Rosie Fuller v. Wal-Mart Stores, 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. The trial judge found the plaintiff had suffered a 9 percent disability to her body as a whole as a result of an injury to her legs and back. The award was apportioned at 75 percent to the employer and 15 percent to the Second Injury Fund because the plaintiff had a previous injury to her leg which amounted to a 25 percent permanent partial disability, which was paid by Wal-Mart. We modify and affirm the judgment. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed as Modified and Remanded JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J. and JOE C. LOSER, SP. J., joined. Jay L. Johnson, Jackson, Tennessee, attorney for appellant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. David Hardee, Jackson, Tennessee, attorney for appellee, Rosie Fuller. Paul G. Summer, Attorney General and Reporter; E. Blaine Sprouse, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. MEMORANDUM OPINION In 1997, the plaintiff developed tarsal tunnel syndrome in her right leg. She was placed in a brace to support her right leg. In September of 1999, the plaintiff started having pain in her left leg. Dr. Wormbrod placed a brace on the left leg as well. Further, the plaintiff began to experience back pain. The plaintiff fell on July 4, 2, while at work and represented she injured both legs and her back. The plaintiff continued to work for the defendant throughout the time of her leg problem and was still working at the time of trial. The defendant assigned her to work at a light-duty job which accommodated the medical restrictions set by physicians. A supervisor testified that plaintiff was a good employee and there was no plan to discharge her. The plaintiff received two raises after her disability and is making more than she was prior to her injuries. Medical Evidence Dr. James Warmbrod, an orthopedic surgeon, was the plaintiff's treating physician. He described the tarsal tunnel syndrome condition the plaintiff suffered and was of the opinion this could be caused by her long hours of standing on concrete in her job. He placed restrictions on long periods of standing, weight lifting, etc., and recommended that she do only sedentary jobs. Dr. Warmbrod did not fix any medical impairment rating, nor did he testify as to a date of maximum medical improvement. He testified the plaintiff might require surgery in the future. He was, however, reluctant to do surgery for various reasons. He was of the opinion the back pain the plaintiff suffered was because her gait was altered as a result of wearing the braces. Dr. Riley Jones, an orthopedic surgeon, filed a C-32 form, basically stating the plaintiff's problems were not related to her work and gave no impairment rating. Dr. Robert Barnett, an orthopedic surgeon, evaluated the plaintiff and confirmed Dr. Warmbrod's opinion of the injuries. Dr. Barnett found the plaintiff had sustained a 44 percent whole body disability. This included a 5 percent rating because of back pain, 15 percent for the left leg problem and 3 percent for the previous injury to the plaintiff's right leg. There is no medical evidence in the record to show the plaintiff sustained any injury to her right leg which would be compensable as a result of the fall of July 4, 2. Findings at Trial The trial judge found the case involved injury to both legs and also to the plaintiff's back. He found the plaintiff had to alter her gait since she began wearing a brace on her right leg in 1999. He found the injury at work on July 4, 2, aggravated her three prior injuries. The trial court found the plaintiff reached maximum medical improvement on June 2, 2, the date Dr. Wormbrod placed work restrictions on her. The trial judge found the plaintiff had sustained a 9 percent whole body disability as a result of the injury and because of the previous disability, which was 25 percent to the body as a whole. The trial court concluded that the defendant must pay 75 percent or 36 weeks of the award and the -2-