 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kelly v. Lay6/16/2005
Mr. Kelly was evaluated by Dr. Joseph C. Boals, III. Dr. Boals diagnosed Mr. Kelly with having "degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine, with degenerative disc disease and chronic lumbar strain, which aggravated the arthritis and degenerative disc disease." Dr. Boals opined that Mr. Kelly's injury was caused by his December 1, 2000 injury at Frito Lay, that it was permanent, and that he had sustained an 8% anatomical impairment to the body as a whole.
The court accepted the opinions of Dr. Knight and Dr. Sorensen, the two treating physicians, over the opinion of Dr. Boals. The court found that there was no aggravation of Mr. Kelly's back condition and that Mr. Kelly sustained no anatomical impairment and no permanent disability from his injury of December 1, 2000.
Standard of Review
Review of findings of fact by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court and is accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence shows otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 50-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 550 (Tenn. 1995). Appellate courts "are not bound by the trial court's factual findings, but rather examine those findings independently to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies." Ivey v. Trans Global Gas & Oil, 3 S.W.3d 441, 446 (Tenn. 1999). Conclusions of law are subject to de novo review on appeal without any presumption of correctness." Nutt v. Champion Intern. Corp., 980 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Tenn. 1998).
Analysis
Mr. Kelly raises three issues on appeal:
1. What is Mr. Kelly's proper anatomic impairment as a result of his work-related injury ?
2. To what extent is Mr. Kelly vocationally impaired due to his work-related injury ?
3. Is Mr. Kelly entitled to future medical benefits as a result of his work injury ?
Anatomic Impairment
In his ruling, the trial court made the following statements concerning Mr. Kelly: "Rev. Kelly, in this Court's opinion, is an honest man who is telling [this] Court everything truthfully. Further, I don't doubt that Rev. Kelly is hurting. . . ." The trial court further stated, "This case does not rest, however, upon his integrity at all. It's really a case about medical examination and proof."
Mr. Kelly argues that if the trial court found that he was truthful, it is possible to compare his truthful statements with Table 15-3 of the AMA Guidelines, 5th Edition, and find that Mr. Kelly has sustained an anatomical impairment without the necessity of accepting the expert opinion of one doctor over the opinion of another.
The statements of Mr. Kelly, whom the trial court found to be truthful, will be discussed with the medical testimony. Mr. Kelly testified that he had sustained a back injury and had experienced back pain prior to December 1, 2000, but that he was able to fulfill his job responsibilities at Frito Lay. After the December 1, 2000 injury, he suffered not only from back pain, but from pain radiating down his leg, which he had not previously experienced, and he was unable to perform his job responsibilities at Frito Lay.
Dr. Knight saw Mr. Kelly on 2 occasions, December 15 and December 22, 2000. X-rays showed "mild diffuse degenerative changes of [Mr. Kelly's] lumbosacral spine." Dr. Knight made the diagnosis of lumbar strain, which normally resolves itself in approximately one to two weeks. Dr. Knight prescribed a Medrol dose pack with pain medication, physical therapy, and light duty. Mr. Kelly returned on December 22 and reported improvement. On that same day, Dr. Knight released Mr. Kelly to return to work wi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|