Coble, Quinctius v. Pictsweet Co.

2019 TN WC 176
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedDecember 10, 2019
Docket2018-07-0542
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 TN WC 176 (Coble, Quinctius v. Pictsweet Co.) 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
Coble, Quinctius v. Pictsweet Co., 2019 TN WC 176 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2019).

Opinion

FILED Dec 11, 2019 12:02 PM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

AT JACKSON

QUINCTIUS COBLE, ) Docket No. 2018-07-0542 Employee, )

V. )

PICTSWEET CO., ) State File No. 61181-2018 Employer, )

And )

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY ) Judge Allen Phillips

Co., ) Carrier. )

COMPENSATION ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This case came before the Court on Pictsweet’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The issue is whether Pictsweet is entitled to summary judgment on grounds that Mr. Coble’s injuries did not arise primarily out of his employment, an essential element of his claim. For the following reasons, the Court grants Pictsweet’s motion.

Procedural History

Mr. Coble alleged an electric shock injury to his right knee, arm, and foot. Pictsweet contested his claim. Mr. Coble requested an Expedited Hearing by a decision on the record. The Court entered an Order Denying Benefits, holding that Mr. Coble did not establish he would likely prevail in establishing his injuries arose primarily out of his employment.

Pictsweet then filed this Motion for Summary Judgment. At the same time, it filed a statement of undisputed facts with citations to the record and proof that it served Mr. Coble with a copy of Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 56 under Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.18(1)(a) (August, 2019)(a moving party must provide a self-represented non-moving party with a copy of the rule upon which a dispositive motion is based). Mr. Coble did not file a response to the motion. The Court heard argument on the motion on December 10, 2019. At that time, Mr. Coble acknowledged receiving the motion and a copy of Rule 56.

Facts The Court summarizes the relevant undisputed material facts as follows:

e Mr. Coble selected Physicians Quality Care (PQC) from a panel of physicians offered by Pictsweet. Dr. Peter Gardner was Mr. Coble’s treating physician at PQC.

e Dr. Gardner signed a causation letter stating that Mr. Coble’s diagnosis and need for medical treatment did not primarily arise out of his employment at Pictsweet.

e In its decision on the record, this Court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

“Here, the only medical expert opinion is that of Dr. Gardner, who said Mr. Coble’s injury is not work-related. Instead, he attributed Mr. Coble’s foot problems to uncontrolled diabetes. Therefore, Mr. Coble did not establish that he would likely prevail as to whether his injuries, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, arose primarily out of his employment at Pictsweet.”

e Mr. Coble did not appeal the Expedited Hearing Order. Analysis

The Court recognizes Mr. Coble has chosen to represent himself, as is his right. However, unrepresented litigants must comply with the same standards to which represented parties must adhere. Watson v. City of Jackson, 448 S.W.3d 919, 926 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). This includes complying with the same substantive and procedural rules that represented parties are expected to observe. Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 8.W.3d 901, 903 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). Here, Mr. Coble did not respond to Pictsweet’s motion as required by Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 56.03; thus, the Court must consider Pictsweet’s motion and its statement of material facts unopposed.

So considered, the Court first acknowledges that 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 (2019). As the moving party, Pictsweet must do one of two things to prevail on its motion: (1) submit affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of Mr. Coble’s claim, or (2) demonstrate that Mr. Coble’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of his claim. Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-16-101 (2019); see also Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 264 (Tenn. 2015). One essential element of Mr. Coble’s claim is that he must show his injury arose primarily out of his employment at Pictsweet. To prove this, he must establish to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that his work contributed more than fifty percent in causing his injury or need for medical treatment when 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.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A)-(D).

Here, the undisputed facts are that Dr. Gardner stated Mr. Coble’s injury, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, did not primarily arise out of his employment but was instead related to uncontrolled diabetes. This is the only medical opinion in the record, and it negates the essential element of causation that Mr. Coble must establish to prevail. Therefore, the Court holds Pictsweet is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Pictsweet’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and Mr. Coble’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 Pictsweet under Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.06 payable to the Clerk within five days of

this order becoming final.

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

ENTERED December 11, 2019.

JUDGE ALLEN PHIL Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on December 11, 2019.

Name Via Via Service Sent To: Mail Email Quinctius Coble, xX 84 Birch St. Self-Represented Employee Brownsville, TN 38012 Paul T. Nicks, x pnicks@travelers.com Employer’s Attorney jschmidt@travelers.com / ) { Yin Moe Penny Shrum, Court Clerk Wc.courtclerk@tn.gov

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 of the filing fee. You must file the fully- completed Affidavit of Indigency within ten calendar days of filing the Notice of Appeal.

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

Related

Candace Watson v. City of Jackson
448 S.W.3d 919 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2014)
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 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coble-quinctius-v-pictsweet-co-tennworkcompcl-2019.