Ronnie Wayne Inman v. Emerson Electric Co.

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 of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found the plaintiff sustained a twenty-five percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The defendant disputes the finding. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed. DON R. ASH, SP. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and JOHN K. BYERS, SP. J., joined. P. Allen Phillips and Jennifer K. Craig, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant, Emerson Electric Co. John C. Nowell, Jr., Trenton, Tennessee, for the appellee, Ronnie Wayne Inman. MEMORANDUM OPINION History Plaintiff, Ronnie Wayne Inman, filed a Complaint for workers' compensation benefits on April 25, 1997. The trial was heard on August 17, 1999. At the conclusion of the proof the trial court awarded plaintiff 25% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. Defendant, Emerson Electric Co., appeals the decision of the trial court. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. Facts On or around May 18, 1996, plaintiff was struck on the back, buttocks and right arm by hot aluminum, which shot from a machine at defendant's plant. The plaintiff was taken to the emergency room at Humboldt General Hospital. His wounds were dressed and treated and he was sent home with oral medication. Theplaintiffreturnedto work thenext day, but was unable to work. Later in the week, plaintiff was transferred to a cooler part of the plant. At his new job the plaintiff had no trouble keeping up with his production quota. Moreover, other than doctor appointments, the plaintiff did not miss work before the trial. Dr. William Hickerson, a plastic surgeon, first examined the plaintiff on February 4, 1997 for scar tissue on his back. At the examination, the plaintiff complained of occasional shooting pain in the area of the scar tissue. Dr. Hickerson diagnosed scar tissue and recommended a re- moisturizing agent. Upon re-examination, Inman was found to have little change to his condition. Dr. Hickerson opined the scar tissue was not such that it would be rated under the AMA Guidelines. He did not place any restrictions based upon the scarring of the skin. Next, Dr. Hickerson recommended that Dr. Cobb, an orthopedic surgeon, examine the plaintiff. Dr. Cobb noted that the problems might be musculoskeletal in nature. He also found the plaintiff had more tenderness with deeper palpation and there could be a mild lumbar strain. Dr. Cobb opined there was no sign of permanent impairment from an orthopedic standpoint and there were no restrictions from an orthopedic standpoint. Next, Dr. Goshorn, a plastic surgeon, examined the plaintiff. Dr. Goshorn's opinion was presented to the trial court through a letter marked as an exhibit to Dr. Schnapp's deposition. Dr. Goshorn opined that the plaintiff had chronic pain secondary to a deep thermal injury. He further stated that the plaintiff had no functional impairment to the area, although he had impairment secondary to pain. Next, Dr. Schnapp, a physician who specializes in pain management, examined the plaintiff. Upon his examination plaintiff described an aching and throbbing pain, which was sensitive, particularly when he was hot and perspired. Dr. Schnapp opined that a significant portion of the plaintiff's pain was mechanical pain related to bones, joints, and ligaments. Further, he did not believe that the plaintiff should be following any restrictions due to the burn injury and that his primary pain was deeper and unrelated to the burn. Finally, Dr. DeMere examined the plaintiff and diagnosed healed scars of arms and back. Dr. DeMere was unable to find any other injury apart from the skin damage. He opined a 1% permanent partial impairment rating to the body as a whole. However, he stated that the AMA Guidelines were not particularly helpful in arriving at the impairment rating. -2-