Edward Ray Howell, Jr. v. Php Companies, Inc. and Tennessee Department of Labor, Second Injury Fund

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 employee, Edward Ray Howell, Jr., has appealed from the action of the trial court in dismissing his claim for benefits. The Chancellor found that the injury in question did not aggravate his previous physical condition to the extent of constituting an anatomical change as a result of the accident. Plaintiff was 39 years of age and was employed as a mail sorter for defendant, PHP Companies, Inc. In this appeal he contends he was injured on September 3, 1996, while lifting a large bag of mail out of the trunk of his supervisor's automobile. He sought a determination that he was totally disabled claiming both physical and mental injuries. Prior to the incident in 1996, he had sustained numerous injuries to his body and some were work-related. During this prior period of time, he was also seen and treated for psychiatric problems which resulted in hospitalization during 1992. The following would generally summarize his prior physical problems: In 1985 or 1986, he suffered neck and back injuries as a result of an auto accident; in 1988 he sustained a work-related injury to his right shoulder resulting in 3% disability award; in 1989 he sustained injuries to his left femur, right knee and facial injuries from an auto accident; in 199 he slipped and fell while at work for another employer and was awarded 1% disability; in 1991 he began having problems with his left shoulder which resulted in surgery being performed in 1992; in 1993 he sustained injuries to his neck and back in an auto accident; and in 1996, prior to the incident in question, he injured his right arm and shoulder by falling at a Burger King restaurant, which resulted in surgery shortly after the incident in question. Plaintiff testified that he had total of 26 surgical procedures for various problems prior to the September 3, 1996 accident and three surgical procedures (knee injuries, right shoulder and left shoulder) after the event. The evidence is quite clear that after receiving the 1% award of disability for the 199 injury, he entered a rehabilitation program and over a period of time 2