*1 Lon CLOYD
HARTCO FLOORING COMPANY.
Supreme Tennessee, Court of
at Knoxville.
Sept. 2008 Session.
Dec. *2 Mowles, Knoxville, J.
Linda Hamilton Tennessee, appellant, Hartco Flooring Company. Sexton, Oneida, Tennessee,
C. Patrick *3 appellee, Cloyd. for the Lon OPINION WADE, J., R. GARY delivered the court, opinion JANICE M. which HOLDER, C.J., and WILLIAM M. CLARK, BARKER and CORNELIA A. JJ., JR., J., joined. KOCH, WILLIAM C. concurring opinion. a filed In this compensation appeal, initially made a Special we referral Compensation Appeals Panel for Workers’ hearing report a of fact findings and a and conclusions law accordance with Tennessee section 50-6- Code Annotated 225(e)(3). granted then direct review. We employee filed suit for workers’ com- The pensation benefits, suf- claiming that he wrist, fered a work-related aggravation the under- which caused in his lying dormant arthritic condition response, employer wrist. was employee’s asserted that the arthritis causally related to his employment not argued severity pre- that the by his existing was not advanced condition court activities. trial awarded benefits, concluding employee partial a 36% permanent had sustained right extremity impairment to treatment and entitled future medical ap- has discretionary employer costs. The pealed, contending court trial by finding erred causally re- sustained an that was ruling to his lated work activities ex- that the of limitations had not statute pired. not Because evidence does preponderate against judgment court, affirm. we placed light History though and Procedural I. Facts anti-inflammatory duty prescribed fifty-five years Cloyd (“Employee”), Lon im- medications, symptoms did trial, tenth- the time of has a age at month, Dr. Harri- following In the prove. history grade education. His work injection, a which steroid son administered but also foundry as a worker primarily saw no relief. provided During the janitorial included service. last occasion on a third and Harrison Floor- employment for Hartco term of his symp- time a manufactur- ing Company (“Employer”), essentially unchanged. a forklift toms flooring, he drove were er of hardwood By condi- operated “strapper.” a saw and Harrison described 2004, however, he had been malady phenomena,” “aging tion as an *4 or plant at the Oneida for two “nester” by his exacerbated that could have been years, grading stacking and sections three way bringing on “in the job duties feet ranging from one to seven of lumber His medical notes indi- symptomology.” buggy the loaded to its long moving any specific denied Employee cated that per destination five and ten times between acknowledged, Dr. Harrison incident. day. Employee explained job that his however, as a fall could that an event such “right he it ... fast.” required that do Harrison, Dr. who accelerate arthritis. date, He testified that on that he was “truthful,” had Employee as described stacking right “just his wood when wrist as to the work opinion no on went out described [him].” or the actual the anatomical “worsened having up.” “knotted The Em- wrist joint.” Dr. Ham- pathology of the wrist immediately supervisor, notified his ployee swelling” and “motion def- son found “mild Cross, of the but continued Wendell light duty. and prescribed icit” in the wrist days day to and for several work normal, Dorsiflexion, sixty degrees as with thereafter, using only left hand in the twenty degrees. Volar only fifteen was performance of his duties. indicated loss of flexion and ulnar deviation Employee On re- November was Dr. It was respectively. 25% and 33% Smith, Employer ferred to Dr. Tim surgery Harrison’s belief that would even- x-rays, prescribed who ordered wrist necessary. tually become splint, Employee physical and sent the then therapy. Employee 7, 2006, returned Ken- February Dr. William On work, only used his left hand. Dr. but independent medical nedy conducted an Smith, on four Employee treated the who Employee. Dr. Ken- examination of the occasions, testify different did not five by deposition, nedy, also testified who by deposition. at trial or determining history, a medical compiled pain onset of that the first was Smith, Employ- Dr. By referral from 28, 2004, all of the medical and reviewed Dr. subsequently ee examined John was Employee’s pertaining to records Harrison, orthopedic surgeon. an treatment, radiology and including the ex- by deposition, testified treating by each of the therapy reports 18, 2005, January amined the x-rays considered the physicians. He also diagnosed osteoarthritis at the radios- Employee’s of the wrist Al- made chaphoid joint of the which were wrist.1 thumb, long bones in the forearm. joint below the at the two 1. This is located radius, larger base of the 9, 2004, on November January Employee’s bills the insurance because Ultimately, Kennedy diagnosed generally carrier takes care of that. “[s]capholu- condition as judge The trial found that the nate dissociation with radiolunate osteoar- compensable aggravation had sustained right wrist,” thritis of the and concluded preexisting of his arthritis and that his that the October 2004 incident at the claim was not barred the statute of Employee’s workplace “aggravated and limitations, permanent partial and awarded pre-existing separation advanced the disability of 36%. In findings benefits the schapholunate bone and the osteoar- fact, he concluded that the cumulative thritis and aroused it from a dormant con- trauma of the Employee’s on October ditionf,] causing any symptoms[,] into “precipitated the pain, permanent a continuously painful disabling condi- aggravation, and advancement.” Because conceding tion.” While arthritis was Dr. Harrison had treated the degenerative etiology, an unknown the direction of the within one speed pro- testified that trauma can year claim, the trial court ruled gression opinion of arthritis. It the statute of limitations tolled to the that “it intensive form of cumula- date of the treat- last authorized medical trauma, namely, tive the trauma within ment and did not bar action. *5 28, day 2004, one of the work of October tipped that Employee’s scale” as to II. Standard Review condition, or “was the that broke straw The standard of of issues review Kennedy assigned the camel’s back.” Dr. upon of fact is de novo the record of the permanent a impairment of 24% to the court, accompanied by presumption a right upper extremity as result of the findings, of correctness of the unless the problem suggested permanent twen- preponderance of evidence is otherwise. ty-pound lifting limit and other work re- 50-6-225(e)(2) (2008). § TenmCode Ann. strictions. cases, reviewing such court must There no direct evidence that the in-depth conduct an examination of the Employer paid any or its insurer had findings trial court’s factual and conclu Employee’s of the medical treatment. The Krogers, sions. Wilhelm v. 235 S.W.3d Employee testified that neither Dr. Smith (Tenn.2007). 122, 126 the trial When nor Harrison billed him for their medi- judge opportunity had to observe cal that services. maintained demeanor and to hear in-court witness’ stopped seeing Dr. Harrison at the di- testimony, considerable deference must be Employer. Manag- rection of his General any credibility afforded or factual determi Gilbert, er Frederick transferred to Tryon Corp., 254 nations. v. Saturn twenty-one the Oneida location some (Tenn.2008). 321, reviewing A S.W.3d 327 report injury months after the however, may, court draw its own conclu sixteen months after the last credibility about the to be weight sions file saw reviewed the expert testimony that is given to medical provid- found that the had been presented by deposition. v. First Crew medical treatment Dr. Harrison. ed Group, Source Furniture 259 S.W.3d no in the file as to Gilbert found indication (Tenn.2008). A trial court’s conclu or 665 Employer its insurance upon the sions of law are de novo paid any Employee’s carrier reviewed had presumption record no of correctness. expenses, medical but stated that he would Co., 120 Employer paid Gaylord Perrin v. Entm’t S.W.3d know whether Sonoma, (Tenn.2003); Inc., Ridings Ralph M. v. Oman Williams (Tenn.1991) (citations (Tenn. Co., Parsons 914 S.W.2d omitted). 1996). obvious, “Except in the most cases,”
simple and routine a claimant must by expert establish Analysis III. relationship causal between the claimed injury employment activity. and the Id. A. Causation That relationship must be established Employer contends that preponderance the expert by finding trial court erred Em testimony, supplemented by lay as evi- ployee compensable injury, sustained a be “Although dence. causation in a workers’ cause the failed to prove upon ease cannot be based the condition in his wrist was causal speculative conjectural or proof, absolute ly related to his work activities or that the certainty is not required because medical underlying process osteoarthritis disease proof rarely can be certain....” Clark permanently aggravated advanced or Co., Nashville Mach. Elevator 129 S.W.3d Employer specifically his work. The (Tenn.2004); see also Glisson v. contends that the activities un Int’l, IncJCampbell Ray, Mohon work, related to carpentry such as (Tenn.2006). 348, 354 All reason- horseshoes, throwing could not have been able doubts to the causation an potential excluded as sources of his condi and whether the arose out of the tion. The argues also employment should be resolved favor there was an absence of any specific injury employee. Phillips v. A&H Constr. and that Dr. Harrison’s testimony preclud Co., (Tenn.2004). 145,150 134 S.W.3d ed compensability because quali arthritis Further, an employer takes *6 fies as an aging phenomena of unknown employee respon “as is” and assumes the causation. sibility any injury work-related which might healthy per not affect an otherwise An injury must both out “arise son, aggravates preexisting but a which of’ and occur “in the course of’ employ Inc., Eagle Mfg., Hill v. Bend ment in qualify order to as a compensable (Tenn.1997). 483, S.W.2d In conse claim: quence, employer disability an is “liable for phrase “in the course of’ refers to resulting injuries from sustained an time, place, circumstances, and and employee out of in arising and the course “arising of’ origin. out refers to cause or of employment though aggra even it injury by accident to an employee “[A]n previous vates a resulting condition with is in the employment course of if it disability greater far than otherwise would occurred he performing while Smith, have been the case.” Baxter v. duty do; employed to and it is an (1962). 936, Tenn. 364 S.W.2d 942-43 injury arising employment out of if recognizes in this state law likewise caused a hazard incident to such may compensable that a worker sustain a employment.” Generally, gradual injury as the result of continual arises out of and is in the course and exposure employment. to the conditions of scope employment of if it has rational Express, Burney, See Motor Inc. v. Cent. connection to the and work occurs while 214 Tenn. 377 S.W.2d 948-50 (1964). in engaged the duties of jurisdictions, some other Unlike employment. requirement there is no in this state that traceable etiology degen- be to a definite mo- ute his work to the of
ment in
in
triggering
arthritis,”
time or
event
order
explaining
erative
that the cau-
at
compensable.
to be
Id.
948.
of
sation
arthritis is unknown.
medical testi-
conflicting
Kennedy’s
history
When there is
medical
of the
mony,
judge
choose
must
which
indicated that a deep pain devel-
Orman,
In
provided
view accredit.
oped
right
we
as a culmination
wrist
of
consideration,
including
several factors for
work activities
qualifications
experts,
“the
of
the cir- After
finding “moderate dorsal
radial
examination,
cumstances of their
the infor-
swelling
right
in the
readily
wrist with
them,
prominence
mation
palpable
proximal
available
and
evalua-
end
importance
scaphoid,”
tion of the
upon
that information
Dr. Kennedy, based
by other
experts.”
degree
at 676. a
certainty,
reasonable
made a
diagnosis
“[sjcapholunate disso-
proof
The medical
in this case was
ciation with radiolunate osteoarthritis of
by deposition,
weight
taken
so the
opined
He
that the Em-
wrist.”
credibility must be
from the con
assessed
job
ployee’s
responsibilities
on October
tents of
transcripts
admitted
trial.
condition,
were “the cause”
“to
may
In that
our
regard, we
make
own
the extent
aggravated
assessment of
evidence to determine
pre-existing separation
advanced the
the preponderance of the evidence
where
scapholunate
bone
the osteoarthritis
Crew,
665; Wilhelm,
lies.
259 S.W.3d at
it from a
condition
aroused
dormant
at 127. Dr.
causing any symptoms
into a continu-
treated the
three times over a
ously painful
disabling
condition.”
month period,
two
testified that his medi
proof
addition to the
*7
later,
from Dr.
days
Smith a
which
few
ployee’s wrist condition and diminished
physical therapy.
included x-rays and
He
motion,
diagnosis,
his
to a reasonable
and
injections
testified
he had
that
received
degree
certainty,
of
that
was
the
Harrison,
from
tried to
work within
“experiencing arthritis in
Employee was
restrictions,
splint,
a
recommended
wore
right
...
moderate
[that]
wrist
was
to
endured
pain,
the
continued work
there
severe.” Because
was no other med
one
hand and no lost time. The trial
Harrison,
ical
provided
information
to Dr.
judge
the Employee’s
accredited
testimo-
specific injury
because there was no
ny.
noted, he
that the
believed
degenerative
condition
the
crucial
Expert
testimony
“a
is
wrist,
etiology
ruling,
and the
uncertain.”
It
the
this
In
is
outcome of
case.
the
opinion
the
of the
Dr. Kennedy’s
was
that
cause
de
trial court relied on
assess-
generative condition could not
be identified ment that the
caused the
work
history
dissociation,
on
painful
“aggravated
because no other medical
the
the work
not
pre-existing separation
existed.
could
“attrib-
the
advanced
arthritis,”
preexisting
the
aggravated
and the
and cumula-
and advanced
of the bone
of his
“tipped
trauma
the scale” as to the
osteoarthritic condition
both
tive
painful instability
of the
the
causation
thumbs
caused
describing
aging phe-
joints,
ultimately
arthritis as an
those
necessitat-
while
which
nomena,
less
that
surgery.
certain. While he did
the
court found
ed
Employee’s job
Trosper’s
the
arthritis was wors-
pre-existing
admit
activities
underlying
ened and
work and award-
[his
arthritis]
could “exacerbate
advanced
at 603.
way
bringing
symptomatolo-
in the
ed
benefits. 273 S.W.3d
disability
they
ruling
gy,”
say
appeal,
he could
wors- On
determined that our
we
Corp.,
the actual
of the
pathology
ened
wrist.
in Smith v. Smith’s Transfer
(Tenn.1987),
provided
of its
support
position,
In
employee
proper
where an
framework
Cunningham, Goodyear
Tire &
cites
that a
grounds
seeks
Co.,
(Tenn.1991),
Rubber
aggravated a
injury
pre-existing
work
has
recovery
though
was denied even
wherein
to develop
condition.
In an effort
some
for Goodyear aggravated
[the
“work
cases,
clarity
adopted
in these difficult
we
employee’s] preexisting
condition mak-
following
Trosper:
rule
ing
pain
worse
it did not
but
otherwise
employee
does not
We reiterate that
severity
or
injure
advance the
his os-
compensable injury
suffer a
where
Id.
teoarthritis.”
at 891. We ruled that
activity aggravates
pre-exist-
work
aggravation
pre-existing
a
condition
ing
merely by increasing the
condition
merely
of pain
which
increased the level
However, if the
ad-
pain.
injury
work
compensable injury.
did not constitute a
severity of
pre-existing
vances the
Id. at 890-91.
condition,
if,
pre-
a
result of the
Trosper
Armstrong
In
Wood Prod-
condition,
existing
suffers
ucts,
(Tenn.2008),
he in both of his hands and Our examination physician. Trosper referred to a case leads us to the conclusion con- for Armstrong proof tinued to work his burden of several carried years point establishing and was at one to a advanced moved condition. position moving stacking severity preexisting veneer. from the job, testimony to a There credible 2000 or moved forty-five-to- the onset of his initial repeatedly lifting Employee that involved *8 by symptoms triggered an accumula- seventy-pound wire-handled buckets of were manifested pouring chemicals to tion of actions that repetitive shoulder level 2004, Trosper Trosper, 2004. Like hopper. them into a itself October was pre-existing, progres- carpometacarpal diagnosed bilateral Drs. Harrison and He fusions in his sive arthritic condition. osteoarthritis. had two Kennedy, well-qualified, were and retired after the second sur- who both hands underlying ar- testimony agreed Employee’s There was medical that that gery. stacking both lumber and thritic was caused Trosper’s work condition agreed that employment. They also lifting permanently buckets chemicals progressive. condition was According that, prior on October 2004. On that the Employee, the work caused his condi- basis, contends that the suit tion symptomatic. to be Kennedy one-year barred statute of limita- made the following observation: Conversely, tions. the Employee argues
I concluded that the work that Mr. that the period limitations was tolled until Cloyd 28, 2004, described on October 10, 2005, March which was the date of his cause of the painful seapholu- last authorized treatment Dr. Harrison. nate dissociation and in osteoarthritis agreed The trial court with the Employee wrist, right that is to the extent that and concluded that because the limitations aggravated work pre- advanced the period began date, on that the Employee’s existing separation of scapholunate claim not precluded. bone and the osteoarthritis and aroused legislature The amended the statute of it from a dormant condition not causing limitations for compensation any symptoms into a continuously pain- claims in Tennessee ful and Because the disabling condition. Employee’s injury place work took prior to Although an increase in the pain level of 1, 2005, January statutory the older re- enough alone is not compensable, to be gime applies. Acts., Tenn. Pub. ch. there was evidence that the incident on 962, §§ 15 & 51. For injuries occurring 28, 2004, actually triggered the prior 1, 2005, to January pro- “[a]ctions pain onset of swelling in the hand. ceedings by an injured employee to deter- diagnosed arthritis, mine or compensation” stated recover are that it was a limited degenerative pro- (1) gressive to those filed opined year condition and “one after the occur- injury, except work—in absence of a rence specific provided not be the cause of his ar- [Tennessee Code Annotated section] 50-6- —would thritis. The swelling apparent, 50-6-224(a)(l) § 203.” Ann. Tenn.Code range of motion reduced. He further (1999). provided Section 50-6-203 as fol- found the to be a “truthful” lows: patient. Dr. Kennedy identified Em- to compensation under the ployee’s aggravation work as an or ad- Compensation Workers’ Law shall be vancement of the pre-existing condition. (1) barred, unless, forever within one opined trauma” “cumulative year after the resulting inju- accident had “reached its doing climax in its dam- occurred, ry or death required the notice age” on October Em- when the by § given 50-6-202 is employer and a ployee’s wrist “knotted up.” Because the claim compensation under the provi- Employee has shown that he suffered a sions this is filed chapter with the severity advanced the having jurisdiction tribunal to hear and condition, his preexisting arthritic we hold matter; determine the provided, that if that the trial court did not err in compen- one-year period voluntary within the sating him for that payments compensation paid are B. Statute of Limitations injured person injured per- or the dependents, son’s an action to recover filed this action to any unpaid portion of compensation,
recover workers’ benefits on payable chapter, may under this 2006. The incident at work that be in- *9 (1) triggered the of symp- year onset the arthritis’ stituted within one the from tomology occurred some sixteen latter months of the date the last authorized of
647 employer limitations, the time treatment or shall of the bears the ute claimant cease such making payments.... proof burden of to show that his claim falls permit exception within would 50-6-203(a) (1999) (em- § Tenn.Code Ann. forward). go action to added). phasis Our task is to determine preponderates may Circumstantial evidence be against the court’s conclusion that the preclude used to defendant’s reliance “date of the last authorized treatment” upon the statute of limitations a work provision applied, thus the statute tolling compensation County case. Bd. ers’ Giles of 10, limitations until Hickman, 944, Educ. v. 547 946 S.W.2d of (Tenn.1977). Here, there was circumstan The Tennessee Rules Civil Employer compen tial evidence that actions; Procedure to all apply civil howev one-year the Employee sated within the er, the are subject any Rules more period injury, tolling after the thus specific provisions in our Workers’ Com period prescribed limitations in Tennessee pensation Martin v. Corp., Law. Lear 90 section Code Annotated 50-6-203 (Tenn.2002). 626, S.W.3d 629-30 Because date of the last authorized medical service. Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- proof, To meet his burden 203 language contains no addressing the need not bills show that were burden as to the applicability of statute actually paid by Employer. Blocker v. limitations, cases under decided Reg’l at Memphis, Med. Ctr. 722 S.W.2d Rules are instructive. The statute of limi (Tenn.1987) (“[T]he 660, 662-63 expenses defense, tations is an affirmative Tenn. R. actually of medical care treatment ren 8.03; therefore, P. Civ. the burden of proof designated physician dered to whom upon rests Ingram the defendant. v. has been referred Earthman, (Tenn. 611, 993 S.W.2d 632-33 employer paid need not be in fact to con Ct.App.1998); v. Jones County, Hamilton voluntary compensation stitute within the 240, 56 Tenn.App. 775, 405 S.W.2d 779 50-6-203.”); § meaning of T.C.A. Crowder (1965); Mars, Inc., see also Blankenship v. Mills, 930, Klopman v. 627 932 S.W.2d No. 03S01-9709-CH-00105, 1999 WL (Tenn.1982). have held that previously We 77257, (Tenn.Workers at *3 Comp.Panel “voluntary payments compensation” 1999) 18, Feb. (citing v. A.C. Lunsford by the employer or his insurer which Co., Lawrence 293, Leather 189 Tenn. 225 will toll running of the statute of (1949)) (“[T]he 66, S.W.2d 69 employer has may limitations ... consist of the fur proof burden of to establish facts nishing through phy of medical services which the employer claims as a bar to the employed by sicians or others the em compensation claim, such [workers’] as the ..., ployer or insurer such limitations.”). expiration of the statute of cases, the begin statute will not to run When, however, a defendant establishes an until such services terminat are defense, affirmative the burden shifts to ed, i.e., the date the last services thus plaintiff recognized to demonstrate a furnished, pay rather than the date of Earthman, exception. 633; S.W.2d ment for such services. Co., Mining Mfg. Jones Coal Creek & 179, (1915); 751, 133 Tenn. 180 S.W. Notion Coffin, Co. v. 752- (Tenn.1977) also v. Claridy, see Bradshaw 213 Tenn. (citing Fields v. Lowe Fur- (1964) (holding niture 220 Tenn. Corp., 415 S.W.2d that where a claim (1967)); see also Bowen Frito- prima Inc., one-year M2002-02552-WC-R3-CV, facie Lay, barred stat No. *10 (Tenn.Workers 918244, *5-6 in the 2004 WL at ties an effort to minimize the risk of 2004). 30, Comp.Panel Apr. Employee sustaining damage further Moreover, his the estab wrist. evidence Employee The the Employer referred Employee lishes that the continued to have Smith, Dr. a referral Dr. who made range mo pain, swelling, and a limited of Harrison, in of specialist the field ortho- his disability tion His limited wrist. pedic who testi- surgery. Employee, The workplace. Al activities outside of the up that the set the first Employer fied though the returned to work for Dr. appointment with saw former Employer position, the voca times, receiving treatment Harrison three disability tional not is “measured prescribed in the form of anti-inflammato- the can return to [his] injection. ry medications and steroid job, but has suffered former whether [he] testified that after third The the ability a living.” a decrease in to earn [his] 2005, Employer visit Am., Inc., Lang Nissan N. 170 S.W.3d the terminated treatment. (Tenn.2005) (quoting Walker any a bill for of the treat- never received (Tenn. 204, 208 Carp., Saturn 986 S.W.2d Dr. Smith or ment received from either 1998)). not, therefore, The evidence does general Although new Dr. Harrison. the against disability preponderate bene manager plant asserted that finding by the trial court. fits no Employee’s file included indication that any Employer had of the medical paid IV. Conclusion bills, knowledge no he had actual the trial court is af- judgment of explained circumstances. also that the Employer, firmed. are taxed to the Costs ordinarily carrier insurance would have Flooring surety, and its Company, Hartco this, care of that. From all of we taken necessary. if may execution issue pre- does not conclude that ponderate against the trial court’s conclu- KOCH, JR., J., WILLIAM C. filed a that suit not sion barred opinion. concurring statute of limitations.2 KOCH, JR., J., C.
WILLIAM Excessive Award C. concurring.
Finally, claims that I conclusion concur with the Court’s an impair that the trial court’s award of Cloyd’s scapholunate Mr. dissociation statutory cap of 24% times the rating ment compensable radiolunate osteoarthritis is a 1.5, 36%, is possible, the maximum Cloyd Mr. held excessive unwarranted. We have that his proving burden work- con- disabling related caused his activities compensable required it advanced the ex- present because dition. This him to ar severity Employee’s pre-existing v. Mo- pert evidence causation. Glisson Int’l, Kennedy, Ray, the last IncJCampbell thritic condition. tion (Tenn.2006) wrist, except (holding to examine the doctor cases, employees for the most placed restrictions on work activi obvious several Kennedy February find his visit to Dr. 2. Because we evidence did Co., Mercury against finding v. St. Ins. court’s See Hibner Paul preponderate ("It (Tenn. 1981) set now of the last authorized treatment that date limitations, disability employee's one-year we tled that the date the statute of tolled the dili person itself to a of reasonable Employee's alternative manifests need not reach the accident, triggers timely gence, argument not the date of that the lawsuit was because limitations.”) disability was not clear until statute the extent of *11 present expert must medical
establish that their was caused activities).
their work-related This evi- Dr. provided by
dence William Kenne-
dy. testimony
Dr. case Kennedy’s this shortcomings the same
does not contain Compensation the Special Workers’
Appeals testimony Panel I noted Products, Trosper Armstrong Wood (Tenn.2008) (Koch, J. S.W.Sd case, Kennedy’s
dissenting). In this x-
opinion is based on examination of made
rays contempo- medical records Cloyd’s
raneously Mr. October 2004 with case, Kennedy
injury. Trosper In the x-rays
had not or rec- reviewed
ords contemporaneously made Mr. Likewise, Trosper’s facts also, 159 545. See Cloyd this case that Mr. continu- show ously symptomatic from the of his time
injury in unlike Mr. Trosper, complaint had worked without approximately attention for six
years his alleged inju- the date of between
ry and sought the date he medical assis-
tance. HARBER
Judith Mae as Trustee
of Trust a for the Estate of Erwin, et al.
Edwin AMERICA, N.A.,
BANK OF et al. Tennessee, Appeals
Court of
at Jackson. 10, 2007 Session.
Oct.
Application Appeal for Permission to by Supreme
Denied Court 6,2008.
Oct. notes cal indicated that the causation, must also consider the testi- we brought any specific “denied incident that mony of Employee, who testified that his symptoms,” and “recalled no remote experienced he had in his pain never wrist trauma major to the He wrist.” found it up” when “went out” and as he “knotted swelling x-rays, and ordered “re performing his work duties October degenerative changes obvious vealed immediately of 2004. notified su- [right] joint.” Dr. Harri radioschaphoid pervisor and attention received medical “bogginess” son noted some of the Em