The Appellate Court may not reweigh the evidence. Ward v. Commercial Ins. Co., 213 Tenn. 100, 372 S.W.2d 292 (1963); White v. Whiteway Pharmacy Inc., 210 Tenn. 449, 360 S.W.2d 12 (1962); Anderson v. Volz Const. Co., 183 Tenn. 169, 191 S.W.2d 436 (1945). An employer takes an employee as he is and assumes the risk of having a weakened condition aggravated by some injury which might not affect a normal, healthy person.

We have said many times, and we repeat that in workmen's compensation cases this Court does not weigh the evidence but searches the record only so far as necessary to determine that there is any material evidence to support the findings of the trial judge and those findings will not be disturbed if there is any material evidence to support his findings. Lambert Brothers v. Dishner, 212 Tenn. 697, 372 S.W.2d 166; Anderson v. Volz Construction Co., 183 Tenn. 169, 191 S.W.2d 436. In this case there is abundant evidence to support the findings of the trial judge.

If there is none, his judgment is reversed. Anderson v. Volz Const. Co., 183 Tenn. 169, 191 S.W.2d 436 (1946), and other cases. The question to be decided is whether the testimony of the petitioner and the optometrist is of sufficient probative value to establish a causal connection between the accident and the loss of the eyesight, despite the expert medical testimony to the contrary.

The scope of our review here of a workmen's compensation case is limited to a search of the record only so far as is necessary to determine if there is material evidence to support the finding of the trial judge. Anderson v. Volz Const. Co., 183 Tenn. 169, 191 S.W.2d 436 (1946). In Ward v. North American Rayon Corp., 211 Tenn. 535, 366 S.W.2d 134 (1963), we said:

'" In the case of Anderson v. Volz Construction Company, 183 Tenn. 169, 191 S.W.2d 436, this Court, speaking through Justice Gailor, held: "On appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act, we do not reweigh the evidence, but search the record[s] only so far as is necessary to determine that there is material evidence to support the finding[s] of the trial judge". In many other cases, the Court has held that the findings of the trial court will not be disturbed if there is material evidence to support the findings.

City of Gallatin v. Anderson, 209 Tenn. 392, 394, 354 S.W.2d 84, 85 (1962); Johnson v. Anderson, 188 Tenn. 194, 196, 217 S.W.2d 939, 940 (1949). Mr. Justice Gailor in Anderson v. Volz Const. Co., 183 Tenn. 169, 173, 191 S.W.2d 436, 438 (1946), said: "On appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act, we do not reweigh the evidence, but search the record only so far as is necessary to determine that there is material evidence to support the finding of the trial judge."

In arriving at the foregoing conclusion, we have done so fully recognizing the rule that in a Workmen's Compensation case the finding of the Trial Court supported by material evidence will not be disturbed in this Court. Tallent v. M.C. Lyle Son, 187 Tenn. 482, 216 S.W.2d 7; Anderson v. Volz Construction Company, 183 Tenn. 169, 191 S.W.2d 436; Griffith v. Goforth, 184 Tenn. 56, 195 S.W.2d 33, and numerous other cases. The rule of the above cited cases is strictly adhered to. This rule is not applicable to a case where the Trial Judge has overlooked undisputed material evidence bearing on the determinative issue or where the determinative issue involves a mixed question of law and fact. Sullivan v. Green, 206 Tenn. 42, 331 S.W.2d 686.

We are required under the law to take the most favorable view of the evidence in support of the claim presented by the employee. Anderson v. Volz Construction Company, 183 Tenn. 169, 173, 191 S.W.2d 436; Griffith v. Goforth, 184 Tenn. 56, 62, 195 S.W.2d 33. These and many other cases support the statement that the findings of fact by the Trial Court are binding upon us in our review of the case provided there is any material evidence to support such finding.

Based upon all the testimony in the case the Chancellor held that the petitioner sustained an injury or injuries growing out of and in the course of his employment resulting in a permanent disability of fifty (50%) percent to the body as a whole. In the case of Anderson v. Volz Const. Co. et al., 183 Tenn. 169, 191 S.W.2d 436, the Court said: "On appeal under Workmen's Compensation Act, Supreme Court does not reweigh evidence, but searches record only so far as necessary to determine whether there is material evidence to support finding of trial judge, who finally determines weight of evidence and witnesses' credibility."

The case of McKenzie v. Campbell Dann Manufacturing Company et al., 209 Tenn. 475, 354 S.W.2d 440, approved Hamlin Allman Iron Works v. Jones, supra. In Anderson v. Volz Construction Company et al., 183 Tenn. 169, 191 S.W.2d 436, the Court held: "On appeal under Workmen's Compensation Act, Supreme Court does not reweigh evidence, but searches record only so far as necessary to determine whether there is material evidence to support finding of trial judge, who finally determines weight of evidence and witnesses' credibility."