 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Becton v. Grisham Corp.11/14/2000
Mailed August 2, 2000;
This is an appeal by James E. Becton of a decision by the trial court that Becton did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that he had sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the scope of his employment with Grisham Corporation. He presents three (3) issues for review: 1) whether the Chancellor erred in excluding from consideration the testimony of the claimant's treating physician.; 2) whether the opinion of the treating physician is entitled to greater weight than that of a consultant; and 3) whether the evidence of vocational disability preponderates in favor of an award of permanent partial disability and medical payments in this case.
Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 50-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed
George R. Ellis, Sp . J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Janice M. Holder, J., and F. Lloyd Tatum, Sp. J., joined.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This workers' compensation appeal was referred to the special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated 50-6-225(e)(3) (1999) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
This case involves a claim for workers' compensation arising out of an incident on January 30, 1995. The trial court heard the evidence on October 8, 1998. On October 26, 1998 the Chancellor ruled that the plaintiff had failed to show causation. He further ruled that the testimony of the treating physician was unreliable and should be discounted. The plaintiff appealed and raised the following issues for our review: (1) whether the chancellor erred in completely excluding testimony of the claimant's treating physician from consideration; (2) whether the opinion of a treating physician, who performed surgery and observed the extent of anatomical injury fully, is entitled to greater weight than that of a consultant who saw the claimant once, and had no opportunity to directly observe the surgical procedure; (3) whether the evidence of vocational disability preponderates in favor of an award of permanent partial disability and medical payments in this case. After careful review, we find that we must affirm the trial court's judgment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review of factual issues in workers' compensation cases is de novo upon the record of the trial court with a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. 50-6-225(e)(2) (1999); Henson v. City of Lawrenceburg, 851 S.W.2d 809, 812 (Tenn. 1993). Under this standard, we are required to conduct an in-depth examination of the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies. See Thomas v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 812 S.W.2d 278, 282 (Tenn. 1991) (quoting Humphrey v. David Witherspoon, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 314 (Tenn. 1987); King v. Jones Truck Lines, 814 S.W.2d 23, 25 (Tenn. 1991). In making such a determination, this Court must give considerable deference to the trial judge's findings regarding the weight and credibility of any testimony received. Townsend v. State, 826 S.W.2d 434, 437 (Tenn. 1992); Thomas, 812 S.W.2d at 283. However, the determination of factual issues in the present case involves testimony derived solely from depositions, so all impressions regarding weight and credibility must be drawn from the contents of the documents, rather than an evaluation of live witnesses. Thomas, 812 S.W.2d at 283.
Therefore, this court may draw its own evaluation of live witnesses. Thomas, 812 S.W.2d at 283. This court may draw its own conclusions abo
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|