overturning award when permanent injury was “just a possibility”
How later courts described this case
- overturning award when permanent injury was “just a possibility”
- “The determination of the issue of permanency of all but the most obvious injuries, such as a loss of a member, is peculiarly within the realm of scientific knowledge.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR
FONES, Justice.
In an earnest and respectful petition to rehear Plaintiff, Lane, contends that we overlooked his testimony and that of his wife to the effect that he still had pain in his foot at the time of the trial; that continued pain, five months after “all transient tendonitis” ceased, points to a “permanent problem” with his heel; that this lay testimony, plus the medical testimony of a forty (40%) percent probability of permanency, is sufficient to support the trial judge’s award.
Plaintiff asserts that P & L Const. Co., Inc. v. Lankford, supra, squarely authorizes such consideration of lay testimony.
The issue under examination in Lankford was whether a causal connection existed between the compensable accident and the resulting injury. The issue here is whether plaintiff’s compensable injury is permanent in duration. For the most part, the equivocal language used by medical experts has appeared in cases involving the issue of causal connection rather than permanency, and that is the reason those cases were included in the opinion. A careful reading of the opinion will reflect that we made the point that lay testimony is often relevant upon the issue of causal connection but that the issue of permanency (except for the most obvious injuries such as loss of a mem *351 ber) must be established by expert medical testimony, being exclusively within the realm of medical science.
For additional clarity, perhaps, it is well to restate the rule that once permanency of an injury is established by expert medical testimony, lay testimony becomes relevant on the issue of the extent of the compensable disability award. That is true because the extent of disability includes a consideration of factors not exclusively within the realm of medical science, together with the anatomical disability that is the province of experts. See Employers Ins. Co. of Ala. v. Heath, 536 S.W.2d 341 (Tenn.1976). The petition to rehear is denied.
HENRY, C. J., and COOPER, BROCK and HARBISON, JJ., concur.