Bush, Amy v. Stones River Center/RHA Health Services

2019 TN WC 73
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedMay 6, 2019
Docket2018-05-0258
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 TN WC 73 (Bush, Amy v. Stones River Center/RHA Health Services) 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
Bush, Amy v. Stones River Center/RHA Health Services, 2019 TN WC 73 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2019).

Opinion

FILED May 06, 2019 11:22 AM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

AMY BUSH, ) Docket No. 2018-05-0258 Employee, ) v. ) ) STONES RIVER CENTER/RHA ) State File No. 48483-2016 HEALTH SERVICES, ) Employer, ) and ) ) PA MFR’S ASSN. INS. CO., ) Judge Dale Tipps Carrier. )

COMPENSATION HEARING ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter came before the Court on Stones River Center/RHA Health Services (RHA)’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The central issue is whether RHA is entitled to summary judgment on grounds that the statute of limitations bars Ms. Bush’s claim. For the reasons below, the Court holds RHA is entitled to summary judgment. Procedural History Ms. Bush alleged she suffered a work-related injury to her right foot on June 8, 2016. RHA denied the claim and filed a Notice of Controversy on January 17, 2017. Ms. Bush filed a Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) on March 7, 2018, seeking medical benefits. Following an expedited hearing, the Court entered an order denying Ms. Bush’s claim, finding she was not likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. Ms. Bush appealed, but the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the ruling. RHA filed this Motion for Summary Judgment, and Ms. Bush filed no response. The Court heard arguments in a telephonic hearing on May 1, 2019.

1 Facts RHA filed a statement of undisputed material facts with citations to the record in compliance with Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 56.03. Because Ms. Bush failed to file a response to the statement, the Court deems them admitted and summarizes them as follows: 1. Ms. Bush alleged an injury date of June 8, 2016. 2. RHA denied the claim on January 17, 2017. 3. Ms. Bush filed the PBD on March 7, 2018. Based on these facts, RHA argued the Court should grant summary judgment because it affirmatively negated an essential element of Ms. Bush’s claim – that she timely filed the PBD – and that the facts are insufficient for Ms. Bush to prove this element. Although Ms. Bush filed no response, she participated in the hearing. However, she limited her response to a statement that she had contacted the EEOC and that she “disputed everything.” Law and Analysis Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 (2018).

As the moving party, RHA must do one of two things to prevail on its motion: (1) submit affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the Ms. Bush’s claim, or (2) demonstrate that Ms. Bush’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of her claim. Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-16-101 (2018); see also Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 264 (Tenn. 2015). If RHA is successful in meeting this burden, Ms. Bush must then establish that the record contains specific facts upon which the Court could base a decision in her favor. Rye, at 265. The essential element at issue in this case comes from Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-203(b), which provides: (1) In instances when the employer has not paid workers’ compensation benefits to or on behalf of the employee, the right to compensation under this chapter shall be forever barred, unless the notice required by § 50-6- 201 is given to the employer and a petition for benefit determination is filed with the bureau on a form prescribed by the administrator within one (1) year after the accident resulting in injury.

2 (2) In instances when the employer has voluntarily paid workers’ compensation benefits, within one (1) year following the accident resulting in injury, the right to compensation is forever barred, unless a petition for benefit determination is filed with the bureau on a form prescribed by the administrator within one (1) year from the latter of the date of the last authorized treatment or the time the employer ceased to make payments of compensation to or on behalf of the employee. The undisputed facts conclusively demonstrate that Ms. Bush filed her PBD on March 7, 2018, which is considerably more than “one year after the accident resulting in injury.” Further, Ms. Bush offered no proof that RHA ever voluntarily paid any benefits for this injury. Thus, RHA met its burden of negating an essential element of the claim. This means Ms. Bush must show that the record contains specific facts upon which the Court could find in her favor, such as proof of a recognized exception to the statute of limitations. As noted above, Ms. Bush did not file a response to the motion or provide any additional evidence. This leaves the Court without proof of any applicable exceptions. Ms. Bush’s evidence is therefore insufficient to establish this essential element of her claim, and the Court must hold that RHA is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. RHA’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and Ms. Bush’s claim is dismissed with prejudice to its refiling.

2. Absent appeal, this order shall become final thirty days after entry.

3. The Court taxes the $150.00 filing fee to RHA under Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.07 payable to the Clerk within five days of this order becoming final.

4. RHA shall prepare and submit the SD-2 with the Clerk within ten days of the date of judgment.

ENTERED May 6, 2019.

______________________________________ Judge Dale A. Tipps Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Order was sent to the following recipients by the following methods of service on May 6, 2019.

Name Certified Via Service Sent To Mail Email Amy Bush X X busha2022@gmail.com 1010 N. Academy St. Murfreesboro, TN 37130 Rosalia Fiorello, X rfiorello@wimberlylawson.com Employer Atty. MOST X Patsy.bumbalough@tn.gov; peggy.haley@tn.gov

______________________________________ Penny Shrum, Court Clerk Wc.courtclerk@tn.gov

4 II I 'I

Compensation Hearing Order Right to Appeal:

If you disagree with this Compensation Hearing Order, you may appeal to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board or the Tennessee Supreme Court. To appeal to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, you must:

1. Complete the enclosed form entitled: "Compensation Hearing Notice of Appeal," and file the form with the Clerk of the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims within thirty calendar days of the date the compensation hearing order was filed. When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must serve a copy upon the opposing party (or attorney, if represented).

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 ofthe filing 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 lndigency will result in dismissal of your appeal.

3~ You bear the responsibility of ensuring a complete record on appeal.

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

Related

Michelle RYE Et Al. v. WOMEN’S CARE CENTER OF MEMPHIS, MPLLC Et Al.
477 S.W.3d 235 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 TN WC 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bush-amy-v-stones-river-centerrha-health-services-tennworkcompcl-2019.