Brooks, Shaneace v. Federal Express Corporation

2022 TN WC 88
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedDecember 13, 2022
Docket2020-08-0689
StatusPublished

This text of 2022 TN WC 88 (Brooks, Shaneace v. Federal Express Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brooks, Shaneace v. Federal Express Corporation, 2022 TN WC 88 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2022).

Opinion

FILED Dec 13, 2022 12:02 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS AT MEMPHIS

SHANEACE BROOKS, ) Docket No. 2020-08-0689 Employee, ) v. ) FEDERAL EXPRESS ) State File No. 39488-2019 CORPORATION, ) Employer, ) And ) Judge Brian K. Addington INDEMNITY INSURANCE ) COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, ) Carrier. )

COMPENSATION ORDER

The Court held a Compensation Hearing on December 2, 2022. Ms. Brooks requested medical and permanent partial disability benefits relating to a May 30, 2019, serious work accident. FedEx contended that Ms. Brooks did not introduce sufficient medical evidence to support her claim. For the following reasons, the Court holds that Ms. Brooks is entitled to future medical benefits for her physical injury but no disability benefits or treatment for her alleged mental injury. History of Claim A motorized tug ran over Ms. Brooks at work on May 30, 2019. The impact crushed her right leg and caused multiple fractures and large lacerations. She spent weeks in the hospital recovering from multiple surgeries, including skin grafts, performed by Dr. John Weinlien. After months of treatment, Dr. Weinlien eventually released Ms. Brooks for sedentary work in January 2020. She resigned her job with FedEx in February to focus on her health and to work as a hairdresser. In May, Dr. Weinlien placed Ms. Brooks at maximum medical improvement, released her to full-duty work, and assigned an impairment rating.

1 A few weeks later, Ms. Brooks began treatment with psychiatrist Melvin Goldin for post-traumatic stress disorder. He finished treating her in July and gave her a zero-percent impairment rating. However, Ms. Brooks continued to have symptoms after her release and returned to Dr. Goldin for additional treatment. Ultimately, Dr. Goldin stated Ms. Brooks’s current problems were not related to her work incident. Ms. Brooks was dissatisfied with Dr. Weinlien’s rating as well as Dr. Goldin’s treatment. She did not want to take any medications that would interfere with her work as a hairdresser and felt her providers could do more to bring her back to her pre-injury state. She believed her depression was caused by her work injury, and it needed to be properly addressed. She wanted to choose her own providers. Federal Express countered that she is at maximum medical improvement, and she had not submitted medical evidence to contradict the treatment and opinions of the authorized physicians. Neither party took expert depositions. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law At a Compensation Hearing, Ms. Brooks must present sufficient evidence showing that she is entitled to the requested relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2022). Further, the Court can only consider issues certified by a mediator on the Dispute Certification Notice. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(a)-(b)(1). Here, the only issue marked disputed was permanent disability benefits. Regarding this issue, Ms. Brooks argued that Dr. Weinlien did not use the Sixth Edition of the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment correctly. However, she did not present expert medical proof showing why Dr. Weinlien’s rating was incorrect or providing a contrary rating. As with any workers’ compensation injury, the Court must first determine whether the injury is causally related to Ms. Brooks’s accident. While expert testimony is normally necessary to prove causation, the Court holds that the cause of Ms. Brooks’s physical injuries was simple and obvious, and therefore she did not need to present expert medical evidence to support a finding that she suffered physical injuries that arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. Cloyd v. Hartco Flooring Co., 274 S.W.3d 638, 643 (Tenn. 2008) (quoting Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 803 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tenn. 1991)). However, when it comes to permanent disability, it was necessary for Ms. Brooks to support her contentions with expert medical evidence. She did not introduce expert medical evidence: either a C-32 form under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6- 235(c)(1) or any medical deposition testimony. The Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of medical professionals.

2 Thus, although Ms. Brooks proved she suffered an obvious injury at work, she did not prove the extent of the permanency of her injury. The Court can only find that she is entitled to continued medical treatment with Dr. Weinlien. Ms. Brooks is not entitled to treat with a different physician solely on her lay opinion that Dr. Weinlien did not appropriately address her injury or impairment. Ms. Brooks’s lack of expert medical opinion also defeats her claim for additional treatment and permanent disability benefits for her psychological injury. Because Dr. Goldin’s last medical note says that Ms. Brooks’s current problems were not related to her leg injury, and Ms. Brooks did not provide any contrary medical opinions, the Court cannot award her further medical or permanent disability benefits for her alleged psychological injury. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Federal Express shall pay future medical benefits for Ms. Brooks’s right-leg injury under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204.

2. The Court taxes the $150.00 filing fee to Federal Express, to be paid to the Court Clerk under Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.06 (2022) within five business days of this order becoming final, and for which execution might issue if necessary.

3. Federal Express shall prepare and submit to the Court Clerk a Statistical Data Form (SD2) within five business days of this order becoming final.

4. Unless appealed, this order shall become final thirty days after issuance.

ENTERED December 13, 2022.

/s/ Brian K. Addington ______________________________________ BRIAN K. ADDINGTON, JUDGE Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

3 Appendix

Exhibits: 1. Affidavit of Shaneace Brooks 2. Wage Statement 3. Final Medical Report 4. Medical Records of Regional One Health1 5. Medical Records of Dr. Melvin Goldin 6. Medical Records of Campbell Clinic 7. Medical Records of Ortho South 8. Photographs (collective) 9. Journal entries 10. Email (for identification only) 11. Text messages (for identification only) 12. Web page print out (for identification only) 13. Final Medical Report (for identification only)2

Technical Record: 1. Petition for Benefit Determination 2. Dispute Certification Notice 3. Employer’s Position Statement 4. Hearing Request 5. Scheduling Order 6. Transfer Order 7. Notice of Appearance 8. Pre-Compensation Hearing Brief of Employer/Carrier 9. Pre-Compensation Hearing Statement of Employer/Carrier 10. Employer/Carrier’s List of Proposed Witnesses for Compensation Hearing 11. Employer/Carrier’s List of Proposed Exhibits for Compensation Hearing 12. Final Dispute Certification Notice

1 The Court did not consider hearsay within any of the medical record exhibits. 2 Exhibits 10-12 were not timely submitted to the Court and were not considered. A search for exhibit 13 shows it was not submitted before the hearing and is thus excluded from evidence.

4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a correct copy of this Order was sent on December 13, 2022.

Name Certified Fax Email Service sent to: Mail Shaneace Brooks, X X 924 Restbrook Ave.

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

Related

Lon Cloyd v. Hartco Flooring Company
274 S.W.3d 638 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2008)
Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc.
803 S.W.2d 672 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2022 TN WC 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-shaneace-v-federal-express-corporation-tennworkcompcl-2022.