 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Day v. Travelers Insurance Company6/2/2000
t her home prior to the injury complained of herein, and an automobile accident which presented further low back and neck problems more than a year before the injury complained of herein, and given a further history of chronic intermittent back and leg pain and degenerative changes in her low back prior to the injuries complained of herein, the changes in the Appellant's back could have occurred without the occurrence of any new accident or event.
The Trial Judge read the depositions of the doctors, but heard the testimony of the Appellant in person. On appeal, considerable deference is accorded the determinations made by the Trial Court with respect to the credibility of witnesses and weight given to their testimony where those witnesses testify in person before the Court. E.g., Seals v. England/Corsair Upholstery Manufacturing Company, Inc., 984 S.W.2d 912, 915 (Tenn. 1999); Collins v. Howmet Corp., 970 S.W.2d 941, 943 (Tenn. 1998); Jones v. Sterling Last Corp., 962 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Tenn. 1998). Where the issues involve medical testimony all of which is presented by deposition, however, the Court on appeal may draw its own conclusions with regard to the weight and credibility of those witnesses, for the appellate courts rest in the same posture as the trial judge. Krick v. City of Lawrenceburg, 945 S.W.2d 709, 712 (Tenn. 1997).
In considering the evidence, we believe that the credibility of the Appellant is paramount in this cause. She is the only one who presented evidence of her initial injury . She is the only one who presented her history to the doctors. Although the doctors who testified found that there were objective signs of an injury, both doctors acknowledged that the objective signs they found could in fact have been the result of natural or other causes. Although both medical professionals testified that there was a causal connection between the Appellant's employment and the injuries about which they testified, both acknowledged that the history provided by the Appellant was a necessary part of their opinions. One of the doctors, when pressed as to the issue, stated that he felt compelled to give the benefit of any doubt to his patient, but felt that the determination as to whether the Appellant was credible was a decision which the Court should make, and which he was not required to make. The Trial Judge made that determination, finding that the Appellant was not credible, and discredited all of her testimony. That determination having been made by the Trial Court, and proof being found in the record to support such a conclusion, we must defer to the judgment of the Trial Judge who watched the witness as she testified and likewise find that the testimony of the Appellant should be discounted.
This case is in sharp contrast to Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 803 S.W.2d 672 (Tenn.1991). In Orman, the Trial Court found the Plaintiff's testimony not to be credible, but set forth no reasons for such a finding, and the record did not otherwise demonstrate a basis for this finding. Id. at 677. By contrast, in the present case, the Trial Judge set forth in his findings the basis for his finding that the Appellant was not credible, and we find that the record supports his finding.
Thus, we find that the appeal should be dismissed at the costs of the Appellant, and we affirm the decision of the Trial Court, and remand the case to the Trial Court for the collection of costs and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Robert E. Corlew, III, Special Judge
CONCUR: William M. Barker, Justice Robert Vann Owens, Special Judge
JUDGMENT
This case is before the Court upon the entire record, including the ord
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.
|
|