Workers Compensation Panel Opinions

Format: 10/23/2014
Format: 10/23/2014
Bobby G. Dickens v. Travelers Insurance Company
01S01-9512-CR-00227
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. J. O. Bond,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer's insurer contends the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive. The panel concludes the award should be affirmed. The claimant, Dickens, is 54 years old with a high school education and no special skills. In April of 1993, while working for Eatherly Construction Company as a ditch digger, he twisted his right knee. He was referred to Dr. John McInnis, who arthroscopically diagnosed and removed a large tear from the lateral meniscus of the claimant's right knee joint. The doctor assessed a permanent anatomical impairment of seven and one-half percent to the right knee, from AMA Guidelines. The claimant returned to work on June 21, 1993, but is medically restricted from repetitive squatting. Because his duties at Eatherly required him to climb, squat and kneel, he left Eatherly and is now working for another construction company servicing equipment, a job he can perform while standing in a pit. He is making less than he would be making in his former work at Eatherly. The trial court awarded permanent partial disabililty benefits on the basis of forty percent to the injured leg. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). Once the causation and permanency of an injury have been established by expert testimony, the trial judge may consider many pertinent factors, including age, job skills, education, training, duration of disability, and job opportunities for the disabled, in addition to anatomical impairment, for the purpose of evaluating the extent of a claimant's permanent disability. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-241(a)(2). From a consideration of those factors in this case, the panel finds that the evidence fails to preponderate against the judgment of the trial court. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the defendant-appellant. 2
Smith County Workers Compensation Panel 10/10/96
Bobby G. Dickens v. Travelers Insurance Company
01S01-9512-CR-00227
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. J. O. Bond,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer's insurer contends the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive. The panel concludes the award should be affirmed. The claimant, Dickens, is 54 years old with a high school education and no special skills. In April of 1993, while working for Eatherly Construction Company as a ditch digger, he twisted his right knee. He was referred to Dr. John McInnis, who arthroscopically diagnosed and removed a large tear from the lateral meniscus of the claimant's right knee joint. The doctor assessed a permanent anatomical impairment of seven and one-half percent to the right knee, from AMA Guidelines. The claimant returned to work on June 21, 1993, but is medically restricted from repetitive squatting. Because his duties at Eatherly required him to climb, squat and kneel, he left Eatherly and is now working for another construction company servicing equipment, a job he can perform while standing in a pit. He is making less than he would be making in his former work at Eatherly. The trial court awarded permanent partial disabililty benefits on the basis of forty percent to the injured leg. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). Once the causation and permanency of an injury have been established by expert testimony, the trial judge may consider many pertinent factors, including age, job skills, education, training, duration of disability, and job opportunities for the disabled, in addition to anatomical impairment, for the purpose of evaluating the extent of a claimant's permanent disability. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-241(a)(2). From a consideration of those factors in this case, the panel finds that the evidence fails to preponderate against the judgment of the trial court. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the defendant-appellant. 2
Smith County Workers Compensation Panel 10/10/96
Deborah Jean Barne v. Emerson Electric Company
02S01-9505-CV-00043
Authoring Judge: Janice M. Holder, Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Julian Guinn, Judge
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Our scope of review of findings of fact by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-22 5(e)(2). The employer contends the trial court erred in: 1. Awarding permanent partial disability benefits based on 8% to the left hand; and 2. Aw ardi ng th e cos t of o btain ing D r. Ro bert J. Ba rnet t's depos ition as a recove rable dis cretiona ry cost. We affirm the trial court as to both issues. Deborah Jean Barner ("Barner") is 41 years of age and a high school graduate. Other than attending college for one quarter, she has no additional educational experience , specialized training or vocational training. H er work history consists entirely of factory work. Prior to employment at Emerson, Barner performed assem bly work in a plastics factory a nd worked in fa ctories where clothing was co nstructe d and s hoes w ere ma nufactu red. On October 18, 1993, Barner injured her non-dominant left hand arising out of the course and scope of her employment. From a list of three doctors given to her by the employer, she chose Dr. Harrison, whose billing reflects that he treated her on four occasions over a four month period. Dr. Harrison referred her to Dr. Stonecipher, an o rthopedic surgeon. B arner became d issatisfied with Dr. Stonecipher's treatment and continued to have difficulty performing her job duties withou t swellin g and c onstan t pain. Barner was then referred by her attorney to Dr. David Gaw, who referred her to Dr. Charles Emerson, another orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Emerson's records, 2
Henry County Workers Compensation Panel 10/10/96
Deborah Jean Barne v. Emerson Electric Company
02S01-9505-CV-00043
Authoring Judge: Janice M. Holder, Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Julian Guinn,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Our scope of review of findings of fact by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-22 5(e)(2). The employer contends the trial court erred in: 1. Awarding permanent partial disability benefits based on 8% to the left hand; and 2. Aw ardi ng th e cos t of o btain ing D r. Ro bert J. Ba rnet t's depos ition as a recove rable dis cretiona ry cost. We affirm the trial court as to both issues. Deborah Jean Barner ("Barner") is 41 years of age and a high school graduate. Other than attending college for one quarter, she has no additional educational experience , specialized training or vocational training. H er work history consists entirely of factory work. Prior to employment at Emerson, Barner performed assem bly work in a plastics factory a nd worked in fa ctories where clothing was co nstructe d and s hoes w ere ma nufactu red. On October 18, 1993, Barner injured her non-dominant left hand arising out of the course and scope of her employment. From a list of three doctors given to her by the employer, she chose Dr. Harrison, whose billing reflects that he treated her on four occasions over a four month period. Dr. Harrison referred her to Dr. Stonecipher, an o rthopedic surgeon. B arner became d issatisfied with Dr. Stonecipher's treatment and continued to have difficulty performing her job duties withou t swellin g and c onstan t pain. Barner was then referred by her attorney to Dr. David Gaw, who referred her to Dr. Charles Emerson, another orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Emerson's records, 2
Wayne County Workers Compensation Panel 10/10/96
Florine Vandyke v. Plumley Rubber Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
02S01-9604-CV-00039
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Billy Joe White
Trial Court Judge: Hon. C. Creed Mcginley,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer, Plumley Rubber Company and the insurance carrier, Liberty Mutual, contend the trial court erred in granting judgment for medical expenses to the employee after they had been paid by the employee's health plan. The panel agrees and reverses the judgment of the trial court. It was stipulated that the employee's total medical expenses totaled $22,278.55. It was further stipulated that the Plaintiff had paid prior to trial $669.29 in out-of-pocket medical expenses. Her remaining medical expenses were paid by Plumley through its group health care plan. The insurance company paid the remainder. The parties further stipulated that Plumley's group health insurance plan did not contain a specific set-off clause for workers' compensation benefits. Plumley is self-insured for group health benefits. This panel holds that under T.C.A. _ 5-6-24 that the employer is responsible for payment of medical expenses and that the employee is not entitled to a judgment against the employer for medical bills which have already been paid. This panel holds that this case is controlled by Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Smith, 288 S.W.2d, 913, 916 (Tenn. 1956). The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded for appropriate action under this decision. The costs are taxed to the Plaintiff/Appellee.
Henry County Workers Compensation Panel 10/01/96
Gregory Leverett v. State of Tennessee
03C01-9511-CR-00362
Authoring Judge: Paul G. Summers
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Douglas A. Meyer, Judge
The appellant, Gregory Leverett, pled guilty to rape. He was sentenced to twelve years incarceration. He petitioned for post-conviction relief. The petition was dismissed as untimely. He now appeals that dismissal. We respectfully reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Knox County Workers Compensation Panel 09/30/96
Gary W. Hardin v. Great Rivers Employment Aptitude and Technical Service, Inc., et al
02S01-9603-CH-00028
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Billy Joe White
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Joe E. Morris,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer contends that no notice was given by the employee. The panel concludes the judgment should be affirmed as modified. On January 16, 1995, Plaintiff began working at Young Radiator Company as a welder. (T.T. at 16). Plaintiff testified that after he had been working for a period of three weeks, he experienced pain and numbness in his left hand. (T.T. at 17-18). Plaintiff went to see Dr. Charles White of his own accord on February 6, 1995, and paid for the visit through TennCare. (T.T. at 5, 18, 51). Plaintiff testified that he continued to have pain and numbness in his hand and saw Dr. John Phillips on February 22, 1995. (T.T. at 22). Dr. Neblett first saw Plaintiff on February 27, 1995. (Neblett Depo. at 3). Following Dr. Neblett's evaluation, Plaintiff elected to have carpal tunnel release surgery, which was performed on March 9, 1995. (Neblett Depo. at 5-6). The Plaintiff testified that the pain started when he banged on metal and this was what he told his doctors. (T.T. at 61). He further testified, ". . . (b)ut I told them that I didn't know exactly, you know, if that was the cause or not, because I didn't know because I'm not a doctor." (T.T. at 61). Casual connection between the injury and work was related to the employee on March 31, 1995 by Dr. Neblett. (T.R. at 58). Written notice was provided to the employer on April 5, 1995. This panel finds that notice was given within thirty (3) days of knowledge of his injury pursuant to T.C.A. _ 5-6-21 and this case should be affirmed on this issue.
Hardin County Workers Compensation Panel 09/30/96
Gary W. Hardin v. Great Rivers Employment Aptitude and Technical Service, Inc., et al
02S01-9603-CH-00028
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Billy Joe White
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Joe E. Morris,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer contends that no notice was given by the employee. The panel concludes the judgment should be affirmed as modified. On January 16, 1995, Plaintiff began working at Young Radiator Company as a welder. (T.T. at 16). Plaintiff testified that after he had been working for a period of three weeks, he experienced pain and numbness in his left hand. (T.T. at 17-18). Plaintiff went to see Dr. Charles White of his own accord on February 6, 1995, and paid for the visit through TennCare. (T.T. at 5, 18, 51). Plaintiff testified that he continued to have pain and numbness in his hand and saw Dr. John Phillips on February 22, 1995. (T.T. at 22). Dr. Neblett first saw Plaintiff on February 27, 1995. (Neblett Depo. at 3). Following Dr. Neblett's evaluation, Plaintiff elected to have carpal tunnel release surgery, which was performed on March 9, 1995. (Neblett Depo. at 5-6). The Plaintiff testified that the pain started when he banged on metal and this was what he told his doctors. (T.T. at 61). He further testified, ". . . (b)ut I told them that I didn't know exactly, you know, if that was the cause or not, because I didn't know because I'm not a doctor." (T.T. at 61). Casual connection between the injury and work was related to the employee on March 31, 1995 by Dr. Neblett. (T.R. at 58). Written notice was provided to the employer on April 5, 1995. This panel finds that notice was given within thirty (3) days of knowledge of his injury pursuant to T.C.A. _ 5-6-21 and this case should be affirmed on this issue.
Hardin County Workers Compensation Panel 09/30/96
Kenneth Fuller v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Madison Industries, Inc. and Sue Ann Head, Director of The Division of Workers Compensation, Tennessee Department of Labor
02S01-9508-CV-00076
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Whit Lafon,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employee or claimant, Fuller, contends "the trial court erred in limiting his permanent total disability award to a maximum total benefit of one hundred forty-two thousand, three hundred eighty-eight dollars ($142,388.), as opposed to ordering lifetime benefits pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 5-6-27(4)(A), when the employee was found to be totally disabled." The Second Injury Fund (the Fund) contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the claimant is permanently and totally disabled as a result of a work-related injury by accident. The panel concludes the judgment should be modified as provided herein. The claimant has three infirmities. He has a pre-existing avascular necrosis, which was surgically treated and from which he rehabilitated himself and worked for the employer, Madison Industries; he has carpal tunnel syndrome, which he gradually developed from repetitive use of his hands at Madison Industries; and he has Raynaud's disease or mixed connective tissue disorder, vasculitis, unrelated to any on-the-job injury. At the time of the trial, the claimant was thirty-seven years old and had a high school education and a drafting diploma. His working history includes bagging groceries, stocking shelves, operating machines, driving forklifts and production work, as well as drafting. In 1985, Dr. James Warmbrod, an orthopedic surgeon, performed hip surgery on the claimant's hips for bilateral avascular necrosis, secondary to chronic alcoholism. The same doctor performed bilateral carpal tunnel release surgery on the claimant in 1993, after the claimant developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome from his work for the employer. Dr. Warmbrod assigned ten percent permanent impairment to both arms and suggested that the claimant be limited to light, sedentary work and not do repetitive work with his hands. The doctor also suggested that, because of the claimant's vasculitis in both arms, which was diagnosed after he developed carpal tunnel syndrome, that he should work in a warm environment. Dr. Robert Winston, an internist, conducted an independent medical examination on June 21, 1994, after vasculitis had been diagnosed, and concluded that the claimant was permanently and totally disabled. The doctor assigned twelve to fifteen percent permanent impairment to each upper extremity and forty percent to the pre-existing hip condition. The trial court found the claimant to be permanently and totally disabled as a result of all three infirmities and awarded benefits accordingly, not to exceed $142,388., the maximum disability award allowable under the 2
Madison County Workers Compensation Panel 09/30/96
Patty Utley, Widow of Joe Henry Utley, Deceased v. Chester County Highway Department
02S01-9602-CH-00020
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Joe C. Morris,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The only issue on appeal is whether the chancellor abused his discretion by commuting a portion of the permanent partial disability award to a lump sum. The panel finds the judgment should be affirmed. Joe Henry Utley died as a result of an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by the Chester County Highway Department. He left a widow, Patty Utley, and four dependent children. The widow and children were awarded dependents' benefits totaling $19,2., payable at the rate of $137.17 per week. The claimant and four children - and another child of hers - were living in a 6 square foot home. She applied to the trial court for a commutation of the award for the purpose of purchasing a larger home. The proof shows and the chancellor found that she is able to wisely manage her money. The trial court ordered $45,2. paid in a lump sum and the balance periodically, as provided by statute. The chancellor found further that moving into a larger home would be in the best interest of both the claimant and the dependent children and directed that the deed be drafted in such a way as would protect the interest of all the beneficiaries. The evidence does not preponderate against that finding. Upon application by a party and approval by a proper court, benefits which are payable periodically may be commuted to one or more lump sum payment(s), if the court finds such commutation to be in the best interest of the dependents of the deceased employee and that the party seeking a lump sum payment has the ability to wisely manage and control the commuted award. Ponder v. Manchester Housing Authority, 87 S.W.2d 282 (Tenn. 1994). Such applications are not granted as a matter of course. Forkum v. Aetna Life & Casualty Insurance Company, 852 S.W.2d 23 (Tenn. 1993). The claimant has the burden of establishing, first, that a lump sum is in his or her best interest and, second, that he or she is capable of wisely managing and controlling a lump sum, but the decision whether to commute to a lump sum is within the discretion of the trial court. Bailey v. Colonial Freight Systems, Inc., 836 S.W.2d 554 (Tenn. 1992). We have independently examined the record and find that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in allowing the partial commutation in this case. The judgment is accordingly affirmed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the defendant-appellant. 2
Chester County Workers Compensation Panel 09/27/96
Patty Utley, Widow of Joe Henry Utley, Deceased v. Chester County Highway Department
02S01-9602-CH-00020
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Joe C. Morris,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The only issue on appeal is whether the chancellor abused his discretion by commuting a portion of the permanent partial disability award to a lump sum. The panel finds the judgment should be affirmed. Joe Henry Utley died as a result of an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by the Chester County Highway Department. He left a widow, Patty Utley, and four dependent children. The widow and children were awarded dependents' benefits totaling $19,2., payable at the rate of $137.17 per week. The claimant and four children - and another child of hers - were living in a 6 square foot home. She applied to the trial court for a commutation of the award for the purpose of purchasing a larger home. The proof shows and the chancellor found that she is able to wisely manage her money. The trial court ordered $45,2. paid in a lump sum and the balance periodically, as provided by statute. The chancellor found further that moving into a larger home would be in the best interest of both the claimant and the dependent children and directed that the deed be drafted in such a way as would protect the interest of all the beneficiaries. The evidence does not preponderate against that finding. Upon application by a party and approval by a proper court, benefits which are payable periodically may be commuted to one or more lump sum payment(s), if the court finds such commutation to be in the best interest of the dependents of the deceased employee and that the party seeking a lump sum payment has the ability to wisely manage and control the commuted award. Ponder v. Manchester Housing Authority, 87 S.W.2d 282 (Tenn. 1994). Such applications are not granted as a matter of course. Forkum v. Aetna Life & Casualty Insurance Company, 852 S.W.2d 23 (Tenn. 1993). The claimant has the burden of establishing, first, that a lump sum is in his or her best interest and, second, that he or she is capable of wisely managing and controlling a lump sum, but the decision whether to commute to a lump sum is within the discretion of the trial court. Bailey v. Colonial Freight Systems, Inc., 836 S.W.2d 554 (Tenn. 1992). We have independently examined the record and find that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in allowing the partial commutation in this case. The judgment is accordingly affirmed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the defendant-appellant. 2
Chester County Workers Compensation Panel 09/27/96
Lisa Hughes v. Mtd Products, Inc., Cub Cadet Division
02S01-9602-CH-00019
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Hon. George Ellis, Judge
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supeme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Lisa Hughes, ("plaintiff") has appeal ed from the judgment of the trial court denying her claim for workers' compensation benefits on the grounds that she failed to carry her burden of proof as to any permanent partial disability. On appeal, the only issue presented by plaintiff is whether the evidence preponderates against the judgment of the trial court. For the reasons hereafter stated, we find that it does not. Plaintiff was employed as an assembly line worker for MTD Products, Inc. ("defendant"), which were engaged primarily in building lawnmowers. In December 1992 she injured her neck and shoulder while lifting a lawnmower deck onto an assembly line. She was initially seen by Dr. White and then by Dr. Joseph P. Rowland, a neurosurgeon. Dr. Rowland found that her problems were muscular in origin and returned her to work with no restrictions and no permanent impairment on February 15, 1993. In April 1993, plaintiff claimed to have sustained a work-related injury to her low back while lifting a l awnmower frame onto a motor. At that time, plaintiff received outpatient treatment by Dr. Jack Pettigrew, who also referred her to Dr. Larry David Johnson, a local orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Johnson treated her as an outpatient, performing among other things x-rays, a CT scan, and myelogram, all of which were normal. On June 21, 1993, Dr. Johnson released her to return to work and confirmed that plaintiff could return to work for full duty with no permanent impairment on July 22, 1993. 2
Haywood County Workers Compensation Panel 09/27/96
Lisa Hughes v. Mtd Products, Inc., Cub Cadet Division
02S01-9602-CH-00019
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Hon. George Ellis,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supeme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Lisa Hughes, ("plaintiff") has appeal ed from the judgment of the trial court denying her claim for workers' compensation benefits on the grounds that she failed to carry her burden of proof as to any permanent partial disability. On appeal, the only issue presented by plaintiff is whether the evidence preponderates against the judgment of the trial court. For the reasons hereafter stated, we find that it does not. Plaintiff was employed as an assembly line worker for MTD Products, Inc. ("defendant"), which were engaged primarily in building lawnmowers. In December 1992 she injured her neck and shoulder while lifting a lawnmower deck onto an assembly line. She was initially seen by Dr. White and then by Dr. Joseph P. Rowland, a neurosurgeon. Dr. Rowland found that her problems were muscular in origin and returned her to work with no restrictions and no permanent impairment on February 15, 1993. In April 1993, plaintiff claimed to have sustained a work-related injury to her low back while lifting a l awnmower frame onto a motor. At that time, plaintiff received outpatient treatment by Dr. Jack Pettigrew, who also referred her to Dr. Larry David Johnson, a local orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Johnson treated her as an outpatient, performing among other things x-rays, a CT scan, and myelogram, all of which were normal. On June 21, 1993, Dr. Johnson released her to return to work and confirmed that plaintiff could return to work for full duty with no permanent impairment on July 22, 1993. 2
Haywood County Workers Compensation Panel 09/27/96