Holley, Medaris v. Southwest Airlines Co.

2024 TN WC 21
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedMarch 14, 2024
Docket2023-08-0672
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 TN WC 21 (Holley, Medaris v. Southwest Airlines 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
Holley, Medaris v. Southwest Airlines Co., 2024 TN WC 21 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2024).

Opinion

FILED Mar 14, 2024 07:00 AM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

MEDARIS HOLLEY, ) Docket No. 2023-08-0672 Employee, ) v. ) SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., ) Employer, ) State File No. 87130-2022 And ) STARR SPECIALTY INS. CO., ) Carrier, ) And, ) Judge Allen Phillips TROY HALEY, ADMINISTRATOR, ) BUREAU OF WORKERS’ ) COMPENSATION, SUBSEQUENT ) INJURY and VOCATIONAL ) RECOVERY FUND. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER FOR MEDICAL BENEFITS AND PENALTY REFERRAL

Mr. Holley requested medical and temporary disability benefits for a shoulder injury. Southwest claimed he failed to give timely notice of the injury. The Court held an Expedited Hearing on February 29, 2024, and holds Mr. Holley is entitled to medical benefits, specifically a panel of physicians, but denies his request for temporary disability benefits. History of Claim

Mr. Holley worked for Southwest as a ramp agent, which required loading and unloading aircraft. He started work in March 2022 and began having right shoulder pain in April. By July, the pain became “excruciating,” and he had difficulty performing his work. He was “100% certain” his pain was work-related, and on July 9, he went to an urgent care

1 facility, where he received a compression sleeve and medication. 1

Around that time, Mr. Holley and one of his supervisors, Ira Bembry, were talking during a lull in work. Mr. Bembry, who was wearing a knee brace, asked Mr. Holley about the compression sleeve. Mr. Holley said it was for shoulder pain and that he had been given medication. He said Mr. Bembry appeared sympathetic and told him to follow up on his shoulder because it “could deteriorate.”

Mr. Holley did not tell Mr. Bembry he went to urgent care and did not “verbatim” say his pain stemmed from lifting baggage. However, Mr. Holley testified that, given “the work we did,” he thought Mr. Bembry “knew what was going on.”

Shortly after that conversation, Mr. Holley decided to resign. He called another supervisor, Joyce Jeltz, to inform her of his intention, and she asked Mr. Holley to meet with her first. Mr. Holley said he conveyed to Ms. Jeltz during their meeting that his shoulder pain was a “central part” of his decision, as was the amount of mandatory overtime. Ms. Jeltz assured Mr. Holley that anticipated new hires would lessen overtime, but Mr. Holley said she offered no information regarding workers’ compensation. He resigned later that month because he did not believe he could continue working.

The conversations with Mr. Bembry and Ms. Jeltz are the only communications with Southwest before Mr. Holley resigned. He testified other supervisors saw him wearing the sleeve, but any conversations with them were “scanty,” and he did not tell them he was hurt at work.

After resigning, Mr. Holley went on his own to orthopedic surgeon Dr. Apurva Dalal, who recorded that Mr. Holley had “significant difficulty” after working at Southwest for a month. By July, his pain had gotten so bad that he quit. Dr. Dalal suspected a rotator cuff tear, and an MRI confirmed it. In November, Dr. Dalal said Mr. Holley needed a shoulder replacement, but he was not interested in surgery at that time. Dr. Dalal offered no further treatment and said Mr. Holley could return as needed. In neither of the two records did Dr. Dalal say the shoulder condition was work-related, nor did he place any restrictions.

After seeing Dr. Dalal, Mr. Holley claimed he sent a letter to Aquan White, a manager at Southwest. In it, Mr. Holley detailed the events leading to his resignation and specifically said he resigned on July 16 after telling Ms. Jeltz of his “shoulder concerns.”

Then, on December 2, Mr. Holley sent a message to Southwest’s workers’ compensation email address. He mentioned the urgent care visit and Ms. Jeltz’s statement regarding new hires. He detailed Dr. Dalal’s findings and said “he would appreciate

1 The parties did not offer records from that visit.

2 feedback regarding filing a Workman [sic] Compensation Claim” because he had left messages on the “automated line” with no response.

A December 6 letter from Southwest’s claims administrator stated they received his claim and listed, without explanation, an injury date of July 8, 2022. The administrator wrote they must “determine if [the] claim qualifies under the workers’ compensation law.” On December 7, the administrator sent Mr. Holley another letter that stated: “After careful consideration of all available information, it is our opinion that your claim for Workers’ Compensation benefits is not compensable.”

At the hearing, Mr. Holley testified he had no shoulder problems before working at Southwest and when his symptoms began shortly afterward, he was still in his probationary period. Thus, he was concerned about his ability to perform the work and about losing his job if he reported an injury.

Mr. Holley said he spoke with a Southwest representative regarding his claim in December and provided requested information. He also said he talked with a representative of the insurance company “a couple of times” before learning of the denial.

Southwest confronted Mr. Holley with portions of his deposition, particularly the details of his conversation with Ms. Jeltz where he gave reasons for his resignation other than his shoulder. Southwest moved Mr. Holley’s entire deposition into evidence. In it, he testified he “knew Ms. Jeltz was aware” he was complaining about his shoulder; “of, course, yes” he told Ms. Jeltz he was having shoulder problems. He further testified that he “specifically” told her about shoulder problems, and he told her that he could no longer perform his job.

Southwest offered the sworn declaration of Mr. Bembry, who said Mr. Holley never reported a shoulder injury to him and, to his knowledge, did not report it to anyone else.

Southwest also called Ms. Jeltz, who said she receives many claims and had no incentive not to accept Mr. Holley’s. She said Mr. Holley did not report an injury or problems with his shoulder. She recalled he said in their meeting that he was resigning because of the heat, mandatory overtime, and because “he couldn’t do it.” She added he was a nice man and a great worker. She also testified that no one from the insurance company spoke with her regarding Mr. Holley’s claim.

Mr. White testified Mr. Holley told him he was resigning because the job was not a “good fit.” He completed a separation notice to that effect in July and said Mr. Holley did not report a work injury at that time. He claimed he did not see the letter Mr. Holley addressed to him in the fall and that no one from the insurance company called him about the claim. Like Ms. Jeltz, he considered Mr. Holley a good worker.

3 Based on this proof, Mr. Holley contended he gave notice, or that Southwest had actual knowledge of his injury. He said Southwest offered no evidence that its administrator contacted anyone to investigate the claim, and it failed to show any prejudice even if he did not report the injury until December. Though he may not want surgery at this point, he still wants Southwest to furnish treatment with Dr. Dalal.

Southwest countered that Mr. Holley first reported his alleged injury in December, months after the fact. It noted his statements that his shoulder started hurting in April, but he did not report it until December. Southwest argued Ms. Jeltz’s version of the meeting “makes more sense,” considering Mr. Holley worked several more days rather than leaving immediately because of excruciating pain. Southwest claimed it was prejudiced by the delay because it might have provided a panel earlier and avoided what is now a potential shoulder replacement.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

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

Related

Masters v. Industrial Garments Manufacturing Co.
595 S.W.2d 811 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1980)
Terri Ann Kelly v. Willard Reed Kelly
445 S.W.3d 685 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2014)
International Playing Card & Label Co. v. Broyles
381 S.W.2d 888 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 TN WC 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holley-medaris-v-southwest-airlines-co-tennworkcompcl-2024.