 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clark v. Willamette Industries2/27/2001
Mailed November 29, 2000
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. The dispositive issue is whether the evidence preponderantly proved that the condition of the plaintiff's right knee was causally related to a fall he suffered in March 1997. The expert proof was divergent, and the plaintiff's credibility was remarked by the trial judge.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court is Affirmed.
William H. Inman, Sr. J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which E. Riley Anderson, C.J. and John K. Byers, Sr. J., joined.
OPINION
This case presents a classic example of conflicting expert testimony and the duty and prerogative of the trial judge to determine whose testimony more nearly accords with the justice of the case agreeably to the workers' compensation laws of Tennessee.
The plaintiff alleges that he injured his right knee in a fall on March 5, 1997. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff suffered a fall as he described, but defended against the knee injury on the theory that the plaintiff's difficulty was attributable to a pre-existing degenerative condition, not causally related to his employment.
As the case progressed before trial, the plaintiff in apparent apprehension about the issue of causation, amended his complaint to allege that the condition of his knee was the result of a compensable, repetitive gradually occurring injury. The defendant responded to the amendment by a general denial, and a special plea of the statute of limitations alleging injury which occurred more than one year before suit was brought.
The plaintiff reported his fall promptly on the day it occurred to the occupational health nurse, Ms. Clary, who testified that the plaintiff's concern was about his right shoulder and thigh. According to Ms. Clary, he made no mention of his right knee, and she observed nothing about his gait to excite her attention.
The plaintiff specifically requested that he be treated by Dr. Dan Carroll. The defendant agreed, and the plaintiff was seen by Dr. Carroll on March 13, 1997, three days after he fell. He made no mention of the knee pain to Dr. Carroll (for that matter, he later testified that he did not know how he injured his right knee). He did not complain of knee pain until March 27, 1997, 22 days after he fell. But on March 27, 1997, Dr. Carroll referred the plaintiff to an orthopedic specialist, Dr. Daniel Klinar, who began treatment by way of arthroscopic surgery which is a means of "looking inside" the knee. Dr. Klinar advised the plaintiff that if a meniscus tear was responsible for his pain, arthroscopy would help him, but if the pain was caused by a degenerative condition, this procedure would be of little value as to lessening pain.
The arthoscopy was performed on July 25, 1997. Since the knee pain did not subside, Dr. Klinar attributed it to a degenerative condition, not causally related to his work. Two other experts examined the plaintiff, whose testimony will be discussed hereafter. After consideration of the proof, the trial court found ". . . from the medical evidence that Mr. Clark had a degenerative arthritic condition which causes most of his pain in his knee area . . . ," and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff appeals and presents for review the propriety of this holding. Our review is de novo on the record. We presume the correctness of the judgment unless it is contrary
Page 1 2 Tennessee Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|