Gumm, Sara v. Buffalo Wild Wings

2015 TN WC 176
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedDecember 4, 2015
Docket2015-03-*0197
StatusPublished

This text of 2015 TN WC 176 (Gumm, Sara v. Buffalo Wild Wings) 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
Gumm, Sara v. Buffalo Wild Wings, 2015 TN WC 176 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2015).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS AT KNOXVILLE

SARA M. GUMM, ) Docket No.: 2015-03-0197 Employee, ) ) v. ) State File Number: 36951-2015 BUFFALO WILD WINGS, ) Employer, ) Judge Lisa A. Knott ) And ) ) SEDGWICK CLAIMS ) MANAGEMENT SERVICES, ) Insurance Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER GRANTING MEDICAL AND TEMPORARY DISABILITY BENEFITS (RECORD REVIEW)

This matter came before the undersigned Workers' Compensation Judge on the Request for Expedited Hearing filed by the Employee, Sara Gumm, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239 (2014), and requested an on-the-record determination of the issues set forth in the Dispute Certification Notice. The Employer, Buffalo Wild Wings, did not request an in-person evidentiary hearing. This Court finds that no additional information is needed to determine whether Ms. Gumm is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits of the claim. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 0800-02- 21-.14(l)(c) (2015) of the Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations, the Court decided the issues in this case upon a review of the written materials and without benefit of an evidentiary hearing.

The present focus of this case is Ms. Gumm's left knee injury. The central legal issue is whether Ms. Gumm is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that her left knee injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment, thus entitling her to medical and temporary disability benefits. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds Ms. Gumm is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that her left knee injury arose primarily out of and in the course of her employment, such that she is entitled to medical and temporary disability benefits. 1

History of Claim

Ms. Gumm is an eighteen-year-old resident of Blount County, Tennessee. Buffalo Wild Wings employed Ms. Gumm as a hostess. Ms. Gumm alleges that on May 5, 2015, she slipped on ice and twisted her left knee. On May 6, 2015, Ms. Gumm presented to Blount Memorial Hospital emergency room. The triage physician gave Ms. Gumm a knee immobilizer and crutches and advised to weight bear as tolerated. Ms. Gumm returned to Blount Memorial emergency room department on May 12, 2015, where she was referred directly to Springbrook Occupational Therapy.

Dr. Bryan Thompson evaluated Ms. Gumm at Springbrook on May 14, 2015, for ongoing left knee pain. He diagnosed Ms. Gumm with internal derangement, and assigned restrictions of both walking and standing up to fifteen minutes per hour. Dr. Thompson contacted Buffalo Wild Wings to advise that the diagnosis was not yet clear and further testing would be necessary. Dr. Thompson referred Ms. Gumm back to Dr. Michael Campbell because Dr. Campbell performed her previous left knee surgery.

Buffalo W·ild Wings provided a panel of physicians. (Ex. 8.) However, neither party provided a signed copy indicating the selected physician. Dr. Brandon S. A bury 2 OrthoTennessee, evaluated Ms. Gumm on May 29, 2015. (Ex. 5.) He recommended an MRI for consideration of an ACL tear, and restricted Ms. Gumm from working until her follow-up appointment. !d. On June 17, 2015, Dr. Asbury reviewed the MRI results, which demonstrated a patella contusion and no evidence of tears. Dr. Asbury opined:

I do believe that this is a new injury. She has no history of patellar dislocation in the past so I do believe this is work-related. We will hold her out of work approximately two further weeks, while we focus on therapy and re-strengthening of the quadriceps. I do not think this is related to chondromalacia of the patella, which actually had no evidence of this on MRI today. !d.

It is unclear which treatment Ms. Gumm underwent and whether her work restrictions continued post-June 17, 2015, because she did not provide any of Dr. Asbury's subsequent records.

Ms. Gumm filed a Petition for Benefit Determination seeking temporary disability and medical benefits. The parties did not resolve the disputed issues through mediation, 1 A complete listing of the technical record and exhibits admitted at the Expedited Hearing is attached to this Order as an appendix. 2 The panel of physicians did not contain Dr. Asbury. It is unclear whether he was an authorized treating physician.

2 and the Mediating Specialist filed a Dispute Certification Notice. This matter was set for a show cause hearing, wherein Ms. Gumm advised that she filed a Request for Expedited Hearing for an on-the-record determination. The undersigned Judge explained to Ms. Gumm that only the submitted medical records would be considered, and provided Buffalo Wild Wings an opportunity to respond to the Request for Expedited Hearing. Subsequently, Ms. Gumm contacted the Court and requested permission to submit additional medical records. Court staff informed Ms. Gumm if she wanted to submit additional records, this matter would need to be scheduled for an in-person evidentiary hearing. On November 19, 2015, Ms. Gumm advised the Court that she would like to proceed with the previously submitted information.

Based on a review of the record, Ms. Gumm asserts she sustained a work-related knee injury for which she is entitled to medical and temporary disability benefits. (Ex. 1.) Buffalo Wild Wings countered that Ms. Gumm delayed reporting her injury and seeking medical treatment. It further countered that the medical records do not state that Ms. Gumm's injury arose primarily out of and in the course of her employment. (T.R. p. 10.)

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

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). The employee in a workers' compensation claim has the burden of proof on all essential elements of a claim. Tindall v. Waring Park Ass 'n, 725 S.W.2d 935, 937 (Tenn. 1987); 3 Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, No. 2015-01-0055, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *6 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015). An employee need not prove every element of his or her claim by a preponderance of the evidence in order to obtain relief at an expedited hearing. McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, No. 2014-06-0063, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Mar. 27, 20 15). At an expedited hearing, an employee has the burden to come forward with sufficient evidence from which the trial court can determine that the employee is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. !d.

Buffalo Wild Wings alleges Ms. Gumm delayed providing notice of a work- related injury and seeking medical treatment. However, the First Report of Injury notes

3 The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board allows reliance on precedent from the Tennessee Supreme Court "unless it is evident that the Supreme Court's decision or rationale relied on a remedial interpretation of pre- July I, 2014 statutes, that it relied on specific statutory language no longer contained in the Workers' Compensation Law, and/or that it relied on an analysis that has since been addressed by the general assembly through statutory amendments." McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, No. 2014-06-0063, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *13 n.4 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Mar. 27, 2015).

3 that Ms. Gunn provided notice of her injury and sought medical treatment the day after the injury. (Exs.

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

Related

Gray v. Cullom MacHine, Tool & Die, Inc.
152 S.W.3d 439 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2004)
Tindall v. Waring Park Ass'n
725 S.W.2d 935 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1987)
Simpson v. Satterfield
564 S.W.2d 953 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2015 TN WC 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gumm-sara-v-buffalo-wild-wings-tennworkcompcl-2015.