Cloyd v. Hartco Flooring Co.

• Decision Date: 30 December 2008
• Docket Number: No. E2007-02041-SC-R3-WC,E2007-02041-SC-R3-WC
• Citation: 274 S.W.3d 638
• Parties: Lon CLOYD v. HARTCO FLOORING COMPANY.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

274 S.W.3d 638

Lon CLOYD v.HARTCO FLOORING COMPANY.

No. E2007-02041-SC-R3-WC

Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Knoxville.

September 4, 2008 Session.

December 30, 2008.

Linda J. Hamilton Mowles, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Hartco Flooring Company.

C. Patrick Sexton, Oneida, Tennessee, for the appellee, Lon Cloyd.

OPINION

GARY R. WADE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JANICE M. HOLDER, C.J., and WILLIAM M. BARKER and CORNELIA A. CLARK, JJ., joined.WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., J., filed a concurring opinion.

In this workers' compensation appeal, we initially made a referral to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3).We then granted direct review.The employee filed suit for workers' compensation benefits, claiming that he suffered a work-related injury to his wrist, which caused an aggravation of the underlying dormant arthritic condition in his right wrist.In response, the employer asserted that the employee's arthritis was not causally related to his employment and argued that the severity of the pre-existing condition was not advanced by his work activities.The trial court awarded benefits, concluding that the employee had sustained a 36% permanent partial impairment to his right extremity and was entitled to future medical treatment and discretionary costs.The employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by finding that the employee had sustained an injury that was causally related to his work activities and by ruling that the statute of limitations had not expired.Because the evidence does not preponderate against the judgment of the trial court, we affirm.

I.Facts and Procedural History

Lon Cloyd("Employee"), fifty-five years of age at the time of trial, has a tenth-grade education.His work history was primarily as a foundry worker but also included janitorial service.During the term of his employment for Hartco Flooring Company("Employer"), a manufacturer of hardwood flooring, he drove a forklift and operated a saw and "strapper."By October 28, 2004, however, he had been a "nester" at the Oneida plant for two or three years, grading and stacking sections of lumber ranging from one to seven feet long and moving the loaded buggy to its destination between five and ten times per day.The Employee explained that his job required that he do it "right and ... fast."He testified that on that date, he was stacking wood when his right wrist "just went out on [him]."He described his wrist as having "knotted up."The Employee immediately notified his supervisor, Wendell Cross, of the injury but continued to work that day and for several days thereafter, using only his left hand in the performance of his duties.

On November 1, the Employee was referred by the Employer to Dr. Tim Smith, who ordered x-rays, prescribed a wrist splint, and sent the Employee to physical therapy.The Employee then returned to work, but used only his left hand.Dr. Smith, who treated the Employee on four or five different occasions, did not testify at trial or by deposition.

By referral from Dr. Smith, the Employee was subsequently examined by Dr. John Harrison, an orthopedic surgeon.Dr. Harrison, who testified by deposition, examined the Employee on January 13, 2005, and diagnosed osteoarthritis at the radioschaphoid joint of the right wrist.¹Although the Employee was placed on light duty and prescribed anti-inflammatory medications, his symptoms did not improve.In the following month, Dr. Harrison administered a steroid injection, which provided no relief.The Employee saw Dr. Harrison on a third and last occasion on March 10, 2005, at which time his symptoms were essentially unchanged.Dr. Harrison described the Employee's condition as an "aging phenomena," a malady that could have been exacerbated by his job duties "in the way of bringing on symptomology."His medical notes indicated that Employee denied any specific incident.Dr. Harrison acknowledged, however, that an event such as a fall could accelerate arthritis.Dr. Harrison, who described the Employee as "truthful," had no opinion as to whether the work had "worsened the anatomical or the actual pathology of the wrist joint."Dr. Harrison found "mild swelling" and "motion deficit" in the wrist and prescribed light duty.Dorsiflexion, with sixty degrees as normal, was only fifteen to twenty degrees.Volar flexion and ulnar deviation indicated loss of 25% and 33% respectively.It was Dr. Harrison's belief that surgery would eventually become necessary.

On February 7, 2006, Dr. William Kennedy conducted an independent medical examination of the Employee.Dr. Kennedy, who also testified by deposition, compiled a medical history, determining that the first onset of pain was on October 28, 2004, and reviewed all of the medical records pertaining to the Employee's treatment, including the radiology and therapy reports by each of the treating physicians.He also considered the x-rays which were made of the Employee's wrist on November 9, 2004, and January 13, 2005.Ultimately, Dr. Kennedy diagnosed the Employee's condition as "[s]capholunate dissociation with radiolunate osteoarthritis of the right wrist," and concluded that the October 28, 2004 incident at the Employee's workplace "aggravated and advanced the pre-existing separation of the schapholunate bone and the osteoarthritis and aroused it from a dormant condition[,] not causing any symptoms[,] into a continuously painful and disabling condition."While conceding that arthritis was degenerative with an unknown etiology, he testified that trauma can speed the progression of arthritis.It was his opinion that "it was an intensive form of cumulative trauma, namely, the trauma within one day of the work of October 28, 2004, that tipped the scale" as to Employee's condition, or "was the straw that broke the camel's back."Dr. Kennedy assigned a permanent impairment of 24% to the right upper extremity as a result of the problem and suggested a permanent twenty-pound lifting limit and other work restrictions.

There was no direct evidence that the Employer or its insurer had paid for any of the Employee's medical treatment.The Employee testified that neither Dr. Smith nor Dr. Harrison billed him for their medical services.He maintained that he stopped seeing Dr. Harrison at the direction of his Employer.General Manager Frederick Gilbert, who transferred to the Oneida location some twenty-one months after the report of the injury and sixteen months after the Employee last saw Dr. Harrison, reviewed the file and found that the Employee had been provided medical treatment by Dr. Harrison.Gilbert found no indication in the file as to whether the Employer or its insurance carrier had paid any of the Employee's medical expenses, but stated that he would not know whether the Employer had paid the Employee's bills because the insurance carrier generally takes care of that.

The trial judge found that the Employee had sustained a compensable aggravation of his pre-existing arthritis and that his claim was not barred by the statute of limitations, and awarded permanent partial disability benefits of 36%.In his findings of fact, he concluded that the cumulative trauma of the Employee's work on October 28, 2004"precipitated the pain, permanent aggravation, and advancement."Because Dr. Harrison had treated the Employee at the direction of the Employer within one year of the claim, the trial court ruled that the statute of limitations was tolled to the date of the last authorized medical treatment and did not bar the action.

II.Standard of Review

The standard of review of issues 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 evidence is otherwise.Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(2)(2008).In such cases, the reviewing court must conduct an in-depth examination of the trial court's factual findings and conclusions.Wilhelm v. Krogers,235 S.W.3d 122, 126(Tenn.2007).When the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the witness' demeanor and to hear in-court testimony, considerable deference must be afforded any credibility or factual determinations.Tryon v. Saturn Corp.,254 S.W.3d 321, 327(Tenn.2008).A reviewing court may, however, draw its own conclusions about the weight and credibility to be given to expert medical testimony that is presented by deposition.Crew v. First Source Furniture Group,259 S.W.3d 656, 665(Tenn.2008).A trial court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo upon the record with no presumption of correctness.Perrin v. Gaylord Entm't Co.,120 S.W.3d 823, 826(Tenn.2003);Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co.,914 S.W.2d 79, 80(Tenn.1996).

III.Analysis

A.Causation

The Employer contends that the trial court erred by finding that the Employee sustained a compensable injury, because the Employee failed to prove that the condition in his right wrist was causally related to his work activities or that the underlying osteoarthritis disease process was permanently advanced or aggravated by his work.The Employer specifically contends that the Employee's activities unrelated to work, such as carpentry work or throwing horseshoes, could not have been excluded as potential sources of his condition.The Employer also argues that there was an absence of any specific injury and that Dr. Harrison's testimony precluded compensability because arthritis qualifies as an aging phenomena of unknown causation.

An injury must both "arise out of" and occur "in the course of" employment in order to qualify as a compensable workers' compensation claim:

The phrase "in the course of" refers to time, place, and circumstances, and "arising out of" refers to cause or origin."[A]n injury by accident to an employee is in the course of...