Enriquez, Salvador v. Defender Services, Inc.

2022 TN WC 92
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedDecember 27, 2022
Docket2020-02-0318
StatusPublished

This text of 2022 TN WC 92 (Enriquez, Salvador v. Defender Services, 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
Enriquez, Salvador v. Defender Services, Inc., 2022 TN WC 92 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2022).

Opinion

FILED Dec 27, 2022 02:27 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

SALVADOR ENRIQUEZ, ) Docket No. 2020-02-0318 Employee, ) v. ) DEFENDER SERVICES, INC., ) Employer, ) State File No. 1013152019 And ) AMERICAN CASUALTY ) COMPANY OF READING, ) PENNSYLVANIA, ) Judge Brian K. Addington Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

The Court held an expedited hearing on December 15, 2022, on whether Mr. Enriquez is entitled to past temporary disability benefits. Defender argued that Mr. Enriquez does not qualify for these benefits because the treating physician placed him at maximum medical improvement on June 9, 2020. For the reasons below, Mr. Enriquez is entitled to the requested benefits.

History of Claim

On December 19, 2019, Mr. Enriquez injured his left knee when he fell at work. Defender authorized Dr. Larry Waldrop to surgically repair Mr. Enriquez’s knee ligament. On June 9, 2020, Dr. Waldrop placed him at maximum medical improvement, but he noted he would likely require knee replacement surgery in the future and assigned light-duty restrictions.1

Mr. Enriquez had further symptoms, and on July 14, he saw Dr. Waldrop for worsening pain. That day he ordered an MRI and removed Mr. Enriquez from work. On November 11, Dr. Waldrop reviewed the MRI results and modified the restrictions to light

1 Defender paid Mr. Enriquez $584.15 in weekly temporary benefits until that date.

1 duty-lifting no more than five pounds. Mr. Enriquez’s knee pain continued over the next several months despite multiple injections.

Dr. Waldrop completely removed Mr. Enriquez from work on July 19, 2022, and Defender restarted temporary total disability benefits. Dr. Waldrop performed a court- ordered left-knee replacement for Mr. Enriquez in August. Mr. Enriquez testified that he experienced less pain and could ambulate better after his knee replacement.

On September 1, Dr. Waldrop responded to a questionnaire, marking “no” to the question, “was Mr. Enriquez at Maximum Medical Improvement on June 21, 2020.” Dr. Waldrop answered “yes” when asked if Mr. Enriquez was restricted to light duty from November 11, 2020, until July 19, 2022.

Mr. Enriquez testified that he attempted three times to find work within his restrictions. He said that he has not worked since June 20, 2020, because of his knee pain and restrictions. At the hearing, he called two local employers, who testified that Mr. Enriquez requested a construction job from them; however, neither had available work within his restrictions. Mr. Enriquez recounted that he tried operating a string trimmer but could not physically do it.2

Based on Dr. Waldrop’s September 1 opinion, Mr. Enriquez asked for an accrued award of temporary disability benefits from June 9, 2020, to July 18, 2022. This represents temporary partial benefits for June 9, 2020, through July 13; temporary total benefits for July 14 through November 11; and temporary partial benefits beginning November 12, 2020, through July 18, 2022.

Defender argued that it did not owe temporary benefits because Mr. Enriquez reached maximum medical improvement and was released to light-duty work in June 2020. It further asserted that Mr. Enriquez has not proven his period of disability, nor that he was unable to work light duty. Lastly, it argued that receiving treatment after the authorized physician placed him at maximum medical improvement did not rescind that status.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

At an Expedited hearing, Mr. Enriquez must show he would likely prevail at a hearing on the merits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2022). The only issue is whether Mr. Enriquez was entitled to temporary disability benefits.3

2 The parties did not introduce evidence of what, if any, work Mr. Enriquez could perform for Defender. 3 During the second expedited hearing, the undersigned held that Mr. Enriquez came forward with sufficient evidence to show he was likely to succeed at a final hearing in showing the need for his total knee replacement was primarily due to his December 19, 2019 injury.

2 To be eligible for temporary benefits, Mr. Enriquez must prove: “(1) that he became disabled from working due to a compensable injury; (2) that there is a causal connection between the injury and his inability to work; and (3) the duration of the period of disability.” Hibbitts v. Kim Royal d/b/a Royal Guttering, 2021 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 10, at *6 (Mar. 23, 2021).

In a previous expedited hearing, the Court found Mr. Enriquez’s condition primarily related to his work injury. Further, Dr. Waldrop never released Mr. Enriquez, and his status has remained at sedentary or no work during the period of disability in question. Additionally, Mr. Enriquez offered testimony of two local employers who stated they did not have construction positions to accommodate his restrictions.

As to Defender’s assertion that he worked during the alleged period of disability, Mr. Enriquez testified that he attempted to perform minor yard and construction work but was unable to do so, and Defender presented no proof that Mr. Enriquez earned any income during the period in question. The Court finds that these unsuccessful attempts to work bolster Dr. Waldrop’s opinion concerning the work restrictions. Mr. Enriquez should not be penalized for attempting to find work.

Additionally, the Court rejects Defender’s argument that Mr. Enriquez was at maximum medical improvement. Although Dr. Waldrop initially documented maximum medical improvement and rated Mr. Enriquez’s injury, he removed Mr. Enriquez from work less than one month later. Further, the parties were in active dispute over the knee replacement surgery, which the Court eventually ordered. With Mr. Enriquez’s continued treatment, knee replacement, and Dr. Waldrop’s new September 1, 2022, opinion, the Court holds that Mr. Enriquez had not reached maximum medical improvement in June 2020.

Considering the findings above, the Court holds that Mr. Enriquez is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in showing his entitlement to the temporary benefits he seeks.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows:

1. Defender shall pay Mr. Enriquez temporary partial disability benefits from June 9, 2020, through July 13, which represents five weeks at the weekly rate of $584.15 totaling $2,920.75.

2. Defender shall pay Mr. Enriquez temporary total disability benefits from July 14, 2020, through November 11, or seventeen weeks and four days at the weekly rate of $584.15 totaling $10,097.54.

3 3. Defender shall pay Mr. Enriquez temporary partial disability for the period of November 12, 2020, to July 18, 2022, at the weekly rate of $584.15 totaling eighty- six weeks and three days or $50,487.25

4. Mr. Beiger is entitled to a fee of up to 20% from Mr. Enriquez from the total amount ordered.

5. This case is set for a Status Hearing on February 14, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern time. The parties must dial 855-543-5044 to participate in the hearing.

6. Unless interlocutory appeal of the Expedited Hearing Order is filed, compliance with this Order must occur no later than seven business days from the date of entry of this Order as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(3). The insurer must submit confirmation of compliance with this Order to the Bureau by email to WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov no later than the seventh business day after entry of this Order. Failure to submit the necessary confirmation within the period of compliance may result in a penalty assessment for non-compliance.

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

Related

§ 50-6-239
Tennessee § 50-6-239(d)(1)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2022 TN WC 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enriquez-salvador-v-defender-services-inc-tennworkcompcl-2022.