Delias v. Philips

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 appeal has resulted from a decision of the trial court to award plaintiff, Thomas Delias, 45% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. On appeal the defendant, Philips Consumer Electronics Company, contends the 45% award is excessive under the evidence. Plaintiff does not have a high school education as he only completed the 8th grade. At the time of the trial, he was almost 6 years of age. He was injured on the job during April, 1992, while working as a router operator. He said a jig fixture jumped off of a pin and the router moved causing his left shoulder to be jerked severely. He was seen at the hospital two days later and eventually came under the care of an orthopedic surgeon who treated him for awhile and then discharged him. Plaintiff testified he did not miss any time from work (he went to school for some period of time) and returned to router operator work but other employees did the heavier router work which involved considerable lifting and/or pushing. He continued the lighter type work and experienced pain while working. He wore a TENS unit about 9% of the time to help counteract the pain. Sometime later his condition began to get worse and the company referred him to another orthopedic surgeon. Plaintiff told the court he was left handed and upon returning to work, he had to use his right hand as it was difficult to lift anything with his left arm. He said he had stopped working in his garden and could not hunt or fish any longer. Ethyl Delias, plaintiff's wife, testified she did any lifting that was necessary around their house; that he had stopped working in their garden; he did not hunt or fish any longer and did not mow the yard. Dr. William T. Youmans, the last surgeon to treat plaintiff, was of the opinion he had a frozen shoulder; that his range of motion was limited; said he had given injections and found plaintiff had a 7% medical impairment to the whole body. He did not recommend surgery at the time since plaintiff was working and earning wages. 2