Clara Scruggs v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special W orker's Compensation Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e) for a hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court, in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, determined that the plaintiff had a gradually occurring injury, and the statute of limitations was not tolled when she gave sufficient notice on September 29, 1997, the date of her lawsuit. Likewise, the trial court found the plaintiff suffered a thirteen (13) percent permanent partial disability to each upper extremity.1 We will determine if the record supports the trial court's conclusions. The defendant presents three appellate issues for review: 1. Whether the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff's claim was not barred by expiration of the statute of limitations? 2. Whether the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff incurred a permanent impairment? 3. Whether the trial court's disability award was excessive? Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, 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, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). However, considerable deference must be given to the trial court, who has seen and heard the witnesses, especially where issues of credibility and weight of oral testimony are involved. Jones v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 811 S.W.2d 516, 521d (Tenn. 1991). After a review of the record in this cause, the briefs of the parties and appropriate law, we AFFIRM the trial court's judgment. 1The correct method of assigning disability in a case like this is give one rating to both arms, rather than to each arm. However, in this case, the result is the same as that reached by the trial court. 2