Hunter, Dale v. Doug's Automotive , 2019 TN WC 178 ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
    IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
    AT MEMPHIS
    DALE HUNTER, )
    Employee, ) Docket No. 2017-08-1268
    )
    V. )
    ) State File No. 88488-2017
    DOUG’S AUTOMOTIVE, )
    Employer. )
    ) Judge Dale Tipps
    )
    EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER
    GRANTING BENEFITS
    (DECISION ON THE RECORD)
    This case came before the Court on December 6, 2019, for an Expedited Hearing
    on the record without an in-person hearing. The central legal issue is whether Mr. Hunter
    is likely to establish at a hearing on the merits that his need for the requested epidural
    steroid injections arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment.
    For the reasons below, the Court holds Mr. Hunter is entitled to the requested benefits.
    History of Claim
    This is Mr. Hunter’s third Expedited Hearing. Following the first hearing, the
    Court was unable to find that Mr. Hunter was likely to prove medical causation at a
    hearing on the merits but issued an order for a panel of physicians.’ Doug’s Automotive
    provided a panel, from which Mr. Hunter selected Dr. Sam Murrell.
    Mr. Hunter treated with Dr. Murrell but filed a Motion to Compel Medical
    " The Court summarized the full history of Mr. Hunter’s injury and medical treatment in its prior order
    and finds it unnecessary to repeat that summary here.
    1
    Treatment on June 4, 2019, claiming that Dr. Murrell recommended an epidural injection
    that Doug’s Automotive refused to authorize. Because Mr. Hunter provided no medical
    records or other information regarding the treatment or its relationship to his work injury,
    the Court found it could not order Doug’s Automotive to authorize it.
    Mr. Hunter then filed another Motion for Medical Treatment on July 26, this time
    with an accompanying letter from Dr. Murrell recommending an epidural steroid
    injection. The Court determined that the motion was actually a request to decide his
    interlocutory claim for medical benefits on the record without an evidentiary hearing.
    The Court deemed the request for a decision on the record appropriate and issued a
    Docketing Notice.
    Doug’s Automotive filed a Response and an Objection to Dr. Murrell’s letter, and
    the Court issued a second Expedited Hearing Order on August 23. In that order, the
    Court denied the request because Dr. Murrell’s letter did not address whether Mr.
    Hunter’s diagnosis or the need for the epidural injection arose primarily out of and in the
    course and scope of his employment.
    Mr. Hunter filed the current Expedited Hearing request on November 1, and the
    Court issued a Docketing Notice. Doug’s Automotive filed no objection or response to
    the hearing request or docketing notice but instead filed a Motion to Dismiss.”
    The only new proof offered by either party is Dr. Murrell’s October 7, 2019 letter.
    It states:
    Dale Hunter has been under my care with complaints of low back
    pain and leg pain. He was first seen by me on September 7, 2018
    complaining of pain following an injury on 10/16/2017. While an MRI
    scan revealed degenerative changes of the lumbar spine at multiple levels, it
    also revealed a more focal right L5 foraminal disc protrusion which was felt
    to be the cause of his right sided leg symptoms. He was seen by me on
    January 28, 2019, and offered an epidural steroid injection. He ultimately
    requested to be released to full duties, but then later returned indicating that
    he wished to proceed with further treatment. At that time, an epidural
    steroid injection was again recommended, and he continues under my care
    * The Motion to Dismiss is replete with problems. First, it is predicated in large part on allegations that
    Mr. Hunter has failed to comply with requests for “medical records for the incident in question and his
    previous medical records.” However, no motion to compel was ever filed, nor is there any proof that Mr.
    Hunter actually possesses the records sought. Similarly, Doug’s Automotive contends Mr. Hunter failed
    to respond to written discovery, but it filed no motion to compel or any certification required by Rule
    0800-02-21-.17(5). Because Doug’s Automotive also failed to comply with the dispositive motion
    requirements of Rule 0800-02-21-.18(1), the Court will not consider dismissal at this time. However, it
    will consider some of the arguments made by Doug’s Automotive as a response to the docketing notice.
    2
    awaiting the completion of the epidural steroid injection. Apparently, there
    has been some confusion as to whether the recommendation for treatment
    was the result of his underlying degenerative changes or the right L5-S1
    foraminal disc protrusion. It is my opinion that in the absence of previous
    MRI showing a pre-existing right L5 foraminal disc protrusion, that disc is
    most likely the result of his work injury of 10/16/2017. The treatment most
    recently recommended, an epidural steroid injection, is recommended to
    treat that L5-S1 disc protrusion and is felt to be related to his work injury of
    10/16/2017.
    Mr. Hunter requests an order compelling the injection recommended by Dr.
    Murrell based on this new evidence.
    Doug’s Automotive contends it is not responsible for additional medical treatment
    because Dr. Murrell has already found Mr. Hunter to be at maximum medical
    improvement (MMI). It also appears to suggest that Dr. Murrell’s opinion is insufficient
    because he said the disc protrusion is “most likely” the result of the work injury.
    Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
    Mr. Hunter must provide sufficient evidence from which this Court might
    determine he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-
    239(d)(1) (2019); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App.
    Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015). To do this, he must show that his alleged
    injuries arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. This
    includes the requirement that he must show, “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty
    that [the incident] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the .. .
    disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” “Shown to a
    reasonable degree of medical certainty” means that, in the opinion of the treating
    physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes as opposed to speculation or
    possibility. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).
    Dr. Murrell’s October 7 letter is the only medical opinion addressing causation.
    He stated that the right L5 foraminal-disc protrusion “is most likely the result of his work
    injury of 10/16/2017” and that the epidural steroid injection is recommended to treat that
    condition.
    Doug’s Automotive appears to object to this opinion because it does not
    specifically track the wording of section 5-6-102(14). The Court notes, however, that “a
    physician may render an opinion that meets the legal standard espoused in section 50-6-
    102(14) without couching the opinion in a rigid recitation of the statutory definition.”
    Panzarella vy. Amazon.com, Inc., 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 30, at *14-15
    (May 15, 2017). Dr. Murrell stated that the disc protrusion was “most likely the result”
    3
    of Mr. Hunter’s work injury. Although this statement does not include the phrase,
    “greater than fifty-percent,” it constitutes “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.”
    Id. Doug’s Automotive objects
    to providing additional treatment because Dr. Murrell
    already placed Mr. Hunter at MMI. This argument overlooks the fact that medical
    treatment does not terminate at MMI. Unless a court terminates an employee’s
    entitlement to medical benefits, or approves a settlkement in which the parties reach a
    compromise on the issue of future medical benefits, an injured worker remains entitled to
    reasonable and necessary medical treatment causally-related to the work injury in
    accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated sections 50-6-204(a)(1)(A) and 50-6-
    102(14)(C). Limberakis vy. Pro-Tech Sec., Inc., 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS
    53, at *5-6 (Sept. 12, 2017).
    For these reasons, Mr. Hunter appears likely to prevail at trial in establishing that
    his work injury contributed more than fifty percent in causing his need for the requested
    medical treatment.
    IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:
    1. Doug’s Automotive shall continue to provide Mr. Hunter with medical treatment
    made reasonably necessary by his October 16, 2017 injury, including any
    recommended epidural steroid injections.
    1. This case is set for a Status Hearing on January 16, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. Please call
    toll-free at 855-874-0473 to participate. Failure to call or appear might result in a
    determination of the issues without your further participation. All conferences are
    set using Central Time.
    ENTERED December 12, 2019.
    Judge Dale Tipps
    Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
    Exhibits:
    Dr. Murrell’s July 16, 2019 letter
    Dr. Murrell’s October 7, 2019 letter
    9
    PINAMEWN ES
    Affidavit of Dale Hunter
    APPENDIX
    Records from Concentra Medical Centers
    Records from Whole Health Chiropractic
    Records from The Family Medicine Group
    Wage Statement
    Expedited Request for Investigation Report
    Collective medical bills
    10. January 9, 2018 letter offering transitional work
    11. Candace Marshall’s notes
    12. Screenshot of January 17, 2018 text messages
    Technical record:
    Motion for Medical Treatment
    Response to Motion to Have Employer Pay Medical Expenses
    Response to Admission of the Purported Letter of Dr. Murrell
    Petition for Benefit Determination
    AMR WNS
    Dispute Certification Notice
    July 3, 2018 Expedited Hearing Order
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I certify that a copy of the Expedited Hearing Order was sent as indicated on
    December 12, 2019.
    Name Certified | Fax | Via Service sent to:
    Mail Email
    Dale Hunter xX Dale. hunter29 @ yahoo.com
    James Jones, Jr., xX attorneyjamesjones @ gmail.com
    Employer’s Attorney
    /)
    Z
    | /
    7 Fine Mt Uum—
    Penny Shrvim, Clerk of Court
    Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
    WC.CourtClerk @ th.gov
    Expedited Hearing Order Right to Appeal:
    If you disagree with this Expedited Hearing Order, you may appeal to the Workers’
    Compensation Appeals Board. To appeal an expedited hearing order, you must:
    1. Complete the enclosed form entitled: “Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal,” and file the
    form with the Clerk of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims within seven
    business days of the date the expedited hearing order was filed. When filing the Notice
    of Appeal, you must serve a copy upon all parties.
    2. You must pay, via check, money order, or credit card, a $75.00 filing fee within ten
    calendar days after filing of the Notice of Appeal. Payments can be made in-person at
    any Bureau office or by U.S. mail, hand-delivery, or other delivery service. In the
    alternative, you may file an Affidavit of Indigency (form available on the Bureau’s
    website or any Bureau office) seeking a waiver of the fee. You must file the fully-
    completed Affidavit of Indigency within ten calendar days of filing the Notice of
    Appeal. Failure to timely pay the filing fee or file the Affidavit of Indigency will
    result in dismissal of the appeal.
    3. You bear the responsibility of ensuring a complete record on appeal. You may request
    from the court clerk the audio recording of the hearing for a $25.00 fee. If a transcript of
    the proceedings is to be filed, a licensed court reporter must prepare the transcript and file
    it with the court clerk within ten business days of the filing the Notice of
    Appeal. Alternatively, you may file a statement of the evidence prepared jointly by both
    parties within ten business days of the filing of the Notice of Appeal. The statement of
    the evidence must convey a complete and accurate account of the hearing. The Workers’
    Compensation Judge must approve the statement before the record is submitted to the
    Appeals Board. If the Appeals Board is called upon to review testimony or other proof
    concerning factual matters, the absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence can be
    a significant obstacle to meaningful appellate review.
    4. If you wish to file a position statement, you must file it with the court clerk within ten
    business days after the deadline to file a transcript or statement of the evidence. The
    party opposing the appeal may file a response with the court clerk within ten business
    days after you file your position statement. All position statements should include: (1) a
    statement summarizing the facts of the case from the evidence admitted during the
    expedited hearing; (2) a statement summarizing the disposition of the case as a result of
    the expedited hearing; (3) a statement of the issue(s) presented for review; and (4) an
    argument, citing appropriate statutes, case law, or other authority.
    For self-represented litigants: Help from an Ombudsman is available at 800-332-2667.
    LB-1099
    EXPEDITED HEARING NOTICE OF APPEAL
    Tennessee Division of Workers’ Compensation
    www. tn.gov/labor-wid/weomp.shtml
    wce.courtclerk@tn.gov
    1-800-332-2667
    Docket #:
    State File #/YR:
    Employee
    Vv.
    Employer
    Notice
    Notice is given that
    [List name(s) of all appealing party(ies) on separate sheet if necessary]
    appeals the order(s) of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims at
    to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals
    Board. [List the date(s) the order(s) was filed in the court clerk’s office]
    Judge
    Statement of the Issues
    Provide a short and plain statement of the issues on appeal or basis for relief on appeal:
    Additional Information
    Type of Case [Check the most appropriate item]
    L] Temporary disability benefits
    L] Medical benefits for current injury
    LC Medical benefits under prior order issued by the Court
    List of Parties
    Appellant (Requesting Party): At Hearing: LJEmployer LJEmployee
    Address:
    Party’s Phone: Email:
    Attorney's Name: BPR#:
    Attorney’s Address: Phone:
    Attorney's City, State & Zip code:
    Attorney’s Email:
    * Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellant *
    rev. 10/18 Page 1 of 2 RDA 11082
    Employee Name: SF#: DOI:
    Appellee(s)
    Appellee (Opposing Party): At Hearing: L]JEmployer LJEmployee
    Appellee’s Address:
    Appellee’s Phone: Email:
    Attorney’s Name: BPR#:
    Attorney’s Address: Phone:
    Attorney’s City, State & Zip code:
    Attorney’s Email:
    * Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellee *
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I,
    Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal by First Class, United States Mail, postage prepaid, to all parties
    and/or their attorneys in this case in accordance with Rule 0800-02-22.01(2) of the Tennessee Rules
    of Board of Workers’ Compensation Appeals on this the day of , 20
    , certify that | have forwarded a true and exact copy of this
    [Signature of appellant or attorney for appellant]
    LB-1099 rev. 10/18 Page 2 of 2 RDA 11082
    Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
    220 French Landing Drive, I-B
    Nashville, TN 37243-1002
    800-332-2667
    AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY
    I, , having been duly sworn according to law, make oath that
    because of my poverty, | am unable to bear the costs of this appeal and request that the filing fee to appeal be
    waived. The following facts support my poverty.
    1. Full Name: 2. Address:
    3. Telephone Number: 4. Date of Birth:
    5. Names and Ages of Ail Dependents:
    Relationship:
    Relationship:
    Relationship:
    Relationship:
    6. lam employed by:
    My employer’s address is:
    My employer’s phone number is:
    7. My present monthly household income, after federal income and social security taxes are deducted, is:
    $
    8. | receive or expect to receive money from the following sources:
    AFDC $ per month beginning
    ssl $ per month beginning
    Retirement $ per month beginning
    Disability $ per month beginning
    Unemployment $ per month beginning
    Worker's Comp.$ per month beginning
    Other $ per month beginning
    LB-1108 (REV 11/15) RDA 11082
    9. My expenses are:
    Rent/House Payment $ permonth Medical/Dental $ per month
    Groceries $ per month Telephone $ per month
    Electricity $ per month School Supplies $ per month
    Water $ per month Clothing $ per month
    Gas $ per month Child Care $ per month
    Transportation $ per month Child Support $ per month
    Car $ per month
    Other $ per month (describe: )
    10. Assets:
    Automobile $ (FMV)
    Checking/Savings Acct. $
    House $ __ (FMV)
    Other $ Describe:
    11. My debts are:
    Amount Owed To Whom
    | hereby declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing answers are true, correct, and complete
    and that I am financially unable to pay the costs of this appeal.
    APPELLANT
    Sworn and subscribed before me, a notary public, this
    day of , 20
    NOTARY PUBLIC
    My Commission Expires:
    LB-1108 (REV 11/15) RDA 11082
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2017-08-1268

Citation Numbers: 2019 TN WC 178

Judges: Dale Tipps

Filed Date: 12/12/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/9/2021