Harper, Mario v. Flava House, LLC

2021 TN WC 137
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedJanuary 22, 2021
Docket2019-08-0055
StatusPublished

This text of 2021 TN WC 137 (Harper, Mario v. Flava House, LLC) 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
Harper, Mario v. Flava House, LLC, 2021 TN WC 137 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2021).

Opinion

FILED Jan 22, 2021 02:09 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

MARIO HARPER, ) Docket No. 2019-08-0055 Employee, ) v. ) State File No. 3628-2019 FLAVA HOUSE, LLC, ) Uninsured Employer. ) Judge Amber E. Luttrell

COMPENSATION ORDER

The Court held a Compensation Hearing on January 6, 2021, on Mr. Harper’s request for medical benefits and temporary disability benefits for burn injuries he sustained working for Flava House, LLC. Flava House has not participated in this case and did not appear for the Compensation Hearing. For the reasons below, the Court holds Mr. Harper is entitled to the requested benefits.

Claim History

Mr. Harper, a Tennessee resident, worked as a grill cook for Flava House. He testified he earned $13 per hour and worked fifty-two hours per week.

On July 22, 2018, Mr. Harper sustained burns when he reached for a pan on the stove and a fire ignited, which caught his left arm and legs on fire. A coworker assisted him and called the owner to report the accident. The owner returned and spoke to Mr. Harper before the ambulance transported him to the hospital. Flava House terminated Mr. Harper that day and did not pay worker’s compensation benefits.

Mr. Harper received emergency treatment, including surgery, at Regional One Health Hospital. Dr. William Hickerson treated Mr. Harper for second degree-burns to his left arm and both legs. Dr. Hickerson testified that he treated Mr. Harper’s left-arm burn with a skin substitute and thought his leg wounds would heal on their own.

Mr. Harper stayed in the hospital several days and then underwent outpatient treatment at the Wound Care Center through September 14, 2018. Dr. Hickerson testified

1 that on that date, “everything was healed and he was discharged.” Dr. Hickerson stated he would have restricted Mr. Harper from working due to his injuries from July 23 through his September 14 discharge date. Further, Dr. Hickerson reviewed Regional One Health’s bills and testified they represented reasonable, necessary, and customary charges for the work injury.

At trial, Mr. Harper asserted that Flava House did not have workers’ compensation insurance coverage on his injury date and offered proof to seek discretionary benefits from the Bureau’s Uninsured Employers Fund.

Emily Bragg, Mr. Harper’s former attorney, testified regarding his request for benefits from the Uninsured Employers Fund under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50- 6-801(d). Specifically, she testified concerning the timeframe of her efforts to determine Flava House’s insurance coverage and when she provided notice to the Bureau as required under section 50-6-801(d)(4).

Ms. Bragg stated she performed an insurance coverage verification search on Flava House through the Bureau’s website on August 10, 2018, and the website showed Flava House had workers’ compensation insurance. A few days later, she sent a letter of representation to Flava House and was contacted by an attorney, who stated he represented Flava House in this claim. She understood from the attorney that Flava House had workers’ compensation insurance for the claim.

Ms. Bragg testified she first learned Flava House might not have been insured on January 15, 2019, when the attorney informed her that he was not going to represent Flava House. She filed a Petition for Benefit Determination that day, and the Bureau assigned a Compliance Specialist to initiate a coverage investigation on January 17.

The Bureau’s Compliance Specialist investigated Flava House’s coverage status and prepared an Expedited Request for Investigation Report containing his findings. The report stated that Flava House was subject to the Workers’ Compensation Law and did not have insurance at the time of Mr. Harper’s injury.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

At a Compensation Hearing, Mr. Harper must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to the requested benefits. Willis v. Allstaff, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 42, at *18 (Nov. 9, 2015); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2019).

Based on the uncontroverted proof, the Court holds the preponderance of the evidence showed Mr. Harper sustained an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment on July 22, 2018. Therefore, the Court turns to his requested

2 workers’ compensation benefits.1

Regarding medical benefits, the Workers’ Compensation Law requires that an employer furnish medical treatment made reasonably necessary by an injury. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(a)(1)(A). Flava House did not do so, and Mr. Harper was forced to seek treatment on his own. Accordingly, Flava House shall pay Mr. Harper’s past medical expenses for treatment of his injuries in Exhibit 5 and provide ongoing treatment. The Court designates Dr. Hickerson as the authorized treating physician.

Next, the Court addresses Mr. Harper’s claim for temporary total disability benefits (TTD). He testified without contravention regarding the details of his accident, and the medical records and Dr. Hickerson’s testimony confirm both the injury and his treatment for it. Dr. Hickerson testified he would have restricted Mr. Harper from work from July 23 through September 14, 2018. Thus, the Court holds Mr. Harper proved his disability resulted from the accident, a causal connection between his injury and the accident, and the duration of his disability. See Jones v. Crencor Leasing and Sales, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 48, at *7 (Dec. 11, 2015).

As to the amount of TTD, Mr. Harper’s unrefuted testimony was that he worked 52 hours per week at the rate of $13 per hour, which results in an average weekly wage of $676.2 Based on that average weekly wage, he is entitled to a compensation rate of $450.69 from July 23 to September 14, 2018, a period of 7.7 weeks, or $3,470.31.

As the prevailing party, Mr. Harper’s counsel submitted an affidavit requesting discretionary costs under Rule 54 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 54.04(2) provides recovery for reasonable and necessary “court reporter expenses for depositions” and “expert witness fees for depositions.” See Garassino v. W. Express, Inc., No. M2016- 02431-SC-R3-WC, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 60, at *8-9 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel Feb. 8, 2018).

Here, Mr. Harper’s counsel requested costs totaling $1,776.67, representing Dr. Hickerson’s deposition fee, the court reporter fee for Dr. Hickerson’s deposition, costs for requests for medical records, and administrative expenses. The Court holds Dr. Hickerson’s deposition fee and the court reporter fee are recoverable discretionary costs under Rule 54. Thus, the Court holds Flava House, LLC shall pay discretionary costs of

1 Mr. Harper did not introduce any proof of permanent disability or make that request; therefore, no permanent disability benefits are awarded. 2 Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.10(3) (Aug. 2019) requires in part that an employer must file a wage statement with the Clerk within fifteen days after the filing of a dispute certification notice. Flava House did not file a wage statement, so the Court relied on Mr. Harper’s unrebutted testimony. 3 $1705.00.3 The Court denies the remaining costs.

Finally, because Flava House did not have workers’ compensation insurance at the time of the injury, the Uninsured Employers Fund has discretion to pay limited benefits if certain criteria are met. (See attached Benefits Request Form.) Mr.

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

Related

§ 50-6
Tennessee § 50-6
§ 50-6-204
Tennessee § 50-6-204(a)(1)(A)
§ 50-6-239
Tennessee § 50-6-239(c)(6)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2021 TN WC 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-mario-v-flava-house-llc-tennworkcompcl-2021.