Davenport. Ted v. Advanced Remodeling and Floor Covering LLC

2016 TN WC 287
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedDecember 5, 2016
Docket2016-06-1403
StatusPublished

This text of 2016 TN WC 287 (Davenport. Ted v. Advanced Remodeling and Floor Covering LLC) 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
Davenport. Ted v. Advanced Remodeling and Floor Covering LLC, 2016 TN WC 287 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2016).

Opinion

FILED December 5, 2016

IN COURT OF. 1\ ORKE.R S' C01JPENSATIO C1_'\11lS

Tmu!·l :41 PM TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION IN THE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS AT NASHVILLE

Ted Davenport, ) Docket No.: 2016-06-1403 Employee, ) v. ) State File No.: 56614-2016 Advanced Remodeling and Floor ) Covering, LLC, ) Judge Kenneth M. Switzer Employer. ) )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

This matter came before the undersigned Workers' Compensation Judge on November 21, 2016, upon the Request for Expedited Hearing filed by Ted Davenport under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239 (2016) seeking medical and temporary disability benefits. The central legal issue is whether Mr. Davenport suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment with Advanced Remodeling and Floor Covering, LLC. The Court holds he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that he suffered a compensable injury and is entitled to medical benefits and a portion of the temporary disability benefits he requested.

History of Claim

The testimony and exhibits established the following facts at the Expedited Hearing. Mr. Davenport, a resident of Dickson County, worked for Advanced Remodeling as a laborer installing hardwood flooring at an agreed rate of fifteen dollars per hour for forty hours per week. He testified that, on June 16, 2016, while "cutting a notch out in a vent" with a table saw with no guard, a board kicked back, causing him to accidentally catch three fingers of his left hand in the saw. Additionally, the board hit him on his right ribs. (Ex. 3 at 1.) An ambulance transported Mr. Davenport to Vanderbilt University Hospital. (Ex. 3 at 1.) Mr. Davenport introduced into evidence only the discharge instructions from this treatment, which indicate providers surgically repaired the three amputated fingers. (See generally Ex. 2 at 1-5.) They also excused him from work from June 16-23. !d. at 3.

1 After his release from the hospital, Mr. Davenport's condition worsened, prompting him to seek treatment at Horizon Medical Center on July 1. (Ex. 3 at 2.) He submitted no records of this encounter but testified providers there ultimately recommended he return to Vanderbilt. Mr. Davenport was hospitalized for eleven days. Discharge records from Vanderbilt dated July 12 indicate Mr. Davenport was treated for chest trauma and underwent a thoracotomy. !d. at 9, 8. The discharge notes include an excuse restricting him from all work from July 12 until July 26 and allowing a return to light duty "when no longer taking narcotic pain medications, otherwise return to work will be determined at your follow up appointment." !d. at 11. Mr. Davenport testified he is presently under the care of Dr. Jonathan Nesbitt at Vanderbilt, who placed him on light-duty restrictions approximately "two weeks ago," on November 7. He did not introduce medical records into evidence that document the date he was placed on light duty. Mr. Davenport is not currently working. He explained that, "In my kind of work, there is no light duty," noting that he works in construction and tree-trimming.

Mr. Davenport testified he incurred substantial medical bills for treatment, to include: 1) a statement from Dickson County EMS in the amount of $1,287.20 for transporting him to Vanderbilt on June 16; 2) $4,151.27 to Vanderbilt for the June 16, 2016 treatment; and 3) $181,789.39 to Vanderbilt for the July 1-12 surgery and hospitalization. (Exs. 4, 12, 13.)

With regard to the circumstances of his employment, according to Mr. Davenport, Advanced Remodeling is owned by Aaron Waldrum, who refused to pay for his medical care or any lost wages. (Ex. 3 at 4.) Mr. Davenport testified he came under Advanced Remodeling's employ after a face-to-face conversation with Mr. Waldrum and completion of a written employment application. Mr. Davenport asked at that time if Mr. Waldrum would withhold taxes and if Advanced Remodeling had workers' compensation insurance, to which Mr. Waldrum responded in the affirmative. Per Mr. Davenport's testimony, Mr. Waldrum picked him up to go to the jobsite, thereby controlling the hours of work; he provided all the tools and directed the work; he intended Mr. Davenport to work for him exclusively; and Mr. Davenport had no power to hire or fire other employees.

The Bureau of Workers' Compensation initially contacted Advanced Remodeling about this matter on July 26 to request that it file a First Report of Injury. (Ex. 6.) The Bureau received no response. Mr. Davenport filed a Petition for Benefit Determination on July 28. (T.R. 1.)

Afterward, the Bureau's Uninsured Employers Fund (UEF) conducted an investigation regarding whether Advanced Remodeling carried workers' compensation insurance, resulting in an Expedited Request for Investigation. (Ex. 5.) In that report dated August 18, 2016, the UEF investigator concluded there was no workers' compensation policy. !d. at 2. Further, Mr. Waldrum characterized Mr. Davenport as a

2 "subcontractor and that he was to have his own insurance." !d. at 3. The UEF investigator further concluded, "Mr. Waldrum is a Construction Service Provider and he is not on the workers comp exempt registry[.]" !d. at 4. The UEF investigator additionally made .a "seven factors determination" as follows: SEVEN FACTOR$ DDERMINATION 1) MR. WALDRUM SCHEDULED ALL WORKING HOURS. HE ALSO PICKED UP THE WORKER BECAUSE HE HAD NO TRANSPORTION. 2) RIGHT OF TERMINATION-MR. WALDRUM HAD THE RIGHT OF TERMINATION 3) METHOD OF PAYMENT -MR. WALDRUM NEVER PAID MR. DAVENPORT FOR HIS WORK SO WE ARE UNSURE HOW HE PAID. THE AGREEMENT WAS HOURLY WAGES. 4) FREEDOM TO SELECT AND HIRE HELPERS-MR. WALDRUM CONTROLLED. 5) FURNISHING OF TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT-MR. WALDRUM WOULD FURNISH THE TOOLS. -.... 6) SELF-SCHEDULING OF WORKING HOURS-MR. WALDRUM WOULD SCHEDULING THE WORKING HOURS. 7) THE FREEDOM TO OFFER SERVICES TO OTHER ENTITIES-NO

!d. at 4-5. (Emphasis in original.)

The Bureau unsuccessfully attempted to engage Mr. Waldrum's participation in this process. The Mediator notified the parties via letter that she filed a Dispute Certification Notice (Ex. 7); Mr. Waldrum did not respond. The Clerk of Court sent a Notice of Expedited Hearing (T.R. 4); Mr. Waldrum filed nothing in response. The Clerk emailed Mr. Waldrum to request dates of his availability for an expedited hearing, to which he responded via email, "I am no longer in business for myself. I have a work schedule with a company I work for and just started so if I take off I may loose [sic] my job. I'm broke. So I can't pay his bills for him." (Ex. 8.) The Clerk subsequently ·sent an email requesting that the parties confirm they received the Notice of Expedited Hearing (Ex. 9); Mr. Waldrum did not reply. As a final attempt, the Clerk resent the hearing notice via FedEx overnight, which was delivered in advance of the hearing. (Exs. 10, 11.) Mr. Waldrum did not appear at the Expedited Hearing, where Mr. Davenport requested an Order requiring Advanced Remodeling to provide medical and temporary disability benefits.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

In order to grant the relief Mr. Davenport seeks, the Court must apply the following legal principles. Mr. Davenport bears the burden of proof on all prima facie elements of his workers' compensation claim. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2016); see also Buchanan v. Car/ex Glass Co., No. 2016-01-0012, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 39, at *5 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Sept. 29, 2016). He need not prove every element of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence in order to obtain relief at an expedited hearing. McCord v.

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

Related

Fritts v. Safety National Casualty Corp.
163 S.W.3d 673 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2005)
Reeser v. Yellow Freight System, Inc.
938 S.W.2d 690 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1997)
Simpson v. Satterfield
564 S.W.2d 953 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 TN WC 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davenport-ted-v-advanced-remodeling-and-floor-covering-llc-tennworkcompcl-2016.