Teaster vs. Dept. of Correction
01A01-9608-CH-00358
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

Norris vs. Windrow
01A01-9706-JV-00242
Trial Court Judge: Larry Brandon

Sprayberry-Gravitt vs. Baker
01A01-9707-CH-00295
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano

Carol Womac vs. State
03C01-9707-CC-00251
Trial Court Judge: Carroll L. Ross

State vs. Jimmy Eisom
02C01-9703-CC-00105
Trial Court Judge: Joe G. Riley. Jr.

State vs. Ivory Thomas
02C01-9705-CR-00179

State vs. Randall Thies
02C01-9708-CC-00299
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III

Ali vs. Moore
03A01-9708-CV-00347

State vs. Willie Jackson
01C01-9702-CR-00054
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman

Clinton W.Lynch vs. State
01C01-9705-CR-00187
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman

State vs.Tracie Jenkins and David Ragsdale
01C01-9612-CC-00520

State vs. James Mason a//k/a James Oscar Mason
01C01-9707-CC-00310
Trial Court Judge: Gary R. Wade

State vs. Thomas Congdon
01C01-9707-CR-00254
Trial Court Judge: L. Terry Lafferty

01C01-9707-CR-00271
01C01-9707-CR-00271
Trial Court Judge: Thomas T. Woodall

Crawford vs. State
03C01-9604-CC-00172

Bacon vs. State
03C01-9605-CR-00203
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer

Harris vs. State
03C01-9611-CR-00410
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

State vs. Elder
03C01-9702-CR-00053
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Baumgartner

State vs. Dishman
03C01-9610-CR-00361
Trial Court Judge: Frank L. Slaughter

Coleman v. State, No. 02C01-9505-Cc-00122 (Tenn. Crim. App., Apr. 17, 1996). On
02C01-9707-CR-00291

State vs. Aaron Drummer
02C01-9710-CR-00382

State vs. Steven Cooper
02C01-9801-CR-00008

State vs. James Carr
02C01-9802-CC-00037

Gloria Benson v. Northern Telecom, et al.
01S01-9706-CH-00137
Authoring Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Irvin Kilcrease

George Goff v. City of Decherd v. Dina Tobin, Director
01S01-9611-CH-00232
Authoring Judge: William Michael Maloan, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jeffrey F. Stewart,
This workers' compensation appeal from the Franklin County Chancery Court has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The defendant, City of Decherd, appeals the ju dgment of the trial court findin g the plaintiff, George Goff, suffered an occupational disease; awarding the plaintiff eighty- five percent (85%) permanent partial disability to th e body as a who le; and requiring the defen dant to pay certain medical expenses. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the trial court, as modified. George Goff wa s 41 at the time of this trial. He dropped out of high schoo l in the ninth grade to work on the farm, and he has been unable to pass his G ED on three or four attem pts. His work history is composed of manual labor. The City of Decherd hired him as a laborer in 1984 and made him a crew foreman in 1987. On May 11, 199 , during the course of his employment he was exposed to chlo rine gas and missed ap proximately one w eek of work. He wa s treated by his family physician, Dr. Dewey Hood, for complaints of shortness of breath, coughing and fatigue on 11 or 12 occas ions throu gh Septem ber, 1993 . Dr. Hood re ferred plaintiff to Dr. Eric Dye r, a pulmonologist, who first treated plaintiff on May 18, 1993. Dr. Dyer told plaintiff he became asthmatic due to the 199 chlorine exposure and advised him to avoid asthma triggers, such as chemicals, humidity , and temperature extremes . He continued to w ork for the City of Dech erd without significant pro blems until January 2 8, 1994, when he was exposed to paint fumes and h is condition deteriorated. After the 1994 exposure, Dr. Dyer added paint fumes to his list of asthma triggers to avoid. Dr. Dyer assessed his permanent impairment at forty percent (4%) to the body as a whole, described h is prognosis as poo r, and advised the plaintiff he sh ould not return to wo rk for the City of Decherd. Dr. Hood stated "he is somewhat limited with his education and things he can do, and it may be that he just could not find a job--a sedentary job or a light working condition that he could return to." Plaintiff has not worked since January 28, 1994. Betty Morris, a vocational expert for the plaintiff, testified plaintiff had a ninety-six percent (96%) loss of access to jobs and should be limited to sedentary work. The defendant presented Charles Randolph Thomas, also a vocational expert, who testified plaintiff suffered a sixty-two and one half percent (62.5%) loss of access to jobs due to the 199 and 1994 chemical exposures, but only a one and one half percent (1.5%) loss of access due to the January 28, 1994, paint fumes 2