Howard, Denita v. US Xpress Enterprises

2015 TN WC 143
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedOctober 16, 2015
Docket2014-01-0002
StatusPublished

This text of 2015 TN WC 143 (Howard, Denita v. US Xpress Enterprises) 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, Denita v. US Xpress Enterprises, 2015 TN WC 143 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2015).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS AT CHATTANOOGA

Denita Howard, ) Docket No.: 2014-01-0002 Employee, ) v. ) State File Number: 51504-2014 USXpress Enterprises, Inc. ) Employer, ) Judge Thomas Wyatt And ) Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. ) Insurance Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER FOR MEDICAL BENEFITS AND DENYING TEMPORARY DISABILITY BENEFITS

THIS CAUSE came before the undersigned Workers' Compensation Judge upon the Request for Expedited Hearing filed on June 25, 2015, by the employee, Denita Howard, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239 (20 15). Ms. Howard presents two issues for determination in this telephonic Expedited Hearing. She seeks an order requiring the employer, USXpress Enterprises, Inc. (USX), to pay for emergency treatment she received following the alleged work injury. She also seeks temporary partial disability benefits from January 7, 2015, until February 18, 2015. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds Ms. Howard is entitled to the requested medical benefits, but she is not entitled to the requested temporary partial disability benefits.

History of Claim

Ms. Howard is a twenty-eight year-old resident of Fayetteville, North Carolina. (T.R. 1 at 1.) She worked as a trainee truck driver for USX for approximately two weeks (Ex. 7) before she suffered injury when the tractor-trailer rig she operated overturned as she exited Interstate 10 near Acadia, Louisiana. (Ex. 10 at 1, 4.) Following the above- described collision, Ms. Howard received emergency care at the American Legion Hospital in Jennings, Louisiana, for multiple contusions and a closed-head injury. (Ex. 11.)

Ms. Howard later received authorized care from Med One Care in Fayetteville,

1 North Carolina. (Ex. 9.) A Nurse Practitioner there referred Ms. Howard to a neurologist. !d. USX authorized neurological care by Dr. Venugopal Gadipudi.

Following a January 7, 2015 office visit, Dr. Gadipudi completed a Final Medical Report wherein he released Ms. Howard to regular duty on January 7, 2015; placed her at maximum medical improvement as of December 18, 2014; and assigned no permanent impairment for her July 1, 2014 work injury. (Exs. 16, 17.) Ms. Howard received this information at her next scheduled appointment with Dr. Gadipudi on February 18, 2015. (Ex. 8 at 2.)

USX's carrier, Liberty Mutual, terminated Ms. Howard's temporary total disability benefits on January 7, 2015, pursuant to Dr. Gadipudi's release of Ms. Howard to regular duty. (Ex. 18 at 1.) Liberty Mutual paid Jefferson Davis Emergency Group $314.92 by check dated June 19, 2015 (Exs. 14 at 2; 15.)

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

General Legal Principles

The Workers' Compensation Law shall not be remedially or liberally construed in favor of either party but shall be construed fairly, impartially and in accordance with basic principles of statutory construction favoring neither the employee nor employer. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-116 (2014). The employee in a workers' compensation claim has the burden of proof on all essential elements of a claim. Tindall v. Waring Park Ass 'n, 725 S.W.2d 935, 937 (Tenn. 1987); 1 Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, No. 2015-01-0055, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *6 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015). An employee need not prove every element of his or her claim by a preponderance of the evidence in order to obtain relief at an expedited hearing. McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, No. 2014-06-0063, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Mar. 27, 20 15). At an expedited hearing, an employee has the burden to come forward with sufficient evidence from which the trial court can determine that the employee is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. !d.

Medical Benefits

The only medical benefit Ms. Howard sought during the Expedited Hearing was

1 The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board allows reliance on precedent from the Tennessee Supreme Court "unless it is evident that the Supreme Court's decision or rationale relied on a remedial interpretation of pre- July I, 2014 statutes, that it relied on specific statutory language no longer contained in the Workers' Compensation Law, and/or that it relied on an analysis that has since been addressed by the general assembly through statutory amendments." McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, No. 2014-06-0063, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, *13 n.4 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Mar. 27, 2015).

2 payment of the charges of Jefferson Davis Emergency Group, LLC. (Exs. 6, 11.) USX and its carrier presented evidence documenting payment of the charge in question. (Exs. 14 at 2; 15; 18 at 1.) Although the payment was less than the amount billed, the adjuster for USX' s carrier stated in her affidavit that the payment made to Jefferson Davis Emergency Group LLC was payment in full. (Exs. 6, 14 at 2, 15, 18 at 1.) Ms. Howard testified at the Expedited Hearing that she had not received a collection letter regarding the subject charge since the December 15, 2014 letter . (Ex. 6.) USX and its carrier agreed to appropriately respond if Ms. Howard receives further billing in connection with the subject charge.

On the basis of the evidence introduced at the Expedited Hearing, the Court fmds that Ms. Howard will likely prevail at a hearing on the merits on the issue of the compensability of the bill she incurred from Jefferson Davis Emergency Group, LLC. The Court additionally finds that USX and its carrier paid the subject charge. However, should Ms. Howard receive further bills for this charge, the Court will require that, upon Ms. Howard's presentation of the bill, USX and/or its carrier shall investigate the bill and pay any valid charge remaining unpaid. Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-204 (2015).

Temporary Partial Disability Benefits

In Wilkins v. Kellogg Co., 48 S.W.3d 148, 151 (Tenn. 2001), the Supreme Court defined temporary partial disability as, "the time during which the injured employee is able to resume work before reaching maximum medical improvement." (Emphasis added.) Although the above-cited authority pre-dates the July 1, 2014 reforms to the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law, it remains good law today. See Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(2)(C) (20 15), which provides that, if an employer paid temporary partial disability benefits after the date on which a workers ' compensation judge determined the injured employee attained maximum medical improvement, the employer is entitled to a credit against the employee's permanent disability award for the amount of temporary partial disability benefits paid after the date of maximum medical improvement. (Emphasis added.)

Ms. Howard seeks additional temporary partial disability benefits between January 7, 2015, the date USX stopped paying temporary benefits, until February 18, 2015, the date she learned Dr. Gadipudi earlier placed her at maximum medical improvement. Ms. Howard's position is contrary to Tennessee law, which provides that the date of maximum medical improvement terminates an employee's right to temporary disability benefits.

Ms. Howard can succeed in her claim for additional temporary disability benefits only if she can establish Dr.

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

Related

Wilkins v. Kellogg Co.
48 S.W.3d 148 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2001)
Tindall v. Waring Park Ass'n
725 S.W.2d 935 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2015 TN WC 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-denita-v-us-xpress-enterprises-tennworkcompcl-2015.