HICKS, CLIFFORD MONTRELL v. FULLEN DOCK AND WAREHOUSE

2024 TN WC 61
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims·Decided August 28, 2024·No. 2023-08-7416·Published

Opinion

FILED Aug 28, 2024 02:24 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS

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

CLIFFORD MONTRELL HICKS, ) Docket No.: 2023-08-7416 Employee, )

v. ) FULLEN DOCK AND WAREHOUSE, ) State File No.: 81108-2023 Employer, )

And ) MANUFACTURERS ALLIANCE INS. CO., ) Judge Shaterra R. Marion Carrier. )

)

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS

The Court held an expedited hearing on August 20, 2024. Mr. Hicks requested medical and temporary disability benefits for his alleged work injury. Fullen Dock argued that the Court should deny his request for additional benefits. The Court agrees and denies the requested benefits.

History of Claim

Mr. Hicks fell on a barge on June 21, 2022. A coworker took him to the hospital, where they performed CT scans of his brain and lumbar, thoracic, and cervical spine. The findings were normal, and his diagnosis consisted of contusions and a scalp hematoma. Repeat imaging two months later showed no acute findings.

Soon after, Mr. Hicks began treating with Dr. Christopher Pokabla. 1 At his first visit, Dr. Pokabla ordered cervical, lumbar, and shoulder x-rays. The x-rays showed no evidence of acute trauma, only arthritis. Dr. Pokabla ordered cervical, lumbar, and leftshoulder MRIs, which confirmed only degenerative changes. Eventually, Dr. Pokabla released Mr. Hicks at maximum medical improvement with a 0% impairment rating and no anticipated need for additional treatment. 1 Fullen Dock initially accepted this case as a Longshoreman’s claim. When Fullen Dock asked Mr. Hicks if he had a doctor preference, and he stated none, so Fullen Dock authorized medical treatment with Methodist North Hospital and Dr. Christopher Pokabla.

At his deposition, Dr. Pokabla stated that Mr. Hicks’s work incident did not cause his degenerative changes. He did say that Mr. Hicks will probably need treatment for his non-work-related chronic degenerative arthritis. He did not believe Mr. Hicks needed any additional treatment for his work injury.

A year after his work injury, Mr. Hicks sought treatment with an unauthorized primary care physician because of shoulder, neck, and low-back pain after helping his sister lift a couch. He informed the doctor about pain in multiple joints after his fall at work. The doctor diagnosed arthralgia.

Later, Mr. Hicks visited another orthopedic, Dr. Michael Hood, with bilateral shoulder pain. Dr. Hood took a shoulder x-ray, which came back normal aside from postsurgical changes from an earlier surgery. Dr. Hood diagnosed a shoulder sprain.

Mr. Hicks treated with a second primary care physician, Dr. Anna Yang, in October 2023 complaining of chronic neck and back pain after a fall at work. Dr. Yang made a neurosurgery referral; however no records were provided from a neurosurgeon.

Mr. Hicks requested both medical benefits for his continued pain and temporary disability benefits. He testified that he continues to suffer pain and he missed two work days after his injury.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Mr. Hicks has the burden of proving he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits on his claim for medical and temporary benefits for his alleged neck, shoulders, and back injury. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2023); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015).

To meet this burden, he must show that a physician has found to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that his fall at work contributed more than 50 % in causing his current need for medical treatment, considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12). He has not done so.

Mr. Hicks testified that his fall at work caused his current injuries. However, the Appeals Board held that an employee’s “subjective belief, no matter how sincerely held, is not a sufficient basis to support his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.” Rucker v. Fed’l Express Corp., 2024 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 3, at *8 (Feb. 12, 2024). Instead, Mr. Hicks must present medical evidence to establish a causal relationship. Cloyd v. Hartco Flooring Co., 274 S.W.3d 638, 643 (Tenn. 2008).

The Court acknowledges that Mr. Hicks fell at work and suffered contusions and a laceration, but he requests medical treatment for continued joint pain. Here, Dr. Pokabla stated that Mr. Hicks’s work did not contribute more than 50% to his current need for medical treatment. The other doctors did not give causation opinions. Based on the evidence provided, the Court finds that Mr. Hicks is not likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in showing that his work primarily caused his current need for medical treatment and denies his request for medical benefits at this time.

Turning to Mr. Hicks’s claim for temporary disability benefits, no temporary disability benefits are paid for the first seven days of disability, unless the disability lasts more than 14 days. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-205(a). Mr. Hicks testified he missed two days of work. The Court therefore finds that he is not likely to prove at a hearing on the merits that he is entitled to temporary disability benefits.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows:

1. Mr. Hicks’s request for medical and temporary disability benefits is denied at this time.

2. The Court sets a status conference for October 28, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. Central Time. The parties must call (866) 943-0014 to participate. Failure to call may result in a determination of the issues without the party’s participation.

ENTERED August 28, 2024.

Judge Shaterra R. Marion Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

APPENDIX

Exhibits:

1. Medical Records Submitted by Mr. Hicks 2. Medical Records Submitted by Fullen Dock 3. Rule 72 Declaration of Catharine Pridgeon 4. Separation Notice 5. First Report of Injury 6. Deposition of Dr. Christopher Pokabla

For Identification Only:

7. Medical Bills Submitted by Mr. Hicks

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this order was sent as indicated on August 28, 2024.

Name U.S. Via Service sent to:

Mail Email

Clifford Montrell X X 2329 Vollintine Avenue Hicks, Memphis, TN 38108 Employee montrellhicks2@gmail.com Donna Wilkerson, X dwilkerson@wimberlylawson.com Employer’s Attorney

Penny Shrum, Court Clerk Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov

Right to Appeal:

If you disagree with the Court’s Order, you may appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. To do so, you must:

1. Complete the enclosed form entitled “Notice of Appeal” and file it with the Clerk of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims before the expiration of the deadline.

 If the order being appealed is “expedited” (also called “interlocutory”), or if the order does not dispose of the case in its entirety, the notice of appeal must be filed within seven (7) business days of the date the order was filed.  If the order being appealed is a “Compensation Order,” or if it resolves all issues in the case, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty (30) calendar days of the date the Compensation Order was filed.

When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must serve a copy on the opposing party (or attorney, if represented).

2. You must pay, via check, money order, or credit card, a $75.00 filing fee within ten calendar days after filing 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 filing 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 your appeal.

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

HICKS, CLIFFORD MONTRELL v. FULLEN DOCK AND WAREHOUSE, 2024 TN WC 61 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2024).

2024 TN WC 61 (HICKS, CLIFFORD MONTRELL v. FULLEN DOCK AND WAREHOUSE) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lon Cloyd v. Hartco Flooring Company
274 S.W.3d 638 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2008)