Hancock, Jurine v. Federal Express Corp.

2018 TN WC 89
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedJune 25, 2018
Docket2017-08-1354
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 TN WC 89 (Hancock, Jurine v. Federal Express Corp.) 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
Hancock, Jurine v. Federal Express Corp., 2018 TN WC 89 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2018).

Opinion

FILED Jun 25, 2018 10:57 AM(CT) ' J TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION IN THE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS AT MEMPHIS

JURINE HANCOCK, ) Docket No. 2017-08-1354 Employee, ) v. ) FEDERAL EXPRESS ) State File No. 938-2017 CORPORATION, ) Employer, ) And ) ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., ) Judge Deana Seymour Insurance Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING MEDICAL AND TEMPORARY DISABILITY BENEFITS

This case came before the Court on June 1, 2018, upon Jurine Hancock's Request for Expedited Hearing. The central legal issue is whether Ms. Hancock is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits for entitlement to 'medical and temporary disability benefits. The Court holds she is not and denies her request for benefits at this time.

History of Claim

Ms. Hancock worked as a ramp agent for Federal Express Corporation (FedEx). On December 20, 2016, she experienced a cardiac event and collapsed at work. Two co- workers, Erica Loyd and Shaun Alexander, witnessed the incident and called an ambulance. The paramedics resuscitated Ms. Hancock, and she spent nine days at Methodist University Hospital.

Following her discharge, Ms. Hancock received follow-up care with multiple providers. In addition to monitoring Ms. Hancock's heart issues, the providers also treated secondary injuries to her knees, left shoulder, and nose that she sustained when she fell. None of the providers addressed the issue of medical causation in the records the parties submitted.

1 FedEx denied the claim due to the lack of medical documentation supporting a work-related injury and the absence of a causal relationship to work. Moreover, it maintained that Ms. Hancock did not describe a set of incidents that would have resulted in her cardiac event. Afterward, Ms. Hancock filed a Petition for Benefit Determination, asking the Court to order FedEx to provide medical treatment and pay temporary disability benefits.

Ms. Hancock testified credibly at the hearing. She stated that she worked eleven days in a row when the episode occurred. She estimated that she worked twelve- to thirteen-hour shifts during this time. She denied any history of heart disease but admitted that her father died from a heart attack. She relied on the statements of Ms. Loyd and Ms. Alexander to describe the incident itself, as she was incapacitated at the time and did not recall much about the events of that day.

Ms. Loyd indicated she and Ms. Hancock were walking toward the staging area talking about which freight still needed to be unloaded when Ms. Hancock collapsed. Ms. Loyd noticed Ms. Hancock bleeding from the impact. She asked a supervisor to call for medical assistance, and then she stayed with Ms. Hancock until the paramedics arrived.

Ms. Alexander stated she unloaded freight with Ms. Hancock that morning and saw Ms. Hancock collapse. Ms. Alexander described the ramp agent job as very demanding, and during the holiday season, agents are required to work long hours with very little time to rest. During the week of Christmas, F edEx asked agents to work seven full days to ensure that packages arrived on time.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Standard Applied

Ms. Hancock bears the burden of proof on the essential elements of her claim. Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *6 (Aug. 18, 20 15). She does not have to prove every element of her claim by a preponderance of the evidence but must present sufficient evidence for the Court to determine she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *9 (Mar. 27, 2015).

Causation

To prove a compensable injury, Ms. Hancock must show her alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50- 6-102(14) (2017). "An injury 'arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment' only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering

2 all causes." !d. This contribution must be established to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, which means that, in the opinion of the physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or possibility. !d.

Here, Ms. Hancock introduced no medical proof of a work injury. While the Court recognizes the physical demands placed on Ms. Hancock and her co-workers during the holiday season, no physician has determined that these demands caused Ms. Hancock's cardiac event. Thus, the Court holds Ms. Hancock is unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits for entitlement to medical and temporary disability benefits.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Ms. Hancock's claim against FedEx for medical and temporary disability benefits is denied at this time.

2. This matter is set for a Scheduling Hearing on July 30, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. Central Standard Time. The parties must call (toll-free) 866-943-0014 to participate in the Hearing. Failure to call in may result in a determination of the issues without the parties' participation.

Entered June 25, 2018.

~-~· - JUDGE DEANA SEYMOUR Court of Workers' Compensation Claims

3 APPENDIX

Exhibits: 1. Notarized statement of Erica Loyd 2. Notarized statement of Shaun Alexander 3. Medical records from Sutherland Cardiology Clinic and Methodist University Hospital (Collective) 4. Medical records filed by Ms. Hancock during mediation (Collective) 5. C-20 Employer's First Report of Work Injury or Illness 6. C-23 Notice ofDenial of Claim for Compensation 7. Medical Records with Table of Contents (Collective)

Technical record: 1. Petition for Benefit Determination 2. Dispute Certification Notice 3. Motion to Withdraw as Counsel 4. Request for Expedited Hearing and attached affidavit (Collective) 5. Order on Motion to Withdraw and Show Cause Hearing

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent to the following recipients by the following methods of service on June 25, 2018.

Name Certified Fax Email Service Sent to: Mail Jurine Hancock, Self- X hancock3 07 8@comcast.net Represented Employee Joseph Fletcher, X jflctcher@lewisthomason.com Employer's Attorney

RUM, CLERK Court of orkers' Compensation Claims WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov

4 Expedited Hearing Order Right to Appeal:

If you disagree with this Expedited Hearing Order, you may appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. To appeal an expedited hearing order, you must:

1. Complete the enclosed form entitled: “Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal,” and file the form with the Clerk of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims within seven business days of the date the expedited hearing order was filed. When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must serve a copy upon all parties.

2. You must pay, via check, money order, or credit card, a $75.00 filing fee within ten calendar days after filing of the Notice of Appeal. Payments can be made in-person at any Bureau office or by U.S. mail, hand-delivery, or other delivery service. In the alternative, you may file an Affidavit of Indigency (form available on the Bureau’s website or any Bureau office) seeking a waiver of the fee. You must file the fully- completed Affidavit of Indigency within ten calendar days of filing the Notice of Appeal. Failure to timely pay the filing fee or file the Affidavit of Indigency will result in dismissal of the appeal.

3.

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

Related

§ 50
Tennessee § 50

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 TN WC 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hancock-jurine-v-federal-express-corp-tennworkcompcl-2018.