Glynise Johnson v. OBERTO Sausage Co.

2015 TN WC 57

This text of 2015 TN WC 57 (Glynise Johnson v. OBERTO Sausage Co.) 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
Glynise Johnson v. OBERTO Sausage Co., 2015 TN WC 57 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2015).

Opinion

COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

EMPLOYEE: GLYNISE JOHNSON DOCKET NO. 2015-06-0125

EMPLOYER: OBERTO SAUSAGE STATE FILE NO. 2076-2015 CO. DATE OF INJURY: JAN. 5, 2015

CARRIER: THE TRAVELERS JUDGE: BAKER

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Request for Expedited Hearing filed on May 6, 2015, by Glynise Johnson, the employee, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 239, wherein Ms. Johnson requested that the Court order the employer, Oberto Sausage Company (Oberto), to provide her a panel of neurologists for treatment of her work-related injury. Ms. Johnson requested that the Court render its decision based on a review of the case file. Upon review of the file, the Court enters the following order holding that Ms. Johnson is not entitled to a panel of neurologists.

ANALYSIS

Issue

Whether Oberto should be required to provide Ms. Johnson a panel of neurologists for treatment of her work-related injury.

Documents Reviewed

The Court reviewed and considered the following in reaching its decision:

 Medical records of o Tennessee Orthopedic Alliance o Concentra o St. Thomas Midtown Hospital o One Hundred Oaks Imaging o Skyline Medical Center  Form C-42, Agreement Between Employer/Employee Choice of Physician 1  Request for Expedited Hearing  Dispute Certification Notice  Petition for Benefit Determination  Form C-20, First Report of Injury  Wage statement.

History of Claim

Ms. Johnson worked for Oberto earning nine dollars ($9.00) per hour. On January 5, 2015, Ms. Johnson slipped on some icy stairs at work and fell. She suffered injury to her hand and lower back.

Ms. Johnson received emergency medical care on the date of the injury at St. Thomas Midtown Hospital in Nashville. Providers at the hospital examined Ms. Johnson and took several x- rays. They discharged her with diagnoses of abrasion, hip contusion and lumbar strain just after midnight on January 6, 2015. The First Report of Injury indicates that Ms. Johnson did not miss any time from work due to her injury.

On January 6, 2015, Ms. Johnson began receiving follow-up care from Concentra. The provider at Concentra placed Ms. Johnson on light duty work restrictions and referred her for an MRI. Ms. Johnson had the test on January 19, 2015, and it showed the following:

1. Small posterior lateral bulge at the L3-4 level that extends into the inferior right neural foramen without significant narrowing of the neural foramen as there is still fat noted around the exiting nerve root sleeve.

2. Posterior bulge at L5-S1. A small associated annular tear [in] this disc is identified on the left side.

On January 20, 2015, Ms. Johnson returned to Concentra for a follow-up. Concentra referred her for treatment with “An interventional physical medicine rehabilitation specialist.” Oberto provided Ms. Johnson a panel of physicians for follow-up care and she selected Dr. Robert Clendenin, III, of Tennessee Orthopedic Alliance to provide treatment.

On February 9, 2015, Dr. Clendenin evaluated Ms. Johnson at his office. In the medical record, Dr. Clendenin noted that Ms. Johnson complained of “pain primarily in the center of the lower back, although she does have some radiation into the left hip and left thigh with a little tingling in the left thigh.” Dr. Clendenin further wrote that Ms. Johnson’s MRI did not reveal any focal nerve impingement, but she did appear to have some facet joint irritation. He recommended bilateral facet injections to treat the pain.

On February 12, 2015, Dr. Clendenin’s office called Ms. Johnson to schedule the injections. Ms. Johnson stated that she did not want to proceed with the injections and asked for a referral for pain management. Dr. Clendenin referred her to Dr. Jeffrey Hazlewood.

2 Dr. Hazlewood examined Ms. Johnson on March 10, 2015. He found no consistent evidence of facet joint irritation and no evidence of radiculopathy. He provided several analgesics and one opioid to treat the pain. Dr. Hazlewood also referred Ms. Johnson for physical therapy and imposed workplace restrictions that prohibited her from lifting, pushing or pulling over ten (10) pounds and from bending more than occasionally. He also advised Ms. Johnson that her recovery could take some time. He scheduled Ms. Johnson to return for a follow-up in three weeks. The file does not contain any records indicating whether she returned to Dr. Hazlewood.

Ms. Johnson attended a physical therapy session at Results Physiotherapy on March 23, 2015. The records from that visit show that Ms. Johnson made an appropriate effort to perform the physical therapy exercises.

Ms. Johnson’s Contentions

Ms. Johnson argues that she should be allowed to see a neurologist for treatment of her back injury. She requests that the Court order Oberto to provide this care.

Oberto’s Contentions

Oberto argues that it has provided her with a panel of rehabilitation specialists, as recommended by Concentra, and a referral for pain management as ordered by Dr. Clendenin after Ms. Johnson refused the treatment he suggested. None of the authorized treating physicians has referred Ms. Johnson to a neurologist. Essentially Oberto argues that there is no proof that referral to a neurologist is reasonable and necessary.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Standard Applied

“The Workers’ Compensation Law shall not be remedially or liberally construed in favor of either party but shall be construed fairly, impartially, and in accordance with basic principles of statutory construction favoring neither the employee nor employer.” Tenn. Code Ann. 50-6-116 (2014). Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(c)(6) provides that “[u]nless the statute provides for a different standard of proof, at a hearing, the employee shall bear the burden of proving each and every element of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.” Tenn. Code Ann. section 50-6-239(c) (2014). A different standard of proof exists for the issuance of interlocutory orders at expedited hearings than the standard of proof required at compensation hearings. McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, No. 2014-06-0063 (Tenn. Work. Comp. App. Bd., March 27, 2015). A workers’ compensation judge may enter an interlocutory order for medical or temporary benefits upon a determination that the injured employee would likely prevail at a hearing on the merits. Tenn. Code Ann. 50-6-239(d)(1) (2014); cf. McCall v. Nat’l Health Care Corp., 100 S.W.3d 209, 214 (Tenn. 2003).

Factual Findings

3 The Court finds that Ms. Johnson suffered a back injury when she fell down a flight of icy stairs at work on January 5, 2015. The Court finds that Ms. Johnson suffered an injury to her back and hand in the fall. The Court finds that none of the physicians who provided treatment has indicated that Ms. Johnson needs care from a neurologist for her injury.

Application of Law to Facts

At this point, the parties seem to agree that Ms. Johnson suffered an injury in the course and scope of work for Oberto, so causation is not at issue. Oberto has accepted the claim and provided appropriate care. Ms. Johnson, it appears, is displeased with the course of treatment and has asked the Court to intervene by ordering Oberto to provide her a panel of neurologists. The Court must decline her request.

Tennessee law requires an employer to provide “…free of charge to the employee such medical and surgical treatment…made reasonably necessary by accident as defined in this chapter[.]” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(a)(1)(A) (2014).

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

Related

McCall v. National Health Corp.
100 S.W.3d 209 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2015 TN WC 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glynise-johnson-v-oberto-sausage-co-tennworkcompcl-2015.