Cora Moton v. Kellogg USA, Inc.

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. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). The trial court found that the plaintiff did not make a meaningful return to work and therefore that the statutory cap of 2.5 times the anatomical impairment rating did not apply. The trial court awarded the plaintiff benefits based on 3.5 times Dr. Weems' rating of fifteen percent for a total permanent partial disability award of 52.5 percent to the body as a whole. The defendant raises the following issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in finding that Plaintiff did not make a meaningful return to work? 2. Whether the trial court erred in relying on the deposition testimony of Dr. Thomas D. Weems rather than the deposition testimony of Dr. James T. Galyon? 3. Whether the trial court erred in awarding Plaintiff a permanent partial disability rating for vocational disability purposes of 52.5%? We affirm the judgment of the trial court. BACKGROUND The plaintiff, age 37 at the time of trial, is a high school graduate. She took over five years of college classes in English, Biology, and Chemistry from various institutions, but she holds no degrees. She is certified as a pharmacy technician and has worked in that field at a rate of $9.5 per hour. She also has work experience as a chemical analyst. In January 199, the plaintiff went to work for the defendant as an FMC operator in the manufacturing process of frozen waffles. She earned $11.65 per 2