Margaret Williamson v. Clarksville Memorial Hospital

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 that the plaintiff had a 1 percent anatomical impairment which, extrapolated by the multiplier of 2.5, resulted in a permanent partial disability of 25 percent and awarded benefits accordingly. The employer appeals, insisting that there is no basis for a finding of an anatomical impairment of 1 percent.1 The thrust of the Hospital's argument is directed to the alleged discrediting of Dr. Fishbein's testimony by the Chancellor.2 It is conceded that the plaintiff, a nurse, sustained a neck and shoulder injury on July 8, 1993 while lifting a patient at the defendant Hospital. She was initially seen by Dr. Douglas Porter, an orthopedist of Clarksville, who referred her to Dr. G. B. Lanford, a neurosurgeon, whom we assume practices in Nashville.3 Dr. Lanford testified that the plaintiff had some disc bulging and spondylosis, but no nerve root compression and no operative problems. Because of continuing arm and back pain Dr. Lanford assessed her anatomical impairment at 5 percent. Dr. Richard E. Fishbein, orthopedist, practicing in Antioch, testified that at the request of plaintiff's counsel he examined the plaintiff on July 7, 1994. Before that time he had been furnished with copies of Dr. Porter's and Dr. Lanford's evaluations, and had reviewed the x-ray and myelogram reports. He referred to Dr. Porter's report that the plaintiff had suffered an acute herniation of a disc; he found exquisite tenderness over the para cervical muscles, weakness of grip strength, "and basically I noted that she had a herniated disc as noted, and that her history and physical findings were consistent with it." Dr. Fishbein opined that she had a 1 The record consists only of the depositions of Dr. Lanford and Dr. Fishbein, and the memorandum of the Chancellor. 2 As observed by a different Panel on another occasion, the plaintiff, in this Montgomery County case, travelled a long distance in employing Dr. Fishbein, overlooking many dozens of orthopedic specialists in the process. 3 Neither his deposition nor his CV reveal this information.