Bland, Cody v. Mike Chitwood

2017 TN WC 137
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims·Decided July 24, 2017·No. 2016-06-1686·Published

Opinion

FILED Jul~f 24,2017

TN COURTOF 1\ ORKIRS' COMHI!:. . ATION ClLAIMS

Tim.e·2 :29PM TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION IN THE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS AT NASHVILLE

Cody Bland, ) Docket No. 2016-06-1686 Employee, ) v. ) State File No. 68258-2016 Mike Chitwood, ) Employer. ) Judge Kenneth M. Switzer

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER GRANTING REQUESTED RELIEF

This matter came before the undersigned Workers' Compensation Judge on July 19, 2017, upon the Request for Expedited Hearing filed by Cody Bland. The central legal issues are whether Mr. Bland suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment with Mike Chitwood and whether he worked as an employee or a subcontractor. A secondary issue is whether Mr. Bland qualifies for benefits from the Uninsured Employers Fund.

The Court holds Mr. Bland came forward with sufficient evidence to establish that his injury arose primarily out of his employment with Mr. Chitwood and he worked as an employee rather than a subcontractor. Thus, he is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. However, the Court cannot find at this time that he satisfied the statutory factors for applying for benefits from the UEF on the present record, as he did not provide the Bureau timely notice.

History of Claim

Mr. Bland, a resident of Goodlettsville, Tennessee, began working for Mr. Chitwood in May 2016 as a laborer installing hardwood flooring. He worked full-time at the times and places that Mr. Chitwood set, earning an average weekly wage of $600 in cash. Mr. Chitwood provided the tools and materials. Mr. Bland's affidavit states that Mr. Chitwood was a subcontractor for McGrath Brothers Flooring. 1 1 Mr. Bland introduced no additional evidence to substantiate the business/employment relationship between Mr. Chitwood and McGrath. By joint stipulation, this Court previously entered an order conditionally dismissing Mr. Bland's case as to McGrath Brothers Flooring and Rick McGrath. Mr. Bland testified that, on June 20, while using a table saw, the blade made contact with a knot in the wood, jerked and severely cut his left hand. He sought emergency treatment at Centennial Medical Center until the Air Evac Lifeteam flew him to Vanderbilt University Hospital. At Vanderbilt, Dr. Douglas Weikert surgically repaired the hand. Post-operatively, Mr. Bland saw Dr. Weikert and participated in occupational therapy.

Dr. Weikert provided an affidavit regarding his treatment. (Ex. 2 at 1-3.) He stated that he excused Mr. Bland from work from June 21 through September 21 and afterward placed Mr. Bland on restricted duty. Dr. Weikert concluded the injury "arises primarily out of the employment, meaning that more than 50 percent of the injury is due to the employment, considering all causes." The affidavit additionally said Mr. Bland is in need of further orthopedic care. Mr. Bland confirmed in his testimony that he believes his hand is only about "eighty percent" healed.

Mr. Bland's treatment resulted in medical bills totaling $78,904.31. The sums included: 1) Air Evac, $33,287.47; 2) Centennial Medical Center, $5,087.93; 3) Peakview Emergency Physicians, $1,776.00; 4) Radiology Alliance, P.C., $30.00; 5) Vanderbilt Medical Center, $38,639.00; and 7) Publix Pharmacy, $83.91. !d. at 74-90.

To obtain relief from these bills and other assistance, Mr. Bland filed a Petition for Benefit Determination on September 2. Upon receipt of the PBD, the Bureau initiated an investigation with the UEF to determine whether Mr. Chitwood carried workers' compensation insurance. A UEF investigator completed an Expedited Request for Investigation (Ex. 3), concluding there was no workers' compensation policy on the date of injury. Per the report, Mr. Chitwood said he was on the Exemption Registry and did not carry workers' compensation. The investigator asked if he had a copy of Mr. Bland's certificate of insurance or proof of exemption, and Mr. Chitwood replied that he did not. The report noted Mr. Chitwood "finally agreed he should have made sure Mr. Bland was compliant before hiring him." The investigator additionally made a "seven factors determination" as follows: 1) Mr. Chitwood was a subcontractor for McGrath Brothers and hired workers as needed; 2) Mr. Chitwood controlled the right to terminate; 3) Mr. Chitwood paid Mr. Bland as a "1099" worker in cash; 4) Mr. Chitwood controlled the selection and hiring of helpers; 5) Mr. Chitwood furnished the tools and equipment, and McGrath Brothers furnished the materials; 6) Mr. Chitwood set the hours of work; and, 7) Mr. Bland was not free to offer his services to other entities. !d. at 5-6.

Throughout this case, Mr. Chitwood failed to participate. He did not appear at the Expedited Hearing despite receiving written notice via certified mail. Mr. Bland testified that Mr. Chitwood was present when he became injured; he witnessed Mr. Bland's bloodied, injured hand but not the accident. Afterward, he never offered to pay for Mr. Bland's medical care or lost wages, and he terminated him immediately following the

2 accident. After Dr. Weikert placed Mr. Bland on limited duty, Mr. Bland attempted to return to work for two employers, Kroger and Goodwill respectively, but was unable to perform the assigned job duties due to the restrictions. The first job, with Kroger, began on January 1, 2017. Mr. Bland successfully returned to work for MGM Industries.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

In order to grant the relief Mr. Bland seeks, the Court must apply the following legal principles. Mr. Bland bears the burden of proof on all prima facie elements of his claim. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2016). At an expedited hearing, Mr. Bland has the burden to come forward with sufficient evidence from which this Court can determine he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015).

Compensability

Applying these general principles to the issue of the compensability of Mr. Bland's claim, the Workers' Compensation Law defines an "injury" as '"an injury by accident ... arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment that causes ... the need for medical treatment." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). Further, an injury is '"accidental" only if the injury is caused by a specific incident, or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Here, Mr. Bland's undisputed testimony proves that, while working for Mr. Chitwood on June 21, he injured his left hand, resulting in the need for surgery and rehabilitation. The medical records support his account of how he became injured, and he presented as an honest and credible witness. Accordingly, the Court holds Mr. Bland sustained an accidental injury caused by a specific incident arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment with Mr. Chitwood.

With regard to Mr. Bland's employment status, Mr. Chitwood previously argued to the UEF investigator that Mr. Bland was a "subcontractor" or a '"1 099 worker" rather than an employee for purposes of the Workers' Compensation Law. To make this determination, the statute provides that the Court shall consider:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bland, Cody v. Mike Chitwood, 2017 TN WC 137 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2017).

2017 TN WC 137 (Bland, Cody v. Mike Chitwood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

§ 50-6-102
Tennessee § 50-6-102(14)
§ 50-6-207
Tennessee § 50-6-207(1)
§ 50-6-239
Tennessee § 50-6-239(c)(6)
§ 50-6-801
Tennessee § 50-6-801(d)(1)