Harris v. Burlington

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 appellant recognizes the established rule in this State that a second injury is not compensable unless there is evidence of an anatomical change, Cunningham v. Goodyear, 841 S.W .2d 888 (Tenn. 1991), but insists the rule should not have been applied in this case. The plaintiff alleged and testified that he injured his back on January 4, 1994 while lifting a heavy object during the course of his employment. He had injured his back in 1991, and was treated by chiropractic, but did not pursue a claim for benefits. Between 1991 and 1994 he denied a re-injury, but testified to a number of "flare-ups." The plaintiff insists that he suffered an aggravation of the 1991 injury and that he is entitled to benefits accordingly. Following the January 4, 1994 injury, he sought chiropractic treatment again, and was referred to Dr. Stephen Natelson, a neurosurgeon, who performed a hemilaminectomy. The plaintiff represented to Dr. Natelson that he had no previous back problems. He was initially seen by Dr. Natelson on November 14, 1994. The corrective surgery was performed on January 1, 1995. On January 5, 1994, the day after the plaintiff allegedly injured his back, he was seen by Dr. John L. Holbrook, an orthopedic surgeon, to whom he related a lengthy history of back problems. A comprehensive examination was made resulting in a final diagnosis of degenerative disc disease. He was seen again on May 24, 1994, complaining of back pain, and another examination resulted in the same findings as before. During all this time the plaintiff was also being treated by chiropractic. Dr. Holbrook testified that there were no anatomical changes in the plaintiff's lumbar spine between 1991 and 1994; i.e., that the plaintiff had not suffered a re-injury as claimed. Our review is de novo on the record, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact of the trial court unless the preponderance of 2