Faulkner, Ivon v. United Parcel Service

2020 TN WC 77
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedAugust 24, 2020
Docket2018-08-0321
StatusPublished

This text of 2020 TN WC 77 (Faulkner, Ivon v. United Parcel Service) 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
Faulkner, Ivon v. United Parcel Service, 2020 TN WC 77 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2020).

Opinion

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

AT MEMPHIS IVON FAULKNER, ) Docket No.: 2018-08-0321 Employee, ) V. ) UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, ) Employer, ) State File No.: 45308-2016 and ) LIBERTY MUTUAL INS. CORP., ) Carrier, ) and ) SUBSEQUENT INJURY AND ) Judge Deana C. Seymour VOCATIONAL RECOVERY FUND. )

COMPENSATION ORDER

Ivon Faulkner sustained compensable injuries on June 13, 2016, while working for United Parcel Service. At issue are the extent of Mr. Faulkner’s permanent disability and his entitlement to additional temporary disability benefits, attorney’s fees, and expenses. The Court heard this case on July 22, 2020, and holds Mr. Faulkner is entitled to permanent partial disability benefits, including increased benefits, and awards attorney’s fees of 20% from his recovery. The Court denies Mr. Faulkner’s claim for additional temporary disability benefits.

History of Claim’

Mr. Faulkner injured his low back and right shoulder while delivering a roll of wire for UPS. He received authorized treatment from neurosurgeon Dr. Rodney Olinger and orthopedic surgeon Dr. Bret Sokoloff.

Dr. Olinger testified by deposition that he first saw Mr. Faulkner on June 25, 2016. He diagnosed an L4 herniated disk in his back. Dr. Olinger excused Mr. Faulkner from work and ordered physical therapy until the insurer denied additional therapy in

‘See Exhibit 12 for party stipulations with stipulation 14 revised by the parties as follows: 14. Mr. Faulkner did not have a meaningful return to work at UPS due to restrictions assigned by Dr. Olinger as a result of injuries sustained in the June 13, 2016 accident.

1 November 2016.

Mr. Faulkner returned to Dr. Olinger in March 2017 for back surgery. A month later, Dr. Olinger performed a left L4 diskectomy. He placed Mr. Faulkner at maximum medical improvement on June 20, assessed a permanent impairment rating of 8% to the body for his low back, and released him to seek orthopedic treatment for his shoulder.

Dr. Olinger concluded that Mr. Faulkner had an excellent recovery from surgery but could no longer perform the heavy industrial work he did before this accident.’ He permanently restricted Mr. Faulkner’s activities to occasional lifting of no more than fifty pounds and frequent lifting of no more than ten pounds, which placed him in the medium industrial work category. Dr. Olinger explained that Mr. Faulkner could work in a different position within those restrictions.

After release for his back injury, Mr. Faulkner accepted authorized treatment for his shoulder from Dr. Bret Sokoloff, who diagnosed a right-shoulder strain. He placed him at maximum medical improvement on June 29, concluding he had no permanent impairment or physical restrictions related to his right shoulder.

In June 2019, neurosurgeon Dr. John Brophy became Mr. Faulkner’s authorized treating physician after Dr. Olinger retired. He examined Mr. Faulkner for back pain and stiffness. He diagnosed “chronic back pain associated with lumbar spondylosis and possible myofascial component. His radiculopathy has resolved.” Dr. Brophy cleared him “to remain at a full duty work status” as a church bishop.

In August, a vocational expert, Michelle Weiss, evaluated Mr. Faulkner. She concluded that he was not permanently and totally disabled. Ms. Weiss described Mr. Faulkner as well-spoken, articulate, and personable, and he performed average to above- average on achievement testing. Ms. Weiss testified that his test results demonstrated his ability to excel in job retraining.

However, Ms. Weiss learned from Mr. Faulkner that he was near retirement, had not searched for a job, and was not interested in changing careers. She noted that his medical records documented subjective complaints that exceeded his restrictions. Ms. Weiss testified that Mr. Faulkner’s permanent restrictions prevented him from returning to his heavy labor job for UPS but did not prevent him from performing medium-range, entry-level skilled and semiskilled jobs earning between $9.00 and $13.00 per hour, resulting in a sixty-eight percent wage loss. She concluded Mr. Faulkner retained 61% vocational disability.

Mr. Faulkner testified that he is fifty-eight years old and described himself as intelligent with an ability to learn new skills. He took college and technical school courses in engineering and pre-law. He also took a writing course from a renowned

* Dr. Olinger reviewed Mr. Faulkner’s history of knee and back problems before this 2016 accident but stated that these conditions did not preclude him from performing his physically demanding job at UPS.

2 author. Mr. Faulkner served as an Army Reserve medic for six years and received an honorable discharge. He ran for state senate twice and city council once and managed his own campaigns.

Mr. Faulkner worked thirty-six years as a courier for UPS. He also served as union shop steward. Mr. Faulkner defined the UPS job as “heavy” and recounted several work injuries. However, he worked full duty, including overtime, without restrictions until his June 2016 injury. Afterward, UPS could not accommodate his work restrictions and terminated him.

After his termination, Mr. Faulkner did not look for a job or apply for vocational services because he did not believe anyone would hire him given his lack of physical stamina, inability to get in and out of a vehicle, and problems with sitting or standing for any length of time. Mr. Faulkner testified that he could probably work part-time at a job that would accommodate his restrictions, allow a flexible work schedule, and pay a significant amount, but he doubted this job exists.

Regarding his activities since leaving UPS, Mr. Faulkner testified he was appointed bishop for his church. As bishop, he presides over funerals and baptisms in his church of approximately 600 members. He also provides counseling and oversees local missionary work. He does not earn an income from this job.

Also, when time allows, Mr. Faulkner pursues his goal to become an author of religious books. He has limited computer skills and handwrites his texts. He has not yet earned income from this pursuit.

The parties agreed that UPS paid all authorized medical expenses. It paid temporary total disability benefits at a rate of $910.13 from June 16, 2016, to June 29, 2017, totaling $49,227.04. They also agreed that the compensation rate for permanent partial disability benefits was $858.00 and that UPS advanced payment of $6,864.00, to which it was entitled a credit against the final award.

Issues

First, the parties disagreed on the extent of Mr. Faulkner’s vocational disability. Mr. Faulkner argued he is permanently and totally disabled. He also pursued benefits from the Subsequent Injury Fund based on earlier work injuries. Alternatively, Mr. Faulkner claimed entitlement to permanent partial disability benefits based on his impairment rating plus increased benefits because UPS could not accommodate his permanent restrictions and he did not return to work for any employer.

To the contrary, UPS contended that Mr. Faulkner’s permanent partial disability benefits should be based only on his 8% impairment rating, since he made no attempt to seek gainful employment after reaching maximum medical improvement. It insisted Mr. Faulkner has not proven permanent and total disability given Ms. Weiss’s testimony and his lack of effort in finding work. The Subsequent Injury Fund agreed with UPS regarding permanent total disability, which it argued eliminated Mr. Faulkner’s eligibility for benefits from the Fund.

Second, the parties disagreed on the amount of TTD to which Mr. Faulkner was entitled. Mr.

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

Related

Hubble v. Dyer Nursing Home
188 S.W.3d 525 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2006)
Hartley v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
276 S.W.2d 1 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 TN WC 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faulkner-ivon-v-united-parcel-service-tennworkcompcl-2020.