Court Opinion

ID: 4560265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-08-26 21:01:57.098918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:15:14.441885
License: Public Domain

TENNESSEE  BUREAU  OF WORKERS’  COMPENSATION                     
                      WORKERS’  COMPENSATION    APPEALS BOARD                       
                                                                                    
          Terrance Garcia Glenn           )  Docket No. 2017-06-0584                
                                          )                                         
                                                                                    
          v.                              )  State File No. 48175-2016              
                                          )                                         
          Sears Outlet Store, LLC, et al. )                                         
                                          )                                         
                                          )                                         
          Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )                                       
                                                                                    
          Compensation Claims             )                                         
          Kenneth M. Switzer, Chief Judge )                                         
                                                                                    
                       Affirmed and Remanded - Filed February 28, 2019              
                                                                                    
          The employee, an appliance salesman, alleged suffering work-related injuries to his neck,
          back, and wrist when a refrigerator he was moving tipped and hit his head. The employer
                                                                                    
          initially denied the claim, but later authorized medical treatment before eventually
          discontinuing benefits, resulting in the employee filing a petition requesting medical care
          and temporary disability benefits. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court
          determined the employee presented sufficient evidence to establish he would likely
          prevail at trial and ordered the employer to provide medical and temporary disability
          benefits. The employer has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s decision and remand
          the case.                                                                 
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
          Judge David F. Hensley delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which Presiding
          Judge Marshall L. Davidson, III, and Judge Timothy W. Conner joined.      
                                                                                    
          Anthony M. Noel and Carolina V. Martin, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employer-
          appellant, Sears Outlet Store, LLC                                        
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
          Terrance Garcia Glenn, Cane Ridge, Tennessee, employee-appellee, pro-se   
                                                                                    
                            Factual and Procedural Background                       
                                                                                    
               Terrance Garcia Glenn (“Employee”) was working as an appliance salesman for
          Sears Outlet Store, LLC (“Employer”) on May 4, 2016, when he alleged suffering
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                          1                                         
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
          injuries when a refrigerator he was moving tipped over and hit his head.1 Employee
          contends that approximately two hours after selling the refrigerator, it had not been
          loaded onto the customer’s truck. Because the customer had threatened to cancel the
          order if the refrigerator was not promptly loaded, Employee attempted to move it to the
          loading area. He asserts that, in the process, the wheels on the refrigerator came into
                                                                                    
          contact with debris on the floor and the refrigerator tipped backwards, striking him on his
          head and causing him to fall to the floor, allegedly causing his injuries. It is unclear from
          the record whether the refrigerator fell to the floor or merely tilted to the point it made
          contact with Employee’s head.                                             
                                                                                    
               In a written statement submitted with Employee’s request for an expedited
          hearing, Employee states that he “cracked his wrist because [he] tried to[] catch a big
                                                                                    
          Subzero refrigerator . . . that pulverized [his] . . . body.” At the expedited hearing,
          Employee testified he grabbed the handles of the refrigerator “to sprint off with it” and
          “bam,” the refrigerator “hit[] on top of my head. I go back and fall back to the floor,”
          after which Employee testified he “pushed it on over to the dock.”        
                                                                                    
               Employee testified he reported the injury to the assistant store manager, Angie
          Harris, and a co-worker. According to Employee, he told Ms. Harris “I need to fill out an
                                                                                    
          injury report. Something [sic] wrong with my neck and stuff. I’m hurt really, really
          bad.” He acknowledged he never reported the injury in writing. Ms. Harris testified that
          she was not present at the time of the alleged incident and that Employee never reported a
          work-related injury to her. When asked whether Employee sent her anything around the
          date of the alleged incident, she stated “in June he sent – I think it was June 15th, he sent
          a text message saying that he hurt hisself [sic] looking at the camera in the building. I
                                                                                    
          don’t know. Something like that.” On cross-examination, Employee asked Ms. Harris
          whether he sent her a document on May 5, 2016, telling her that he “had broken [his]
          neck from that refrigerator.” She testified she “found a document,” “[j]ust like something
          from, like, a sprain or something, showing a strain or something. But it didn’t say where
          it come [sic] from.”                                                      
                                                                                    
               Employee testified he woke up on May 5, 2016, experiencing severe neck pain
                                                                                    
          and went to an emergency room for treatment.2 While it is unclear from the record when
          Employer provided Employee a panel of physicians, Employer ultimately did so, and
          Employee chose Dr. James Fish, with whom he had already been treating, as his
          authorized physician. The first office note from Dr. Fish in the record is for a March 15,
          2017 visit, more than ten months after the alleged incident and prior to Employee’s
          selection of Dr. Fish from the panel. Dr. Fish’s report of the March 2017 visit indicated
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
          1 Employee initially identified the incident as occurring on May 2, 2016. After sales records indicated he
          did not sell any refrigerators on May 2, but that he did sell a refrigerator on May 4, he alleged a May 4,
          2016 date of injury.                                                      
          2 The record on appeal does not include records of a May 5, 2016 visit to an emergency department.
                                                                                    
                                          2                                         
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
          Employee was returning for a scheduled follow-up for low back pain that had been
          present for one year and was progressive. It noted “parasthesias in the bilateral legs” that
          did not follow specific dermatomal patterns and stated that Employee “also had an
          [anterior cervical discectomy and fusion] C4-C6 previously and has improved
          significantly.” According to the report, Employee reported a variety of symptoms that
                                                                                    
          had begun ten months earlier, including difficulty walking and right leg weakness. Dr.
          Fish ordered a lumbar MRI and referred Employee for a lumbar epidural steroid
          injection.                                                                
                                                                                    
               Approximately two weeks later, Employee filed a petition for medical and
          temporary disability benefits, followed by a request for an expedited hearing. In an order
          addressing a November 20, 2017 status conference, the trial court noted that Employee
                                                                                    
          had selected Dr. Fish as his treating physician, and that Employee’s first visit since
          selecting Dr. Fish “will take place on November 20.” The order stated that “Dr. Fish
          must evaluate and treat [Employee] before the claim can move forward.”    
                                                                                    
               The report of Employee’s November 20, 2017 visit with Dr. Fish stated that
          Employee had “a myriad of complaints,” including neck pain, mid-back pain, and low
          back pain “going into the bilateral lower extremities.” The report again noted the earlier
                                                                                    
          cervical fusion “in October of 2016,” indicating Employee “has done well.” The report
          indicated that the lumbar MRI Dr. Fish previously ordered revealed degenerative disc
          disease. Dr. Fish made a referral for pain management for evaluation and treatment of
          Employee’s cervical and lumbar spine. However, Employer did not provide Employee a
          panel of pain management physicians or arrange for Employee to be evaluated by a pain
          management physician.                                                     
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
               In January 2018, Dr. Fish responded to a letter from Employer’s workers’
          compensation administrator, which requested the doctor answer questions concerning
          Employee’s diagnosis and prognosis. The letter also asked whether Employee’s
          condition was causally related to his employment. It is unclear which questions some of
          the handwritten responses were intended to address. Following a question concerning
          Employee’s diagnosis, Dr. Fish wrote “coccydynia and lumbar hnp,” noting that the
                                                                                    
          clinical finding supporting the diagnoses was “MRI [lumbar] spine.” Beside a series of
          questions concerning causation, Dr. Fish wrote “TBD [to be determined]” and noted that
          Employee had a herniated disc at L5-S1. The letter questioned whether further care was
          necessary “with regards to any part of the current condition that is related to his
          employment,” and further requested, “[i]f so, please provide your specific
          recommendations.” Beside these questions Dr. Fish wrote “coccygeal injection [and]
          lumbar ESI [epidural steroid injection],” which was followed by an arrow pointing to
                                                                                    
          language stating “if coccydynia will cease treatment” and “if hnp will continue
          [treatment].” Finally, the letter asked about Dr. Fish’s recommendations for ongoing
          work and activity restrictions “directly necessary for any part of his ongoing injury
          deemed work related.” Dr. Fish wrote “light duty at this time.”           
                                                                                    
                                          3                                         
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
               On April 20, 2018, apparently at Employee’s request, Dr. Fish sent a handwritten
          note to the trial court stating “[p]atient sustained work related injuries to his cervical and
          lumbar spine[.] He is still under my care for those issues.”              
                                                                                    
               Employee was next seen by Dr. Fish on August 8, 2018, and he complained of
                                                                                    
          continued neck pain and low back pain. The report of the August 8 visit included the
          following:                                                                
                                                                                    
               Patient has relayed to me throughout the course of our care for him that all
               of his neck and back issues stem from the work injury in May of 2016. He
               had [two] significant disc herniations with cervical radiculopathy which
               necessitated surgical intervention. It is very feasible that a refrigerator
                                                                                    
               falling on an individual directly on the head could result in disc herniations.
               Patient also has a disc herniation at L5-S1 [in] his lumbar spine which
               again could be due to a fall such as the one he describes. If there is no
               history of neck or back treatment prior [to] 2016 that [sic] I would have the
               opinion that the work related injury caused his cervical and lumbar issues.
                                                                                    
               . . . .                                                              
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
               He relays to me that on May 4, 2016 he was helping to move a commercial
               grade refrigerator when the dolly slipped and the refrigerator fell back on
               top of him hitting his head and neck, driving his body to the floor. He has
               since then had significant neck pain and low back pain. . . . [H]e denies a
               history of neck or back pain prior to the work related injury in 2016.
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
               The August 8, 2018 report also noted Dr. Fish’s referral of Employee to Dr. John
          Schneider for pain management. While the record includes correspondence indicating
          Employee was seen by Dr. Schneider, no reports of Employee’s treatment with Dr.
          Schneider or any other pain management specialist were considered by the trial judge.3
                                                                                    
               In its November 27, 2018 order, the trial court determined Employee presented
                                                                                    
          sufficient evidence to establish he would likely prevail at a hearing on the merits and
          ordered Employer to provide treatment with Dr. Schneider. The court also ordered
          Employer to file a wage statement so the court could calculate the correct compensation
          rate and issue an order for temporary disability benefits. Employer has appealed.
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
          3 Subsequent to the entry of the trial court’s expedited hearing order, Employee filed documents with the
          trial court that were included in the record on appeal. We remanded the case for the trial judge to resolve
          any dispute concerning the contents of the record, and the trial court subsequently entered an order stating
          the court did not consider the documents submitted by Employee subsequent to the entry of the court’s
          order awarding benefits. Accordingly, we will not consider those documents on appeal. See Hadzic v.
          Averitt Express, No. 2014-02-0064, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 14, at *13 n.4 (Tenn.
          Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. May 18, 2015).                                    
                                          4                                         
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                   Standard of Review                               
                                                                                    
               The standard we apply in reviewing a trial court’s decision presumes that the
          court’s factual findings are correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.
          See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(7) (2018). When the trial judge has had the
                                                                                    
          opportunity to observe a witness’s demeanor and to hear in-court testimony, we give
          considerable deference to factual findings made by the judge. Madden v. Holland Grp. of
          Tenn., Inc., 277 S.W.3d 896, 898 (Tenn. 2009). However, “[n]o similar deference need
          be afforded the trial court’s findings based upon documentary evidence.” Goodman v.
          Schwarz Paper Co., No. W2016-02594-SC-R3-WC, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 8, at *6 (Tenn.
          Workers’ Comp. Panel Jan. 18, 2018). Similarly, the interpretation and application of
          statutes and regulations are questions of law that are reviewed de novo with no
                                                                                    
          presumption of correctness afforded the trial court’s conclusions. See Mansell v.
          Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393, 399 (Tenn. 2013). We are
          also mindful of our obligation to construe the workers’ compensation statutes “fairly,
          impartially, and in accordance with basic principles of statutory construction” and in a
          way that does not favor either the employee or the employer. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-
          116 (2018).                                                               
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                       Analysis                                     
                                                                                    
               Employer contends the trial court erred in three respects: (1) in “deeming May 4,
          2016 the correct date of injury”; (2) in concluding that Employer had actual notice of the
          alleged injury; and (3) in determining Employee would likely prevail at trial in
          establishing causation.                                                   
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                     Date of Injury                                 
                                                                                    
               Employee’s petition for benefits identified May 2 as the date of injury in one
          location and May 4 in another. Employee testified the incident occurred on May 4. He
          was cross-examined extensively as to the date of the accident and the dates on documents
          that were either submitted to or issued by the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
                                                                                    
          (“Bureau”). Employee testified he did not complete the petition for benefits, but that
          personnel in the Bureau filled out the petition. The trial court noted that Employee’s
          petition indicated it was completed by Bureau personnel. Employer asserts that
          Employee “had numerous opportunities to correct the mistake [in the documents] and
          provide the correct date of injury,” and that only after documentary evidence established
          that Employee made no sales on May 2 did he “change[] his story during the Expedited
          Hearing and allege[] the actual date of injury was May 4, 2016.” The trial court
                                                                                    
          concluded, “based on [Employee’s] testimony, . . . the date of injury [was] May 4, 2016.”
                                                                                    
               When the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses, we give considerable
          deference to the court’s credibility and factual determinations. See Tryon v. Saturn
                                                                                    
                                          5                                         
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
          Corp., 254 S.W.3d 321, 327 (Tenn. 2008). Moreover, “[t]here shall be a presumption
          that the findings and conclusions of the workers’ compensation judge are correct, unless
          the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(7).
          Based on our review of the record, we cannot conclude the evidence preponderates
          against the trial court’s finding that the incident occurred on May 4, 2016. Accordingly,
                                                                                    
          we find no merit in Employer’s first issue.                               
                                                                                    
                                        Notice                                      
                                                                                    
               Employee acknowledged he never provided Employer written notice of his injury.
          However, he testified that immediately after the accident he told the assistant store
          manager, Angie Harris, he was hurt and “I need to fill out an injury report.” By contrast,
                                                                                    
          Ms. Harris testified Employee never reported an injury to her, and she disputed
          Employee’s assertion that she was present when the injury occurred. When asked
          whether Employee sent her “anything around the date of injury for this claim, early
          May,” she responded, “no,” but added that “in June he sent – I think it was June 15th, he
          sent a text saying that he hurt hisself [sic] looking at the cameras in his building,” or
          “[s]omething like that.” On cross-examination, Employee asked Ms. Harris whether she
          received a document he sent to her telling her that he “had broken [his] neck from that
                                                                                    
          refrigerator.” She said she found a document, stating “it did not say what that document
          was for. Just like something from, like, a sprain or something, showing a strain or
          something.”                                                               
                                                                                    
               The trial court found Employee’s testimony on the notice issue to be more
          credible, stating “[o]verall, he described the day’s event in greater detail.” The trial court
                                                                                    
          concluded that Employer “had actual notice of the accident immediately after it
          happened.”                                                                
                                                                                    
               Employer asserts that the June 15 text message Ms. Harris received from
          Employee was late and that, “[d]ue to this late notice, [Employer] was not afforded the
          opportunity to conduct an investigation while evidence, such as camera footage, was still
          available.” Stating it is important that Employer “offered no evidence regarding its use
                                                                                    
          of worksite cameras or of any prejudice it suffered as a result of the alleged delay,” the
          trial court concluded it need not consider whether Employer was prejudiced by the late
          notice because the court concluded Employer “had actual notice” of the injury.
                                                                                    
               Our review of the trial court’s assessment of in-court testimony is not without
          limits. “When it comes to live, in-court witnesses, appellate courts should afford trial
          courts considerable deference when reviewing issues that hinge on the witnesses’
                                                                                    
          credibility because trial courts are uniquely positioned to observe the demeanor and
          conduct of witnesses.” Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 692 (Tenn. 2014) (citation and
          internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record here does not disclose
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                          6                                         
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
          sufficient evidence from which we can conclude that the trial court’s assessment of the
          witnesses’ credibility was erroneous. Thus, we find no merit in Employer’s second issue.
                                                                                    
                                       Causation                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
               Employer’s final issue concerns whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude
          Employee will likely prevail at a hearing on the merits in establishing the compensability
          of his claim. Although the issue is close, we conclude the evidence does not
          preponderate against the trial court’s determination at this interlocutory stage of the case.
          The documentary evidence included Dr. Fish’s handwritten responses to the January
          2018 letter from Employer’s workers’ compensation administrator, which questioned
          Employee’s diagnosis, prognosis, work and activity restrictions, and causation. Although
                                                                                    
          it is unclear precisely which questions some of Dr. Fish’s responses were intended to
          address, the trial court interpreted Dr. Fish’s response to the question concerning whether
          Employee’s condition was causally related to his employment to mean it was “to be
          determined.” However, in a subsequent handwritten note signed by Dr. Fish and sent to
          the Bureau on April 20, 2018, Dr. Fish stated that Employee “sustained work related
          injuries to his cervical and lumbar spine.” The note also stated that Employee was “still
          under [Dr. Fish’s] care for those issues.”                                
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
               The report of Employee’s August 2018 visit with Dr. Fish included the doctor’s
          observation that Employee had relayed to him throughout the course of Dr. Fish’s
          treatment “that all of [Employee’s] neck and back issues stem from the work injury in
          May of 2016.” This report noted that Employee “had [two] significant disc herniations
          with cervical radiculopathy which necessitated surgical intervention.” Further, the report
                                                                                    
          stated “[i]t is very feasible that a refrigerator falling on an individual directly on the head
          could result in disc herniations,” adding that Employee “also has a disc herniation at L5-
          S1 . . . which again could be due to a fall such as the one he describes.” Finally, the
          report stated that “[i]f there is no history of neck or back treatment prior [to] 2016,” then
          Dr. Fish “would have the opinion that the work related injury caused his cervical and
          lumbar issues.”                                                           
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
               Employee denied a history of neck or back pain before the May 2016 work injury.
          However, on cross-examination, Employer questioned Employee concerning medical
          records that pre-dated the May 2016 incident in which Employee had reported cervical
          and low back symptoms. Contending that Dr. Fish’s causation opinion was dependent on
          Employee’s not having a history of neck or back treatment prior to the May 2016
          incident, Employer asserts that Employee’s acknowledgment of medical visits prior to the
          May 2016 accident in which he noted cervical and low back pain rendered Dr. Fish’s
                                                                                    
          opinion insufficient to support the trial court’s determination that Employee would likely
          prevail at trial in establishing causation.                               
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                          7                                         
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
               An injured worker has the burden of proof on every essential element of his or her
          claim. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6); see also Buchanan v. Carlex Glass Co.,
          No. 2015-01-0012, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 39, at *5 (Tenn. Workers’
          Comp. App. Bd. Sept. 29, 2015). However, an employee can meet this burden at an
          expedited hearing by presenting sufficient evidence from which the trial court can
                                                                                    
          determine that the injured employee would likely prevail at a hearing on the merits,
          consistent with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(1). McCord v.
          Advantage Human Resourcing, No. 2014-06-0063, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. 
          LEXIS 6, at *9 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Mar. 27, 2015). This lesser evidentiary
          standard “does not relieve an employee of the burden of producing evidence of an injury
          by accident that arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment at an
          expedited hearing, but allows some relief to be granted if that evidence does not rise to
                                                                                    
          the level of a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’” Buchanan, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App.
          Bd. LEXIS 39, at *6. There is a “presumption that the findings and conclusions of the
          workers’ compensation judge are correct, unless the preponderance of the evidence is
          otherwise.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(7). Importantly, a doctor need not couch a
          medical opinion “in a rigid recitation of the statutory definition,” but, instead, must
          include “sufficient proof from which the trial court can conclude that the statutory
          requirements of an injury as defined in section 50-6-102(14) are satisfied.” Panzarella v.
                                                                                    
          Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2015-01-0383, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 30, at *14
          (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. May 15, 2017).                             
                                                                                    
               Here, Dr. Fish indicated in January 2018 that causation was “to be determined.”
          His April 20, 2018 note stated that Employee “sustained work related injuries to his
          cervical and lumbar spine.” In the August 8, 2018 report, Dr. Fish noted that Employee
                                                                                    
          had relayed to him throughout the course of his treatment that Employee’s “issues stem
          from the work injury.” The trial court noted that Dr. Fish’s reports included “a
          description of the mechanism of injury that resemble[d] [Employee’s] testimony.” Dr.
          Fish noted in the August 2018 report that Employee had significant cervical herniations
          that necessitated surgery, adding that “[i]t is very feasible a refrigerator falling on an
          individual directly on the head could result in disc herniations.” Dr. Fish also noted the
          lumbar disc herniation “could be due to a fall such as the one [Employee] describe[d].”
                                                                                    
          Finally, Dr. Fish stated that “[i]f there is no history of neck or back treatment prior [to]
          2016,” he “would have the opinion that the work related injury caused [Employee’s]
          cervical and lumbar issues.” While this evidence falls short of what would be required at
          trial to establish causation, we cannot conclude at this interlocutory stage that the
          evidence preponderates against the trial court’s determination that Employee “would
          likely prevail at a hearing on the merits.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1).
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
               In reaching this conclusion, we are not unmindful of Employer’s argument that
          Employee’s medical records establish a history of pre-injury evaluations for neck and
          back complaints. Employer cross-examined Employee concerning medical records that
          predated the May 4, 2016 work incident and in which Employee complained of cervical
                                                                                    
                                          8                                         
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
          and low back issues. However, those medical records were not admitted into evidence,
          prompting the trial court to note that it could not consider these records “in their
          entirety.” Moreover, the trial court found Employee’s explanation that the previous
          problems were “muscular rather than skeletal” to be “plausible.” In light of the trial
          court’s determinations regarding the credibility of the testimony, and in the absence of
                                                                                    
          documentary evidence to the contrary, we cannot conclude that the preponderance of the
          evidence addressing causation is otherwise than determined by the trial court.
                                                                                    
                                      Conclusion                                    
                                                                                    
               For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                          9