Alma J. Milam vs. MCI Telecommunications Corp., et al

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON ALMA J. MILAM, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION and GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, Defendants/Appellees. SHELBY CHANCERY NO. 104128-3 R.D. FILED Hon. D. J. Alissandratos, Chancellor February 10, 1997 NO. 02S01-9604-CH-00040 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk AFFIRMED. JUDGMENT ORDER This case is before the Court upon the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, and the Panel's Memorandum Opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are incorporated herein by reference. Whereupon, it appears to the Court that the Memorandum Opinion of the Panel should be accepted and approved; and It is, therefore, ordered that the Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law are adopted and affirmed, and the decision of the Panel is made the judgment of the Court. Costs will be paid by Appellant, and surety, for which execution may issue if necessary. IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of February, 1997. PER CURIAM (Reid, J., not participating) 1 A T JA C K S ON A L M A J. M IL A M , ) ) N O . 0 2 -S 0 1 - 9 6 0 4 -C H - 0 0 0 4 0 Pla intiff-Ap pe llant, ) ) v. ) SH E L B Y C H A NC E R Y C O U R T ) NO . 10 41 28 -Pa rt III M C I TE L E C O M M U N IC A T IO N S ) CORPORATION and GALLAGHER ) HONO RABLE D . J. A L IS S A N D R A T O S , B A S S E T T S E R V IC E S , ) C H A N CE L LO R 2 ) D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e ll e e , ) FOR APPELLANT: FOR APPELLEE: Marcus Nahon Sam L. Cra in, Jr. Ma rc A . So rin Laurie M. Meehan 5100 Poplar Avenue 13 0 N orth Court Avenue S u i te 2 5 0 0 Memphis Tennessee 38103 M e m p h i s , T e n n e s se e 3 8 1 3 7 M E M O R AN D U M 3 OP IN IO N Members of Panel Lyle R eid, A sso ciate Jus tice, S up rem e C ou rt F . L lo y d T a t u m , S p e c i a l J u d g e J o e C . L o s e r, J r. , S p e c i a l J u d g e A F F IR M E D Tatum, Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION T h i s wo rke rs' co m pe ns atio n a p p ea l has be en refe rred to t h e S p e c i a l W o r k e rs ' C o m p e n s a t i o n A p p e a ls P a n e l o f t h e S u p re m e Co urt i n a cc o r d a n c e w i th T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 5 0 -6 - 2 2 5 (e ) (3 ) fo r h e a ri n g an d re po rting o f findin gs of fa ct an d co nc lusio ns of law . T h i s is an ap pe al b y th e e m plo ye e p lain tiff, A lm a J . M ilam , 4 f ro m a j u d g m e n t i n fa v o r o f M C I T e l e c o m m u n i c a ti o n s C o r p o r a ti o n , t h e em ploy er/d efe nd an t. The plaintiff, prior to trial, voluntarily dismissed the suit w ith pre judic e a s to G allag he r Ba sse tt Se rvice s, Inc . O n th is ap pe al, the Pla intiff pre se nts tw o iss ue s: I s s ue N u m b e r 1 : D id t h e t r ia l c o u r t c o m m i t e rr o r b y fi n d in g s i g ni fi c a nt q u e s t io n s o f c a u sa tion a n d i n th e process r u le a g a i n st Pla intiff? I s s ue N u m b e r 2 : D id t h e tria l c o u rt c o m m i t e r ro r in fin d i n g t h a t the Pla intiff faile d to pro ve by a p r e po nderance o f th e evidence tha t th e Pla intiff s uff e r e d a permanent pa rtia l d i s ab i li ty a s a r e su l t o f her o n the job injury? In a r g u in g I s su e N u m b e r 1 , th e P l a in t if f s a y s th a t c a u s a ti o n w a s no t an issu e in th is ca se ; tha t it wa s stip ulate d b y the De fen da nt. In a n o r a l p r o n o u n c e m e n t o f his find ing s, th e tr ial j u d g e , a f te r h e a ri n g a l l t h e e v id e n c e a n d a r g u m e n t o f c o u n se l st a te d : The Co urt find s that there is reg ret fully a significant qu es tion of c a u s a ti o n , de gre e a nd [sic ] cre dib ility o f th e P lain tiff. A nd reg ret fully t h e C o u r t f in d s t h a t n o n e o f these c a n b e r e so l v ed i n fa v o r o f t h e Pla intiff. It wa s the theo ry of t he Pla intif f th at in Ap ril, 1 99 3, a n a ir c o n d it io n e r v e n t fe l l o n t o h e r h e a d at he r wo rk pla ce cau sing he r to have se ve re h ea da ch es sin ce tha t tim e a n d t h a t t h e s e h e a d a ch e s are 5 p e r m a n e n t and disa b l in g . I t w a s t h e D e fe n d a n t 's t h e o ry th a t th e accide nt cau sed the P laintiff no p erm ane nt injury or disab ility. In a r g u in g t h a t t h e re w a s n o i ss u e a s to c a u s a ti o n , t h e Pla intiff relies up on two state m en ts m ad e b y d efe ns e c ou ns el. The first s t a te m e n t r e li e d u p o n w a s m a d e d u ri n g th e o pe n i ng r e m a r k s o f defense counse l as follows: There is no contest, your Ho nor, that this --- Ms. Milam sustained an i n ju r y b y a c c id e n t arising out of and in the course of h er e m ploy m en t. T h e i ss u e in t h is c a s e is d o e s s h e h a v e a n y dis ab ility a s a res ult o f th a t ac cide nt, th at's it." T h e a b o v e is n o a d m i s s io n o r s ti p u la t io n t h a t t h e a c c id e n t w a s the ca us atio n o f an y d isa bility or p erm an en t inju ry o n th e p a r t o f t h e P l a in tiff. Th is w as m ere ly a sta tem en t tha t the testim on y of th e Pla intiff t h a t a n a c c id e n t o c cu r re d w o u l d n o t b e contested. Defense c o u n s e l m a d e a sp ec ific statement that the issue in the case was wh eth er th e P laintiff h ad a d isab ility as a resu lt of the acc iden t. T h e P l a in tiff re l ie s u p o n a n o t h er s ta t e m e n t m a d e b y defense c o u n s e l d u r in g h i s a r g u m e n t at th e c on clu sio n o f th e P lain tiff's pro of fo r a d irecte d ve rdict. C ou ns el sta ted : As you know, your Honor, it goes without saying that the Plaintiff bears t h e bu rde n o f pr ov ing tw o th ing s a s a thr es ho ld to rec ov erin g a ny be ne fits. An d th at is pe rm an en cy o f th e c on ditio n a nd ca us atio n. I don 't think there is an y wa y I could make this T h e d e f e n s e co u n s e l w a s s t a ti n g tha t he co uld n o t m a k e a n a r g u m e n t for a d i re c t e d ve r d ic t o n th e issu e o f cau sa tion. A t leas t on e 6 o f the do ctors wh o te stified ren de red the op inion tha t the Pla intiff wa s pe rm an en tly d i sa b l e d b y h e r h e a d a c h e s a n d t h a t t h e c a u sa t io n f o r t h e disa bility w a s t h e on the job a ccid en t. W ith th is te stim on y, it is ob vio us t h at t h e re w a s a q ue stio n o f fa ct to be de ter m ine d o n th e c au sa tion i s su e an d th at a m o t i o n f o r a d i re c t e d ve rdic t on this qu es tion w ou ld b e frivolous. Th is is no t a stip ulatio n th at the accid e n t c a u se d a n y p e r m a n e n t disa bility. Incid en tally, the m o t i o n f o r a d i re c t e d ve r d ic t w a s ov erru led b y the trial co urt. T he first issu e is w ithou t m erit. In the se co nd iss ue , w e a re c alle d u po n to de ter m ine w h e t h e r t h e p re p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v id e n c e r e q u ir e s a fi n d in g t h a t t h e Pla intiff suffe red a p erm an en t disa bili ty as a result of injuries she s u s ta i n e d in th e a cc ide nt. Th is is su e o ve rlap s th e fir st issu e a n d o u r discussion is also applicable to the first issue. T h e P l a in tiff testified tha t she wa s forty -five ye ars of a ge a n d h a d a h i g h sch oo l edu ca tion. S h e f in i s he d t h re e y e a rs o f co l le g e a n d ha d fu rthe r trainin g in b an king . Sh e h a s w o r k e d as a ba nk te ller, su bs titute te ac he r, an d a po st offic e cle rk. A t t h e s u g g e st io n of th e tr ial co urt, th e d eta ils of th e acc i d e n t we re n ot te stified to. S he wa s an em ploy ee at M CI Com mun ication s as a cus tom er se rvice re pre sen tative. T his w ork invo lved the he lping of cu stom ers with the ir prob lem s by telep ho ne . T h e Pla intiff tes tified th at d uring trial, on a s c a le o f on e to ten, she had a number seven headache. A number one headache was 7 very m i ld a n d a n u m b e r ten is ve ry se ve re o n th is sc ale. S he said tha t sh e w as na us ea ted at th e tim e o f trial. S h e r e tu r n e d to w o r k fo r a b o u t a w e e k o r w e e k a n d o n e h a l f wh ile be ing tre ate d b y D r. Em pting . D r . E m p t i n g s e n t h e r ba ck to w o r k b u t she wa s un ab le to w ork be ca us e o f he r he ad ac he s. S h e tes tifie d t h a t s h e h a d t o l e a ve t h e te l e p h o n e e ve r y d a y because o f th e h e a d a c h e s a n d t h e e m p lo y e r w o u l d not p ermit her to go to the rest room. She testified that she suffered with nausea, b l u rr e d v is i o n a n d d i z zi n e ss . S h e c a n n o t d r iv e . S h e t e s ti fi e d th a t s h e h a d from one to five h e a d a c h e s p e r d ay. A t a n o th e r p o in t s h e te s t if ie d t h a t s h e h a d h e a d a c h es t h re e o r f o u r t im e s p e r w e e k and again she testified that since the accident she h a s no t ha d a solid da y free of h ea da ch es . Sh e te stified tha t on the o n e to ten scale, some o f her headach e s w ere b etw ee n n um be r two a n d nu m be r th ree an d o the rs a re e lev en . S he tes tifie d th at s he co uld go b ack to wo rk for M CI o n a p art-time bas is "if they wo uld let he r." S h e tes tifie d t h a t he r sup erior ga ve he r a "o ne on on e." T h i s is a w arn ing ora lly g ive n b y th e s up erv iso r an d th e n ex t ste p is term inatio n a cco rding to h er. S h e has bee n treate d m ainly by D r. W r i g h t w h o l a s t s a w h e r on May 16 , 1995. She testified that she has not improved s in c e t h e a c c id e n t. Dr. W ri g h t h a s t ri e d h e r o n b e t w e e n fo r ty a n d fi ft y m e d i c a ti o n s for the migraine headache s. S o m e a r e n o t e f fe c t iv e a n d s h e h a s s id e e f fe c t s f ro m t h e o t h ers. Dr. W right p resc ribed a dru g 8 c a l le d i m it re x , b ut s h e ca nn ot a ffo rd t his an d h er e m plo ye r w ill n o t p a y for it. S he tes tifie d th at s he w as on blo od pre ss ure m ed ica tion . O n cro ss -ex am ina tion , th e P lain tiff te stif ie d t h a t s h e h a d h y p e rt e n s io n an d th at t he m ed ica tion giv en to h er f or h yp ert en sio n cause d s e vere he ad ac he s b efo re t he ac cid en t. S he de nie d h av ing b l u rr e d vision be fore th e a ccide nt bu t testified th at sh e h ad blurre d visio n sin ce the acc iden t. S h e d e n i e d ha ving troub le slee ping be fore t h e a c c id e n t a n d d e n ie d t e ll in g a d o c t o r t h a t s h e h a d t ro u b l e sl e e p in g be fore the acc iden t. O n c r o s s- e x a m in a t io n s h e w a s p r e se n t e d with a f o rm t h a t s h e h a d f il le d o u t fo r a D r . P a t c h e n a t t h e H e a l th F i rs t M e d ic a l G r o u p o n Jan ua ry 5, 1 99 3 b efo re th e a ccid en t occ urre d in A pril, 19 93 . On this f o rm , s h e s t a te d t h a t s h e h a d blu rre d v isio n, r ing ing ea rs a nd sin us t ro u b l e . Th ou gh sh e m ark ed tha t sh e h ad sin us tro ub le s he tes tifie d t h a t this wa s ha y fever, bu t she d id not ch eck th e m ark for ha y f e v e r. O n the for m un de r th e h ea din g " m isc ella ne ou s co m p l a in t s " s h e r e p o rt e d t h a t s h e h a d h e a d a c h e s an d ina bility to s leep . S h e i d e n ti fi e d a d o c u m e n t fr o m D r . P a t c h e n d a t e d J a n u a ry 5 , 1 9 9 3 , s t a ti n g th a t h e r h y p e rt e n s io n wa s se vere a n d that medication caused the he adaches. She testified that the me dication also caused t h e b lu r re d v is i o n. S h e ad m itted th at b efo re th e a ccid en t she ha d re gu lar he ad ac he s. Eliza be th Co urtu rier, a sup erviso r, a t M C I , t e s ti fi e d th a t s h e w a s a c u s to m e r s e rvice rep res en tative in 19 92 an d w ork ed with the p l a in tiff. During this period, the plaintiff complained to her of havin g headach es. S h e a n d a n o t h e r su pe rvis or d isp ute d P lain tiff's t es tim on y 9 t h a t t e rm i n a t io n w o u l d b e co n s id e r e d a ft e r t h e "o n e o n o n e " . T h e y tes tifie d t h a t t h e re w e r e s e v e ra l st e p s to be tak en be for e te rm ina tion c o u ld b e c o n s id e r e d . T h e t e s ti m o n y re v e a le d tha t th es e s up erv iso rs w ou ld have w o r k e d with the Plain tiff had D r. W right p lace d res trictions on he r wh en s h e w a s r e le a s e d b y h im t o r e tu r n to w o r k . T h e d o c t o r p l ac e d n o res trict ion s o n t h e P la i n ti ff th a t w o u l d en ab le the se s up erviso rs to w ork with he r an d m ak e e xce ption s for h er. D r . Lance J. W righ t tes tifie d fo r th e P lain tiff b y d ep os ition . H e h a d b e e n p r a c ti c in g n e u r o lo g y f o r t h re e a n d o n e - h a lf ye a r s a t t h e t im e h i s d e p o s it io n w a s t a k e n o n O c to b e r 2 0 , 1 9 9 4 . D r . W right first saw plain tiff on J un e 7 , 19 93 . He o b t a in e d a histo ry tha t th e p l a in t if f h a d b e e n h a v in g h e a d a c h e s s in c e A p r il , 1 9 9 3 , w h e n a n a i r c o n d it io n e r v e n t fe l l o n h e r head. She did not lose co ns cio u sn e ss a ccord ing to the h istory th at sh e g ave to the do ctor. Sh e h ad no lace ration s w he n h e sa w h er. D r . J o h n C r o c k e ra ll, an a s s o c ia t e o f D r . W r ig h t , s a w t h e Pla intiff before Dr. Wright. Dr. Crockerall ordered a CAT scan and E E G which D r. W righ t re vie w ed . B oth w ere no rm al. D r. W righ t's e x a m i n a ti o n r e v e a le d n o a na t o m ic a l d i s or d e r, n o n e rv e d is o r d e r, n o p s y c h o lo g i ca l d i so r d e r o r clinical depression. His diagnosis based on histo ry an d co m plain ts giv en to him by the Pla intif f w as po st-t rau m atic ch ron ic h e a d a che . D r. W righ t co ntin ue d to tre at t he Pla intif f un til Au gu st, 1 99 4, w he n h e re lea se d h er w itho ut r es trict ion . 10 D r . W r ig h t tr e a te d t h e P la i n ti ff w it h s o m e e ig h t to te n m e d i c a ti o n s b u t s h e h a d s id e e f fe c t s f ro m t h e m . F o r e xa m p l e , o n e m e d i c a ti o n c a u s e d w h e e z i n g , a n o t h e r c a u s e d d e p re s s io n a n d a n o t h e r i n c re a s e d he r bloo d p res su re. S h e i m p r oved with some of these m e d i c a ti o n s a s lo n g a s s h e c o u ld t a k e th e m . B y M a y 1 8 , 1 9 9 4 , h e r h eadaches ha d im pro ve d w ith tim e a n d withou t me dication. B y t h e n , a cc o r d in g t o w h a t s h e t o ld t h e do ctor, the h ea da che s w ere no long er oc currin g e very d ay, b ut w ere occurring at least two times per wee k. D r . W r ig h t te s t if ie d t h a t " s o m e h e a d a c h e s a fter h e a d t ra u m a will last a week, some will last a year, and som e w i ll la s t fo r thirty y e a rs." D r. W right te stified th at the Plain tiff had a pe rm an en t p a r ti a l d i sa b i li ty ra t in g of fifteen percent to the body as who le which h e b a s e d o n c h r o n ic p a in . T h e p a in w a s n o t re l a te d t o a n anatom i c a l defect referred to in the AMA G uidelines. D r . W r ig h t te s t if ie d t h a t there is n o t h in g i n th e g u i d e li n e s tha t will dire ctly su pp ort th e fiftee n p e r c e n t disa bility figure . He ga ve a func tiona l disab ility rating a n d n o t a n an ato m ica l im pa irm en t ra ting . D r . W right re ferre d P laintiff to D r. Atk ins, a psy ch olog ist, w h o saw he r on De ce m be r 9, 1 99 3. D r . A t k in s r e p o rt e d to D r . W r ig h t t h a t t h e P la i n ti ff c o m p la i n e d o f a " n u m b e r 9 " h e a d a c h e a t th e t im e h e s a w he r bu t she sho we d n o e vide nc e o f distre ss o r disc om fo rt. Th e n u m b e r 9 f ig u r e w a s o n th e s c a le o f z e ro t o te n . D r . A n t h o n y S e g a l, a n e u ro s u r g e o n , s a w t h e Plain tiff on 11 August 5, 1 99 3. S h e g ave him a his tory sim ilar to tha t give n to D r. W right, b u t s h e to l d h im t h a t sh e w a s i n fa ct k n ock ed un co ns cio us in th e a ccide nt t ha t oc cu rre d o n A pril 2 7, 1 99 3. S he de sc ribe d th e a ir c o n d it io n e r v e n t t o b e a b o u t t w o fe e t lo n g a n d n i n e i n c he s w i d e , m a d e o f thin m eta l. S he told him t h a t sh e h ad so m e h ea da ch e im m ed iate ly a n d a c ou ple of d ay s la ter sta rte d h av ing m igra ine t yp e h e a da c h es . A t t h e t im e D r . S e g a l s a w h e r , s h e s a id t h a t s h e w a s h a v in g h e a d a c h e s once or twice a week. D r . S e g a l testifie d th at th e P l a in t if f w a s f iv e f e e t f o u r i n ch e s tall a n d w e i g h t t w o h u n d re d ten po un ds . T he ne uro log ica l ex am ina tion w a s e n t ir e ly n o rm a l a n d s h e d e m o n s tr a te d n o exc ess pa in be ha vior. D r . S e g a l te s t if ie d t h a t h e r history and com plaints were typical of p os ttra um atic m i g r a in e " a s w e s e e it in p a t ie n t s w h o h a v e n o t h ad m igra ine s p rev iou sly. " H e te stifie d tha t th is co nd ition cle ars fro m "six m o n t h s to a ye ar or e ven eigh teen m on ths fro m the a ccide nt." D r. S e g a l th o u g h t a t t h e ti m e t h at h e s a w h e r tha t sh e s ho uld be left w ith n o i m p a ir m e n t ra t in g . D r . Robert Paul Christopher also testified by d ep os ition. H e is a reh ab ilitation m ed icine e xpe rt and is a p rofess o r a n d c h ie f o f t h e d i v is i o n of r eh ab ilitatio n m e d i c in e a t th e U n i v e rs i ty o f T e n n e s s e e M e d i c a l S c h o o l . H e t e a c h e s a ss e s s m e n t o f i m p a ir m e n t with reference to t h e A M A G u i d e li n e s a n d h a s b e e n t au g h t b y s o m e o f th e a u t h o rs o f t h e g u i d e li n e s. D r. C h r is t o p her n e v e r s aw t h e P la i n ti ff , b u t h e h a s r e v ie w e d t h e no tes o f Dr. L an ce W right, th e d ep os ition o f Dr. W right, t h e n o t e s o f D r . Cro cke rall, the re po rt from Dr. K eith A tkins a nd sev era l rep orts from Dr. L .D. E m pting . Dr. C hris top he r te stifie d th at D r. W righ t 12 h a d given a disa bility ratin g a n d n o t a n im p a i r m e n t r a ti n g . H e s t a te d t h a t a n i m p ai rm e n t rating is the an ato m ical los s of fu nc tion d ue to illness or inju ry. A d isab ility rating inclu de s an ato m ical im pa irme nt a nd also t a k e s i n to a c c o u n t o t h e r f a c to r s . A n i m p a ir m e n t r a ti n g is g iv e n b y a ph ysic ian , bu t a d isa bility rat ing is giv en by co urt s. In his o p i n io n , s h e did n ot h av e a n im pa irme nt ra ting a cco rding to A MA G uide lines . T h e t e le p h o n e d e p o s it io n of D r. L a r ry D u a n e E m p t i ng w a s t a k e n by the Defendant. He is bo a r d c e rtified in b oth ps ychiatry an d neu rology. D r . E m p t i n g te s t if ie d t h a t he first sa w th e P laintiff o n Jan ua ry 1 7 , 1 9 9 4 . S h e g a v e a h i st o ry o f h a v in g b een str uck on t h e v e r te x of the head by a five po un d ve ntilato r m eta l pan el in A pril, 19 93 . S h e t o ld h i m th a t s h e d e ve l o p e d o n g o in g s e ve r e h e a d a c h e s t w o o r t h re e times pe r week and then a ch ronic daily headache superimposed u p o n that. She gave him no history o f h a v i ng h e a d a c h e s b e fo r e th e ac cide nt. S h e t o ld h i m th a t s h e d id n o t lo s e c o n s c io u s n e s s a n d th a t s h e h a d a k n o t o r s w e ll in g o n h e r h e a d b u t no lace ration . Th e b low to he r he ad wa s cu sh ione d b y a w ig. Afte r co nd uc ting an ex am in a t io n w h i c h h e fo u n d t o b e n o rm al, he concluded that she had po st concussion migraines. H e tes tifie d t h a t s h e w a s o n t h e m i ld e n d of the spectrum of m igraines. The most s e v e re has s tr o k e -l ik e d e s ip r a m i n e a n d c a l an . 13 symptoms. He p re s c r ib e d O n Fe bru ary 7 , 1 9 9 4 , s h e r e tu r n e d c o m p la i n in g o f a jittery s e n s a ti o n a n d s o m e n a u sea . Th e jittery se nsa tion c ou ld co m e from d e s ip r a m i n e a n d t h e n a u se a c o u ld c o m e f r o m c a la n . S h e h a d a lr e a d y d i s co n t in u e d t h e d e s ip r a m i n e . H e t h e n p re s c r ib e d a d r u g c a ll e d d e p a k e n e . D r . E m p t i n g tes tifie d th at t he sid e e ffe cts w ere m ino r, co uld b e t o le r a te d a n d w o u ld not prevent her from performing her duties at MCI. O n F e b r u a ry 2 8 , 1 9 9 4 , s h e re tu rne d s till co m pla inin g o f h e a d a c h e a n d s id e eff ec ts a nd sh e fe lt tha t m ed icatio n w as no t wo rth t ry in g . S h e w a s c o m p l a in i n g o f n a u s e a, but she h a d n o v o m i ti n g o r d e h y d ra t io n a n d h e r a p p e ti te w a s n o t re d u c e d . T h e d o c t o r d i d n o t p r e s c ri b e a n y f u rt h e r medicine because s h e w o u l d n o t t o le r a te t h e m in o r s id e e f fe c t s o f th e m e d ic a t io n . S h e told t h e d o c to r th a t s h e h a d r a th e r tole rat e th e h ea da ch es tha n th e s ide effects. Dr. E m pting tho ug ht th at s h e c o u ld p e r fo r m h e r jo b w i th t h e h e a d a c h e s an d re leas ed he r for w ork on Ma rch 1, 1 99 4, w ithou t restrictions. A plaintiff seeking workers' com pe ns ation be ne fits h a s t h e b u r d en of pro ving eve ry elem en t of he r claim by a prep on de ra n c e of t h e e vide nc e. T i n a ll v. W a r i n g P a r k A s s o c ia t io n, 7 2 5 S .W . 2 d 9 3 5 ( T e n n . 19 87 ). Ap pe llate rev iew is d e n o v o u p o n th e r e c o rd o f th e t ri a l co urt, a c c o m p a n i e d b y a p r e s u m p ti o n o f correctness of the findings of fact, unless the pre p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v id e n c e is o t h e rw i s e . T e n n e s s e e C od e A nn ota ted § 5 0-6 -22 5(e )(2 ). T his trib un al is r e q u ir e d 14 to c o n d u c t a n independent exam ination of the evidence t o d e te r m i n e wh ere t h e p re p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e evid en ce lies. W ingert v. G o v e r n m e n t of S um ne r Co un ty, 908 S.W .2d 9 21 (199 5). W he re t h e t ri a l j u d g e h a s s e e n a n d h e a r d w i tn e s s e s , es pe cia lly wh en issue s of c re d i b ili ty a n d w e ig h t to b e g i ve n o r a l t e s ti m o n y are involved, on review considerable deference m u s t s ti ll b e a c c o r d e d to th os e circ um stan ce s. To wn se nd v. S tate , 8 2 6 S .W . 2 d 4 3 4 ( T e n n . 1992). Howeve r, this tribunal is as well situ a t e d to g a u g e t h e we ight, w ort h a nd sig nific an ce of d ep os itio n t e s ti m o n y a s t h e tr ia l j u d g e . S e iver v. Greenbriar Industries, Inc., 9 0 6 S .W . 2 d 4 4 4 (T e n n . 19 95 ). A l l o f th e m e d i c a l p r o o f in this c a s e w a s b y d e p o si ti o n . T h e oth er e vide nc e w as by o ral tes timo ny. Th ere are nu m ero us disc rep an cies in th e P laintiff's ora l t e s ti m o n y w h i c h w e h a v e n o t a t te m p t e d to de sc ribe in th is o pin ion . S h e d e m o n s t r a te d n o o u t w a rd s ig n s o f p a i n o r d i sc o m f o r t w h e n v i s it in g h e r v a riou s d oc tor s, b ut a fte r th eir d ep os ition s w ere tak en sh e d id de m on strate facial expressions of pain in court. She gave none o f h e r do ctors t h e h is t o ry o f p r e v io u s h e a d a c h e s in 1 9 9 2 a n d i n Ja n u a r y 1 9 9 3 be fore the acc iden t in A pril. W hile s he insiste d th e h e a d a c h e s p r e v e n te d h e r fr o m w o r k in g a t a jo b w hic h s he sa id t h a t s h e e n jo y e d , a t he r req ue st sh e h ad he r fou r yea r old g ran dc hild ta ke n fr o m d a y sch oo l and the Pla intiff ca red for h er. As above s ta t e d , w e must g i ve d e f e re n c e to th e c o n c lu s i on s o f t h e t ri a l j u d g e w h o h a d a n o p p o rt u n it y t o o b s e rv e a n d h e a r t h e w it n e s s' te s t im o n y a n d w e f in d t h a t t h e e v id e n c e is s u ff ic i e nt 15 to sup po rt the con clus ion o f the trial jud ge tha t the w itn e s s w a s n o t c r e d ib l e . All of the do ctors ba sed their con clusions solely up on w hat t h e Pla intiff told th em . H e r credibility has been successfully attacked. T h e doctors did not know of the plaintiff's p r io r h istory of headache s. T h e on ly do ctor w ho sup po rts the plain tiff' s c l a im f o r p e rm a n e n t disa bility is D r. W right, w ho did no t ba se his e s t im a t e o n t h e g u id e l in e s a n d did n ot ren de r an im pa irme nt ratin g. H e d ischa rge d h er to return to w ork w itho ut r es trict ion . W e ha ve c are fully revie we d this en tire reco rd an d f in d t h a t t h e e v id e n c e d o e s n o t preponderate against the trial co urt's ju dg m en t. W e concur that the Plaintiff has failed to prove her c a se w i th a preponderance o f th e e v id e n c e . It re s u lt s th a t th e j u d g m e n t o f t h e tr ia l c o u r t i s a f fi rm e d . Co sts a re a djud ge d a ga inst th e P laintiff. _______________________________ F . L LO Y D TA T U M , J U DG E CONCUR: ________________________________ L Y L E R E ID , AS S O C I AT E J U S T IC E ________________________________ J O E C . L O S E R , J R ., JU D G E 16 17

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.