Helen M. Ashford v. The Aerostructures Corporation, et al.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court 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. The trial court found that employee had sustained a permanent partial disability of 9% to the body as a whole as a result of the gradual injury she sustained during her employment and that the events on December 7, 1999, aggravated a preexisting lung condition. The trial court awarded workers' compensation benefits in the lump sum amount of $188,632.8, along with certain discretionary costs. The trial court also allowed employer a setoff for medical benefits in the amount of $3,36.37 but disallowed setoff for disability benefits. We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (2 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed ALLEN W. WALLACE, SR. J., in which ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., J. and JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., joined. Stephen W. Elliott, Nashville, Tennessee, for appellants, The Aerostructures Corporation and Travelers Property Casualty. William Edward Farmer, Lebanon, Tennessee, for appellee, Helen M. Ashford. MEMORANDUM OPINION FACTS This cause of action originated from a complaint filed by employee, Helen M. Ashford, on May 26, 2. Employee worked for employer, Aerostructures Corporation, from 1981 until her injury on December 7, 1999. During this period of time employee was responsible for cleaning and painting various airplane structures. As a result, she used paint, acetone, and other solvents on a regular basis. At the time of her injury, employee suffered from a pre-existing lung condition of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Employee was also a chronic smoker. On December 7, 1999, employee was working with two other employees, Jerry Keeton and Kay Walker, on an aircraft panel. Employee was shaving rivets when suddenly she and the other employees were overcome by some type of chemical that went into her nose and "burnt [her] lungs." She turned a fan around in an attempt to blow the chemicals away from her. She and fellow employee, Kay Walker, then went outside the building. Employee stayed outside approximately fifteen to twenty minutes before going back inside to resume her work. Employee stated that she had difficulty breathing and had to go back outside more times to get away from the fumes. On December 8, 1999, employee did not go to work. When employee returned to work on December 9, 1999, she was once again overcome by dust and fumes. Employee was taken by fellow employees to the nurse's station. Employee went to the hospital and later to her family physician, Dr. Bachstein. Dr. Bachstein testified that his findings on December 13, 1999, were consistent with someone who had encountered chemical fumes and breathed them into their lungs. Employee returned to work in January 2, worked only a few days and has not worked since. Employee's family doctor, Dr. Bachstein, later referred her to a pulmonary specialist, Dr. Frederick Dow. Dr. Dow determined that employee had a permanent lung condition related to her exposure to fumes in December 1999. He testified that the fume incident more than likely substantially aggravated her preexisting lung condition. He informed employee that she should not return to work where she would be exposed to smoke, fumes, or vapors. ANALYSIS Employee's treating physicians, Dr. James Bachstein and Dr. Frederick Dow, both testified that employee had a prior lung condition of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They testified that she was working regularly and the events of December 7, 1999, aggravated and exacerbated her condition, and except for this incident, employee would have continued to work for several more years. Dr. James D. Snell, Jr., performed an independent medical evaluation for employer and disagreed with the findings of Dr. Bachstein and Dr. Dow. However, Dr. Snell acknowledged that fumes at employee's work could have aggravated her previous lung condition. Obviously, the trial court accepted the testimony of the treating physicians. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2) (22 Supp.). The reviewing court is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.