Craig Warrington v. Emerson Electric Co.

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 court granted the defendant's "Motion to Dismiss" finding that the plaintiff had failed to carry his burden of proof of causation between the alleged work injury and the permanent impairment. We find that the evidence preponderates in favor of the trial court's decision and we affirm. The plaintiff alleged that "on or about" October 5, 1995 he sustained an injury when he twisted his neck and back, while running a press. Plaintiff was 42 years old at the time of the trial. He claimed that he had no pain or other problems with his neck and back prior to beginning work on October 3, 1995 at Emerson Electric Company. At approximately 1: a.m. on October 4, 1995, plaintiff claimed that he began experiencing pain in his neck and shoulder at which point he informed his supervisor, Jimmy Barber, that he was injured. The plaintiff did not receive medical attention at that time and continued to work the remainder of his shift on that day and the next. On Friday, October 5, 1995, plaintiff claims that he left a message on "the answering machine in the press room" that due to his pain he would not be at work and that he was going to see a doctor. Plaintiff first saw Dr. Tettleton, a chiropractor in Humboldt, on Friday, October 5, 1995. Dr. Tettleton performed a manipulation on the plaintiff to temporarily relieve his pain. The following Monday, at plaintiff's behest, Dr. Tettleton arranged an appointment with Dr. Dirk Franzen, a neurosurgeon in Jackson, Tennessee. Dr. Franzen examined plaintiff and recorded his statement that he "had woken up about a week ago with a crick in his neck." More important, Dr. Franzen noted that the history given to him by the plaintiff mentioned no definite inciting events and no injuries. Dr. Franzen subsequently performed surgery on the plaintiff at the C5-6 disc which improved, but did not resolve the symptoms. Dr. Franzen assessed plaintiff's impairment at 11%. Our review is de novo on the record accompanied by a presumption that the findings of fact made by the trial court are correct unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. TENN CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e). The plaintiff in a workers' compensation suit has the burden of proving every element of his case by a preponderance of the