Howard, Benjamin v. Centurion

2024 TN WC 90
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedDecember 17, 2024
Docket2022-03-0560
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 TN WC 90 (Howard, Benjamin v. Centurion) 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
Howard, Benjamin v. Centurion, 2024 TN WC 90 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2024).

Opinion

FILED Dec 17, 2024 03:06 PM(ET) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

BENJAMIN HOWARD ) Docket No. 2022-03-0560 Employee, ) v. ) State File No. 15854-2019 CENTURION, ) Employer. ) Judge Pamela B. Johnson

COMPENSATION ORDER

Benjamin Howard fell and struck his head on February 1, 2022. Centurion denied his claim. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Court holds that Dr. Howard did not prove that he suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment and dismisses his case with prejudice.

History of Claim

Dr. Howard worked as a dentist for Centurion for ten years. As part of his job, he provided dental services to inmates at Tennessee state prisons. He testified that while walking into work from the parking lot on February 1, 2022, he fell and hit his head. He sought treatment at the emergency room and underwent two surgeries for bilateral intracranial subdural hematomas. After the surgeries, he attended occupational rehabilitation, where he relearned to walk, talk, and perform other activities of daily living. He missed work from February 1 through May 15, 2022.

On cross-examination, Dr. Howard admitted that he had taken blood pressure medication for 20 years. He agreed that he was prescribed a new medication, which was filled on January 25, 2022. Although he said he took blood pressure medication on the morning of the incident, he was uncertain whether it was his old medication or the new prescription.

Centurion served Dr. Howard with requests for admissions. When Dr. Howard did not respond within 30 days, Centurion moved to deem the requests admitted. Dr. Howard then responded to three of the requests. The Court accepted Dr. Howard’s three late

1 responses but deemed the remaining requests admitted.

The admissions established that: • Dr. Howard started a new blood pressure medication and filled it on January 25. • The new blood pressure medication had a side effect of lightheadedness, as the leaflet with the medication warned. • Dr. Howard testified at his deposition that he did not start the new blood pressure mediation until after his surgery. • No medical doctor has opined that Dr. Howard’s injury was caused by his employment.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Centurion moved to dismiss Dr. Howard’s case under Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 41.02 (1) and (2) (2024), based on Dr. Howard’s failure to disclose any expert witness by the disclosure deadline in the Scheduling Order and the facts deemed admitted by court order in its Requests for Admission.

Dr. Howard opposed the motion, denying any symptoms related to his medications or blood pressure or that he told anyone he was lightheaded or sped up to sit down. He stated no medical doctor was present at the time of his fall to give an opinion as to its cause.

The Court held the motion in abeyance for determination at the Compensation Hearing, and Centurion appealed. The Appeals Board vacated the order and instructed the Court to consider both sections (1) and (2) of Rule 41.02. Howard v. Centurion, 2024 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 39, at *7 (Nov. 7, 2024).

At the hearing, Centurion asserted that Dr. Howard did not disclose any expert by the expert disclosure deadline, did not introduce an expert opinion proving that his injury arose primarily from his employment, and testified inconsistently as to the medications he did not or did not take on the date of the incident.

Dr. Howard contended that he was at work when he fell, he suffered a brain injury, and he missed four months of work. He argued that he should be able to recover benefits for his work injuries and missed work.

The Court took the motion under advisement and for the reasons below, the motion to dismiss is granted.

Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 41.02 provides that a party may move for dismissal of an action for (1) failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with the rules of civil procedure or any court order, or (2) failure to show any right to relief based upon 2 the fact and law. The trial court may grant the motion only if it determines that reasonable minds could not differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. Burchfield v. Renfree, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 685, at *86-87 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).

Here, considering 41.02(1), Dr. Howard did not disclose any expert witness by the expert disclosure deadline as required by the Scheduling Order. With respect to 41.02(2), Dr. Howard offered no expert medical opinion at the hearing to support his request for benefits.

To prevail at the Compensation Hearing, Dr. Howard must show by a preponderance of the evidence that his injuries arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. He must show to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a work incident contributed more than 50% in causing his need for medical treatment, meaning that in the physician’s opinion, it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or possibility. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(A)-(D) (2024).

Dr. Howard argued that no physician saw his fall at work. The Court agrees. But a physician does not need to see the fall. Rather, a physician is qualified to offer an expert opinion on what caused the fall and Dr. Howard’s resulting injuries based on the history provided by Dr. Howard, a physical examination, and review of diagnostic testing. However, Dr. Howard offered no expert opinion.

Although the Court is aware of Dr. Howard’s sincerely-held belief that his current conditions and need for treatment arose primarily out of his work injury, his lay opinion alone is legally insufficient to prove the essential element of medical causation. Parties and their lawyers cannot rely solely on their own medical interpretations of the evidence to successfully support their arguments.” Lurz v. Int’l Paper Co., 2018 TN Wrk. App. Bd. LEXIS 8, at *16 (Feb. 14, 2018).

Thus, the Court dismisses Dr. Howard’s case with prejudice.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Dr. Howard’s request for benefits is denied, and his case is dismissed with prejudice.

2. Centurion shall pay the $150.00 filing fee within five business days of this order becoming final, and for which execution might issue if necessary.

3. Centurion shall prepare and submit a Statistical Data Form (SD2) within 10 business days of this order becoming final.

4. Unless appealed, this order shall become final 30 days after issuance.

3 ENTERED December 17, 2024.

_____________________________________ JUDGE PAMELA B. JOHNSON Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

APPENDIX

The Technical Record consists of every document filed and uploaded to TNComp. Neither party filed a Prehearing Statement as required by Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.22(5), so no exhibits were marked as evidence.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the order was sent as shown on December 17, 2024.

Name Mail Email Service sent to:

Benjamin Howard, X X 456 Chapel Grove Lane Self-Represented Knoxville, TN 37934 Employee howardben97@yahoo.com Jennifer Thomas, X jdthomas@mijs.com Brayden Hunter brhunter@mijs.com Employer’s Attorneys

______________________________________ PENNY SHRUM, COURT CLERK wc.courtclerk@tn.gov

4 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.

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

Related

§ 50-6-102
Tennessee § 50-6-102(12)(A)
§ 50-6-239
Tennessee § 50-6-239(d)(3)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 TN WC 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-benjamin-v-centurion-tennworkcompcl-2024.