 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Butterfield v. Crawford & Company6/11/2002
The employee or claimant, Faye Butterfield, is 51 years old with a bachelor's degree in nursing. She has varied experience in nursing and hospital administration from 1985 until 1997, when she began working for the employer, Crawford & Company, as a case manager for workers' compensation cases assigned to the employer, a claim adjusting company for employers and their insurers. Her duties included considerable traveling.
On October 20, 1998, she was injured in an automobile accident while traveling on the employer's business. She visited Dr. Eugene Gulish two days later and received conservative care. Tests revealed a possible early disc herniation and dehydration in her lower back. In August, 2000, the doctor concluded she had reached maximum medical improvement and estimated her permanent medical impairment to be 5 percent to the whole person, using AMA Guides. Some restrictions were prescribed.
She was examined and evaluated by Dr. Robert Barnett. Dr. Barnett observed some limitation of motion, prescribed restrictions and estimated her permanent medical impairment to be 10 percent to the whole person.
The claimant has since been laid off from the employer and continues to receive treatment from Dr. Gulish, as well as physical therapy. She continues to experience pain in her low back and left leg. The left leg is weak. At the time of the trial, she was working for a dialysis clinic earning approximately four dollars per hour less than when she last worked for Crawford & Company. She testified that her pain makes it difficult for her to work or perform household chores. She still takes prescription medication.
Upon the above summarized evidence, the trial court awarded, inter alia, permanent partial disability benefits based on 42 percent to the body as a whole. Appellate review of findings of fact is de novo upon the record of the trial court accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 50-6-225(e)(2).
This tribunal is not bound by the trial court's findings but instead conducts an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance lies. Galloway v. Memphis Drum Serv., 822 S.W.2d 584, 586 (Tenn. 1991). Where the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses, especially if issues of credibility and weight to be given oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded those circumstances on review, because it is the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and to hear the in-court testimony. Long v. Tri-Con Ind., Ltd., 996 S.W.2d 173, 178 (Tenn. 1999). The appellate tribunal, however, is as well situated to gauge the weight, worth and significance of deposition testimony as the trial judge. Walker v. Saturn Corp., 986 S.W.2d 204, 207 (Tenn. 1998). The extent of an injured worker's vocational disability is a question of fact. Story v. Legion Ins. Co., 3 S.W.3d 450, 456 (Tenn. 1999).
The employer first contends the opinion of Dr. Barnett, in the form of a written report, is flawed because he relied on the wrong section of the guidelines. The employee conceded in oral argument that the opinion of Dr. Barnett was flawed, but asked this tribunal to determine the extent of her impairment from medical and lay proof of her restrictions and limitations. We are not inclined to do so, because the extent of a claimant's medical or clinical impairment is a medical question, not a legal one. See Parks v. Tennessee Municipal League Risk Management Pool, 974 S.W.2d 677, 680 (Tenn. 1998).
In cases where an injured worker is entitled to permanent partial disability be
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|