Carl W. Sides v. Insurance Company of North America

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 plaintiff filed this suit and alleged he had sustained permanent impairment to his eyes as the result of an injury in the course of his employment with the defendant. The trial judge awarded the plaintiff a recovery in the amount of 3% permanent partial disability to both eyes. The defendant says the evidence preponderates against the judgment of the trial court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff was age 6 at the time of trial. He had a high school education and was trained as a machinist and welder. The plaintiff alleged he was injured by a welding arc on or about February 5, 1993. The plaintiff did not see a doctor until some three days after the alleged injury, when he was sent by the defendant to Dr. Louis Haun, an ophthalmologist. Dr. Haun was of the opinion the plaintiff had not been injured by a welding arc. Dr. Haun suspected the plaintiff's eye problem was caused by exposure to chemicals and inquired of the plaintiff concerning exposure thereto. From this time, the case was tried by the plaintiff and defendant on the theory that the plaintiff was suffering from a condition known as dry eyes.1 The evidence of whether the injury to the plaintiff's eyes was causally connected to the exposure to chemicals at work is based upon the testimony of the plaintiff and three doctors. The plaintiff testified that after Dr. Haun asked him to remember whether he had been exposed to any chemicals at work, he recalled coming into contact with chemicals specifically in the course of fluidizing a piece of equipment called a bed, which is used in the manufacturing process. 1 The plaintiff never filed an amendment to his petition to aver his injury was caused by chemical exposure. However, both parties tried the case on the theory of whether a chemical exposure did or did not cause the plaintiff's dry eyes. See Rule 15.2 Tenn. R. Civ. Proc. 2