opening jars. She also said that her sleep has been affected because she awakens at night with numbness and pain. The trial court found that Employee's injury was causally related to her employment and awarded Employee benefits based upon a 5% permanent partial disability to her right arm. ANALYSIS 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) (Supp. 23). Where medical testimony differs, it is within the -2-