Evans, Patricia v. JRN, Inc.

2017 TN WC 54
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedMarch 15, 2017
Docket2016-06-1543
StatusPublished

This text of 2017 TN WC 54 (Evans, Patricia v. JRN, 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
Evans, Patricia v. JRN, Inc., 2017 TN WC 54 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2017).

Opinion

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

Patricia Evans, ) Docket No. 2016-06-1543 Employee, ) v. ) State File No. 26442016 JRN, Inc., ) Employer, ) Judge Joshua Davis Baker And ) Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, ) Carrier. ) )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER GRANTING MEDICAL BENEFITS

This claim came before the Court on February 22, 2017, on the Request for Expedited Hearing filed by Patricia Evans. The focus of this case is whether Ms. Evans is entitled to medical and temporary disability benefits for alleged injuries to her left arm, left shoulder, neck and back. JRN, Inc. opposes Ms. Evans’ claim for benefits, arguing her workplace accident did not cause these injuries. For the reasons set forth below, the Court holds Ms. Evans is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in proving her entitlement to medical benefits for her left arm, left shoulder, neck, and back, but failed to carry her burden of proving entitlement to temporary disability benefits.

Claim History

This expedited hearing concerns an alleged overuse injury to the employee’s left side, following an accepted injury to the employee’s right hand, wrist and middle finger. Ms. Evans fell over a box of coleslaw mix and injured her right hand, wrist, and right middle finger on January 5, 2016, while working at a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant owed by JRN. JRN accepted her claim for this injury.

Authorized treating physician Dr. Roy C. Terry diagnosed Ms. Evans with right- hand stiffness, recommended physical therapy, and released her to return to work without restrictions on February 16, suggesting Ms. Terry “buddy-tape” her middle finger to her ring finger. Despite using buddy-tape, Ms. Evans experienced continued difficulty with her right hand, including pain, loss of mobility and decreased grip-strength. Dr. Terry provided a splint and later imposed workplace restrictions on Ms. Evans. Using the splint, Ms. Evans continued her employment duties. She testified that using the splint decreased her grip-strength and mobility in her right fingers and wrist. Additionally, the splint decreased her ability to clasp her fingers and thumb together, making it difficult to use kitchen items such as tongs, spoons and can openers. Because of these difficulties, Ms. Evans began to rely more heavily on her left side to perform her job duties.

Her supervisor, Duran Hickman, testified that Ms. Evans received assistance from coworkers so she could continue to work within her restrictions. This included assistance in emptying the trash, moving heavy items and using the can opener. He further testified that Ms. Evans’ work performance suffered after her January 5 injury. Despite the assistance, Ms. Evans continued to have difficulty performing her job duties and continued to have pain in her neck, left shoulder and arm.

By August 5, Ms. Evans felt she could not continue working without treatment. She testified she reported the pain she was having in her shoulder and back to Mr. Hickman and asked that the injury be reported as work-related. She said that Mr. Hickman reported her condition, and she was taken off from work.

Ms. Evans acknowledged in her testimony that she injured her knees in a fall at Walgreens after her January 5 workplace accident and injured her neck in a car accident in 2002. Despite these other potential causes of her condition, she unequivocally associated her neck and left-side complaints to overuse after suffering her injury on January 5.

Because JRN did not accept her neck, back, left shoulder and left arm complaints as work-related, Dr. Terry examined Ms. Evans under her private health insurance plan in August. Ms. Evans’ medical records reflect she complained of “pain that goes down her left arm and tingling down into her left arm” that causes “numbness down in her [left] hand.” After an examination and x-rays, Dr. Terry diagnosed Ms. Evans with “degenerative osteoarthritis of the cervical spine with disc degeneration and narrowing.” He wrote, “I feel that her problem is probably related to her neck.” He did not address the causal relationship between her condition and her work for JRN.

JRN’s Motion to Re-open Proof

Following the Expedited Hearing, JRN filed an unopposed “Motion to Re-Open Proof” and supplemented its motion with a causation letter completed by Dr. Terry. In the letter, Dr. Terry checked “no” to the questions, “are the left shoulder and hand pain related 51% or more to the work injury?” and, “is the neck pain related 51% or more to the work injury?” Medical evidence regarding causation was not presented at the

2 Expedited Hearing, even though the Court continued Ms. Evans’ Expedited Hearing from December for the parties to gather medical proof. The letter to Dr. Terry is dated roughly one week before the Expedited Hearing, and facsimile-stamping indicates he returned it to the Liberty Mutual Claims Department two days before the Expedited Hearing.

An opposing party “must submit all documents to the clerk, including any affidavits, demonstrating the moving party is not entitled to the requested relief no later than ten (10) business days before the date of the expedited hearing.” Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-21-.14(b) (2016). Evidence not disclosed in accordance with this rule “will not be considered unless good cause is shown as to why the evidence/witness was not disclosed.” Id. at 0800-02-21-.14(c). Additionally, Rule 7.01 of the Court’s Practices and Procedures require “extraordinary circumstances” for consideration of evidence submitted after the expiration of the applicable rules and regulations.

Here, the Court finds it troubling that Liberty Mutual had opportunity as early as August 2016 to obtain this late-filed evidence but failed to do so. Furthermore, the Court delayed the hearing of this case for several months, at Liberty Mutual’s request, to provide it additional time to secure medical proof. Despite this delay, Liberty Mutual did not seek Dr. Terry’s opinion until approximately one week before the Expedited Hearing. It is equally troubling that Liberty Mutual had Dr. Terry’s response two days prior to the Expedited Hearing, yet did not bring it to the attention of its counsel until after the hearing concluded. While the evidence presented by the motion is relevant and has bearing upon the central issue of this claim, the Court holds that Liberty Mutual failed to show that extraordinary circumstances prevented it from timely presenting the evidence. Liberty Mutual has not demonstrated any effort to secure this opinion timely. By waiting so long to secure the opinion and then presenting it after the hearing, Liberty Mutual deprived Ms. Evans of the opportunity to secure additional proof or speak with Dr. Terry about his opinion. Liberty Mutual’s motion is denied.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

The following general principles govern adjudication of this proceeding. Ms. Evans has the burden of proof on all essential elements of her workers’ compensation claim. Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *6 (Aug. 18, 2015). At an expedited hearing, however, her burden of proof is lower, and requires her only to come forward with sufficient evidence from which this Court can determine that she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2016); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *9 (Mar. 27, 2015). The Court holds Ms. Evans carried this burden and is entitled to a panel of physicians for evaluation and treatment of her neck, back, left shoulder and left arm.

3 JRN argued Ms.

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

Related

Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc.
803 S.W.2d 672 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1991)
Tindall v. Waring Park Ass'n
725 S.W.2d 935 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 TN WC 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-patricia-v-jrn-inc-tennworkcompcl-2017.