 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McCurrie v. Eaton Corp.3/11/1999
REVERSED
OPINION
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(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. § 50-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 550 (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 the plaintiff had suffered an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment with the defendant. The court found the plaintiff has suffered a 22 percent permanent impairment to her right hand.
We reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the case.
The plaintiff was 28 years of age at the time of the trial, has a 12th grade education, and has worked as a cook and factory worker. The plaintiff began working for the defendant in October of 1994. The plaintiff did work on various jobs for the defendant until she began to work on what is known as the brake line in the plaintiff's plant, which makes auto parts.
In doing this work, the plaintiff operated a deburring gun to grind burrs off of parts. This tool operates similar to and appears much like a hand held drill. To operate the tool, the operator grasps the tool like holding a pistol and triggers the action of the tool by use of the index finger. It is from this work that the plaintiff alleges an injury to her right hand. The plaintiff testified she began to experience pain in her right hand and arm in August of 1996, some six months after commencing work with the deburring tool. The plaintiff continues to work for the defendant at another job.
The plaintiff was seen by a Dr. Barker on one occasion and then went to Dr. Richard Murphy, a family physician, who was the plaintiff's regular physician. Dr. Murphy testified the plaintiff had some tenderness over the knuckle on the back of her hand near the thumb. Dr. Murphy referred the plaintiff to Dr. Ronald Bingham for a nerve conduction test. The test did not show any abnormality in the nerve of the forearm.
Dr. Murphy testified that the plaintiff had tendinitis of the right forearm and that the tool which she was using would not, in his opinion, cause a problem between the plaintiff's thumb and index finger, as described by the plaintiff. Dr. Murphy found the plaintiff had suffered no medical impairment as a result of her work for the defendant.
An exhibit which the plaintiff characterizes as a report from Dr. Matthew Michaels, but which is signed by someone else, says Dr. Michaels was unable to diagnose the plaintiff's problem after exhaustive tests. The report suggests the plaintiff do alternative work if the deburring work continues to cause her problems.
The plaintiff was sent to Dr. Joseph C. Boals, an orthopedic surgeon, for evaluation. Dr. Boals found the plaintiff had a mass in the web space between her thumb and index finger. However, there was some uncertainty as to this because he had not ruled out other medical causes for the pain the plaintiff was having and the mass he found on the plaintiff's hand.
Dr. Boals testified an MRI should be done on the plaintiff's hand
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.
|
|