DZIADOSZ, JASON v. WHITESTONE INVESTMENTS, INC.

2019 TN WC 69
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedApril 26, 2019
Docket2018-06-1641
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 TN WC 69 (DZIADOSZ, JASON v. WHITESTONE INVESTMENTS, INC.) 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
DZIADOSZ, JASON v. WHITESTONE INVESTMENTS, INC., 2019 TN WC 69 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2019).

Opinion

FILED Apr 26, 2019 12:04 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

JASON DZIADOSZ, ) Employee, ) v. ) Docket No. 2018-06-1641 WHITESTONE INVESTMENTS, ) INC., ) Employer, ) State File No. 69336-2018 and ) ) HANOVER INSURANCE CO., ) Judge Joshua Davis Baker ) Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER FOR MEDICAL BENEFITS.

The Court convened an expedited hearing on April 11, 2019, to consider Mr. Dziadosz’s request for temporary disability and medical benefits for a left-hand injury. The Court grants his request for medical benefits but denies his request for temporary disability benefits.

Claim History

Mr. Dziadosz worked in shipping and receiving for Whitestone Investments, Inc. (Outland), a supplier of camping and outdoor equipment, when he began experiencing flu-like symptoms. He missed several days of work and then went to Vanderbilt Health on September 1, 2018. While there, Mr. Dziadosz complained of left-hand pain, specifically his left index finger. Vanderbilt took three x-rays and found no acute problems.

Mr. Dziadosz went that same day to a Physician’s Urgent Care center where he saw Gary Nardin, a physician’s assistant. Mr. Nardin determined he had an “overuse syndrome and will most likely continue if he stays at this job.” Mr. Nardin provided him pain medication and prednisone.

1 Mr. Dziadosz returned to Outland on September 4 and informed the warehouse lead, Dylan Yeager, that he hurt his hand at work. According to his affidavit, Mr. Dziadosz took the following day off with permission from Mr. Yeager to rest his hand but came to work for a staff meeting. After he arrived home from the staff meeting, Mr. Yeager left him a message informing him he had been fired. Matthew Chilvers, the owner of Outland, told Mr. Dziadosz he fired him due to excessive, unexcused absences.

After his termination, Mr. Dziadosz returned to Mr. Nardin, who diagnosed tendinitis and attributed it to his work:

In my professional opinion the engagement in the work that he was doing at the distribution center accounted for 50% or more of the cause for his tendinitis. Patient is 75% improved and will hopefully be 100% improved with PT. At this time I do not see that the patient has any restrictions for his engagement in gainful employment.

Soon after his visit with Mr. Nardin, Mr. Dizadosz received a panel of physicians and selected Dr. David Alexander. Dr. Alexander ultimately diagnosed Mr. Dziadosz with tenosynovitis of the hand, wrist and forearm and took him off work for a total of two weeks, for which Mr. Dziadosz received temporary-total disability benefits. In his medical notes, Dr. Alexander imposed restrictions and indicated Mr. Dziadosz could “Return to Light Duty work on 11-07-2018” and return as needed. Dr. Alexander wrote, “I have examined this patient and do not feel that he will retain any partial permanent impairment as a result of this work-related claim.” He later revised this note and placed Mr. Dziadosz at maximum medical improvement (MMI) as of November 7. Dr. Alexander indicated he needed no further medical treatment.

After being placed at MMI, Mr. Dziadosz contacted the insurance adjuster to schedule a return appointment. The insurance adjuster sent an email to Dr. Alexander’s assistant asking if the doctor would see Mr. Dziadosz again. A printed copy of the email contains two boxes, one next to the word “yes” and the other next to the word “no.” The “no” box contains a check-mark. After receiving this opinion, Outland filed a notice of controversy and declined to provide further treatment.

As he continued to have problems with his hand, Mr. Dziadosz visited Dr. Todd Wurth, an orthopedic surgeon, on January 29, 2019. Dr. Wurth diagnosed left index trigger finger and gave him a steroid shot. If the shot failed to relieve the condition, Dr. Wurth recommended A-1 pulley-release surgery. He did not impose any work restrictions. Mr. Dziadosz paid $250 out-of-pocket for the visit.

2 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

To prevail at an expedited hearing, Mr. Dziadosz must present sufficient evidence to prove he would likely prevail at a final hearing in his claim for temporary disability and medical benefits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2018); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-9 (Mar. 27, 2015).

Mr. Dziadosz must have suffered either an acute or a gradual injury as defined by the Workers’ Compensation Law. Under the law, an “injury” means “an injury by accident . . . arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, that causes death, disablement, or the need for medical treatment of the employee[.]” The injury, whether acute or gradual, must be caused “by a specific incident, or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.” “An injury arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes[.]” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

Mr. Dziadosz testified he began having hand pain while working for Outland. He gave the same history to his medical providers. While Mr. Yeager testified that the work was not strenuous and questioned the repetitive nature of it, Dr. Alexander agreed that Mr. Dziadosz’s pain stemmed from warehouse work. Thus, the Court holds Mr. Dziadosz would likely prevail in proving he suffered an incident or set of incidents arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment that caused the need for treatment. The remaining question is whether the work caused his need for further medical treatment. The Court finds that it did.

Mr. Dziadosz seeks additional treatment for his hand. Under the Workers’ Compensation Law, the employer “shall furnish, free of charge to the employee, such medical and surgical treatment . . . made reasonably necessary by accident as defined in this chapter.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(a)(1)(A). Outland initially provided this treatment with Dr. Alexander, who treated Mr. Dziadosz and released him at MMI.

Although Dr. Alexander determined Mr. Dziadosz suffered no permanent impairment, his medical notes indicated Mr. Dziadosz could return as needed. Mr. Dziadosz continued to suffer pain and requested additional care, and his own assessment of his physical and disability is competent testimony. See Cleek v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 19 S.W.3d 770, 774 (Tenn. 2000). Despite Mr. Dziadosz’s right to continued reasonable and necessary care, Dr. Alexander declined to treat him, and Outland controverted the claim.

3 Left without authorized medical care, Mr. Dziadosz sought treatment on his own from Dr. Wurth and incurred costs. Dr. Wurth affirmed the diagnosis of tenosynovitis, gave him a steroid injection for his pain, and discussed possible surgical intervention if necessary. The Court finds Mr. Dziadosz’s actions were reasonable. He would likely prevail at a hearing on the merits in proving entitlement to further medical treatment, as the condition Dr. Wurth treated was the same condition he suffered at work and Dr. Alexander refused to see him. The Court designates Dr.

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

Related

Cleek v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
19 S.W.3d 770 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 TN WC 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dziadosz-jason-v-whitestone-investments-inc-tennworkcompcl-2019.