Ryan v. Hancock Fabrics, Inc.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer contends the chancellor erred in finding "that the claimed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was proximately caused through the 18 days of Mr. Ryan's employment.". As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The employee or claimant, Ryan, initiated this action to recover medical and disability benefits. The employer denied any liability. As stated in the employer's brief, the issue in the case involves the trial court's finding that there was a causal connection between the employment and the injury. Because the issue is one of fact, we have reviewed the case de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). The claimant began working for the employer on or about August 1, 1995, doing remodeling work, including carpentry, painting, installing tile and other general labor, all involving repetitive use of the hands. On August 17, 1995, he fell from a ladder, attempting unsuccessfully to catch himself with his hands. He received emergency and follow-up care at Physicians Care, but continued working until the employer's remodeling project was completed. On August 31, 1995, he complained of numbness in his left arm, both hands and his neck and shoulder. On October 18, 1995, the claimant was seen by Dr. Lester Littell, who, according to his notes, diagnosed "moderate right carpal tunnel syndrome" and "C6 radiculitis." On November 24, 1995, a magnetic resonance report from Erlanger Medical Center, reflected "minimal spurring on the left at the C3-C4 level." On March 3, 1996, Dr. Littell again examined the claimant and diagnosed "mild damage to the left C6 cervical root." The doctor continued to follow the claimant's progress and found maximum medical improvement on May 15, 1996. On June 6, 1996, the doctor assigned the claimant's permanent impairment first at "5% based on spine pain," then at "8% to the upper extremity," using appropriate guidelines. When the claimant continued to have symptoms, Dr. Littell recommended a second opinion. In his deposition, the doctor did not express an opinion as to whether the injuries were causally related to the employment. However, in a letter, he stated that the bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was unrelated to the fall at work. On August 2, 1996, still in pain, the claimant went to work for Custom Curb, Inc., as a welder. Custom Curb is not a party to this litigation. On February 21, 1997, the claimant was seen by Dr. Carl W. Dyer, Jr., who diagnosed, after thorough examination, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and possible cervical radiculopathy consistent with the accident at work or other work activities. After a second examination on March 27, 1997, this doctor opined that the carpal tunnel injury was directly related to the fall at work, to 2