Dodson, Deborah v. LHC Group

2017 TN WC 188
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedOctober 5, 2017
Docket2016-03-0413
StatusPublished

This text of 2017 TN WC 188 (Dodson, Deborah v. LHC Group) 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
Dodson, Deborah v. LHC Group, 2017 TN WC 188 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2017).

Opinion

FILED

October 5, 2017

4 TN COURT OF daa. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION on a CLAIMS

Time: 10:57 AM

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

AT KNOXVILLE DEBORAH DODSON, ) Docket No. 2016-03-0413 Employee, ) Vv. ) LHC GROUP, ) State File No. 39249-2015 Employer, ) and ) THE HARTFORD, ) Judge Lisa A. Lowe Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER GRANTING NEUROLOGIC IMPAIRMENT EVALUATION AND DENYING TEMPORARY DISABILITY BENEFITS

This matter came before the undersigned Workers’ Compensation Judge for an Expedited Hearing on October 4, 2017. The central legal issue is whether Ms. Dodson demonstrated she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that she is entitled a neurologic impairment evaluation and temporary total disability benefits.' For the reasons set forth below, the Court holds Ms. Dodson demonstrated she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits with regard to the neurologic impairment evaluation. However, she failed to demonstrate the likelihood of prevailing with regard to temporary disability benefits. Therefore, the Court grants Ms. Dodson’s request in part and denies it in part.

History of Claim Ms. Dodson worked for LHC as a private duty nurse. On May 12, 2015, she

injured her left ankle and right knee when she tripped and fell at a patient’s home. Ms. Dodson sought treatment at Tennova Turkey Creek Emergency Room and then followed

'Ms. Dodson’s DCN also included a request for a pain management appointment as a disputed issue. However, at the hearing, the attorneys advised that LHC provided a panel of pain management physicians; Ms. Dodson selected Dr. Browder, and Dr. Browder is in the process of reviewing Ms. Dodson’s medical records and scheduling an appointment. Therefore, the Court will not address the pain management appointment issue. up with Dr. Grant Shirley. Dr. Shirley ordered right knee and left ankle x-rays, which were negative for fracture or dislocation. Dr. Shirley diagnosed Ms. Dodson with right knee internal derangement and left ankle traumatic arthropathy and referred her for an orthopedic evaluation.

Ms. Dodson received authorized orthopedic treatment with Dr. William Johnson, who performed meniscal tear repair surgery on August 5, 2015. Dr. Johnson noted Ms. Dodson had prior surgery to her left ankle and that her current ankle complaints did not represent a surgical problem. Dr. Johnson’s treatment focused solely on her right knee, other than a reference on the first visit that Ms. Dodson could continue to wear the ankle stirrup splint and a reference on the second visit that her ankle was doing “a bit better.” Dr. Johnson’s records do not contain a left ankle diagnosis, and he did not order any diagnostic testing or treatment for Ms. Dodson’s ankle. Following knee surgery, Dr. Johnson placed Ms. Dodson on light duty restrictions, recommended physical therapy, and gave her an injection.

Ms. Dodson complained to Dr. Johnson about “numbness that occurs from just above to just below the knee in a non-anatomic pattern.” Since Dr. Johnson could not determine the cause of Ms. Dodson’s symptoms and he had nothing further to offer her orthopedically, he referred her for a neurology evaluation. Dr. Johnson placed Ms. Dodson at maximum medical improvement (MMI) on April 20, 2017, and assigned a permanent impairment rating of four percent. Even though Dr. Johnson assessed MMI on April 20, 2017, LHC inadvertently continued paying temporary total disability (TTD) benefits until June 5, 2017.

LHC experienced difficulty obtaining a panel of neurologists that would accept a workers’ compensation patient. Ms. Dodson confirmed that Dr. Darel Butler would agree to see her, and LHC authorized him as a treating physician. Dr. Butler saw Ms. Dodson on three occasions. He ordered a skin biopsy, nerve conduction studies, and an EMG. Ms. Dodson’s nerve conduction studies and EMG were normal, but her skin punch biopsy revealed “small fiber neuropathy.” Dr. Butler noted, “This is likely due to further trauma from [sic] on the right lower extremity and the fracture in her left ankle.” Although the records submitted into evidence do not contain a referral from Dr. Butler to pain management, his March 23, 2017 note indicates, “she has not been to the pain clinic yet.” Also contained in that note, Dr. Butler remarked:

The patient was told that once we have obtained tissue . . . there was nothing further that we could do to establish a diagnosis. [She] was told that the precise diagnosis was small fiber neuropathy secondary to reflex sympathetic dystrophy from trauma. Patient has not reached MMI; she’s not yet [been seen] by the pain clinic.

Dr. Butler’s records do not contain any reference to restrictions or inability to work.

2 Dr. Butler completed a Form C-30A Final Medical Report and indicated Ms. Dodson was unable to work from June 12, 2015, until “to be determined by pain clinic,” and, “I don’t do impairment ratings.”

At the hearing, Ms. Dodson argued that since Dr. Butler agreed to see Ms. Dodson as a workers’ compensation patient, he is obligated to provide her with an opinion on permanent impairment. If Dr. Butler refuses to do so, Ms. Dodson insisted she is entitled to a neurologic impairment evaluation with another physician. Additionally, Ms. Dodson claimed she is entitled to TTD benefits from June 5, 2017, until she reaches MMI from a neurologic standpoint. She argued that Dr. Butler is unable to assess her MMI status until she sees a pain management physician.

LHC argued that under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(1)(E), Ms. Dodson should be conclusively presumed to be at MMI because as of March 23, 2017, Dr. Butler ceased active treatment with only a recommendation for treatment of her pain with a pain management physician. LHC did not make any arguments related to the neurologic impairment evaluation other than describing its unsuccessful attempts to locate a neurologist who will agree to perform an impairment rating evaluation.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

At an Expedited Hearing, Ms. Dodson must come forward with sufficient evidence from which this Court can determine she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. See McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *9 (Mar. 27, 2015).

Neurologic Impairment Evaluation

Under workers’ compensation law, a treating physician shall evaluate the employee for purposes of assigning an impairment rating and shall complete the evaluation and submit an impairment rating report within the outlined time limits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-207(k)(4) and (6)(2016) (Emphasis added). Additionally, Rule 0800- 02-01-.16(4) of the General Rules of the Workers’ Compensation Program provides that the Director may assess a civil penalty against the attending physician of up to $300 for failure to timely file a Form C-32. Therefore, the Court refers this matter to the Penalty Program for potential assessment of a civil penalty against Dr. Butler for failure to provide his impairment opinion.

LHC seemed to agree that Ms. Dodson is entitled to an opinion with regard to whether she sustained any permanent impairment as a result of small fiber neuropathy. Due to LHC’s inability to locate a neurologist agreeable to performing an impairment evaluation, the Court suggested that the parties contact the Medical Impairment Rating

3 Registry Program to obtain the names of neurologists who perform impairment rating evaluations. The Court holds that Ms. Dodson came forward with sufficient evidence demonstrating she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in establishing she is entitled to an impairment evaluation either by Dr.

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

Related

§ 50-6-207
Tennessee § 50-6-207(k)(4)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 TN WC 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dodson-deborah-v-lhc-group-tennworkcompcl-2017.