Naomi Gentry v. Lumbermens Mutual Co., et al.

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. This action was filed January 18, 1995 seeking benefits for a back injury sustained on April 6, 1994 while employed by the defendant hospital. The allegations of the complaint were generally denied, thus requiring the plaintiff to prove every element of her case by a preponderance of the evidence, except when relying upon TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-242 which requires clear and convincing evidence as a predicate. The appellee allegedly suffered a back injury while lifting a patient. She was initially treated by a general practitioner in Gainsboro, Dr. E. M. Dudney, who referred her to Dr. Ray Hester, a neurosurgeon in Nashville, on May 5, 1994. Dr. Hester had treated the plaintiff for injuries she sustained in an automobile accident in 1982. These injuries involved, inter alia, a ruptured disc. She was released from treatment in 1983 with a 15 percent permanent partial impairment, and her activities were restricted. As stated, Dr. Hester saw the plaintiff eleven years later for this workers' compensation injury. He ordered a CT scan which revealed no significant pathology or findings and ultimately diagnosed her complaint as a lumbar strain. On July 19, 1995, he advised the employer by letter that: " . . . Mrs. Gentry apparently had a back strain. She had underlying degenerative joint disease in her back which was the result of her previous injuries to her back and not the more recent one where she was doing some lifting. I don't think she has any permanent impairment in relation to her lifting incident and no anatomical changes as a result of it." At some point before his deposition was taken for proof, Dr. Hester changed his opinion. He testified that the appellee had a five percent permanent impairment solely as a result of her 1994 injury. He found no objective signs of radiculopathy or loss of structural integrity. He imposed moderate lifting restrictions, and thought the appellee should be able to return to work. He found no anatomical changes in her back. Significantly, he testified that his impairment ratings of 15 percent for the 1982 injury and five percent for the 1994 injury were "separate and not a part and parcel of 2