Jackson, Rodnecia A. v. Federal Express Corporation

2020 TN WC 113
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedOctober 23, 2020
Docket2019-08-0846
StatusPublished

This text of 2020 TN WC 113 (Jackson, Rodnecia A. v. Federal Express Corporation) 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
Jackson, Rodnecia A. v. Federal Express Corporation, 2020 TN WC 113 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2020).

Opinion

FILED Oct 23, 2020 09:01 AM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

RODNECIA A. JACKSON, ) Docket No. 2019-08-0846 Employee, ) v. ) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, ) State File No. 9308 2017 Employer, ) And ) AGRI GENERAL INS. CO., ) Judge Amber Luttrell Carrier. )

COMPENSATION ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This case came before the Court on Federal Express’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The issue is whether Ms. Jackson filed her claim within the statute of limitations. For the reasons below, the Court holds she did not, and Federal Express is entitled to summary judgment. Procedural History

While working for Federal Express, Ms. Jackson became injured on December 15, 2016, when dust or debris flew into her left eye, causing irritation. She sought emergency treatment and was diagnosed with a corneal abrasion. Federal Express provided authorized treatment through early 2018, making the final payment for treatment on June 13, 2018. Ms. Jackson then sought unauthorized treatment. She filed a Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) on August 12, 2019.

Federal Express filed this Motion for Summary Judgment, and Ms. Jackson filed responses to the Statement of Undisputed Facts and a response opposing the motion. The Court heard arguments on October 8, 2020.

Facts

Federal Express filed five statements of undisputed material facts in compliance

1 with Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 56.03.1 Ms. Jackson admitted facts one and two. The parties agreed Ms. Jackson reported an injury to her eye on December 15, 2016, and she sought emergency treatment resulting in a corneal abrasion diagnosis. Ms. Jackson disputed facts three through five and provided arguments in response to each.

Federal Express’s statement three said that Ms. Jackson received authorized medical treatment from various physicians at Eye Specialty Group and the Southern College of Optometry. Ms. Jackson responded that she did not receive “all of the needed medical care related to the on-the-job injury[.]” The Court finds Ms. Jackson’s response did not show a disputed issue of fact as to whether she received authorized treatment from the listed providers. Therefore, the Court deems statement three admitted.

In statement four, Federal Express asserted that the last payment for benefits was June 13, 2018, for treatment at the Eye Center at Southern College of Optometry in early 2018. Federal Express further stated it paid no temporary disability or medical benefits after June 13, 2018, and it cited the affidavit of its claims examiner.

Ms. Jackson disputed the June 13, 2018 payment date. She argued a claims adjuster stated in a June 27, 2018 letter that she would allow Ms. Jackson to have another evaluation. However, Ms. Jackson acknowledged the evaluation never occurred because the doctor had nothing further to offer. Ms. Jackson admitted that, “Employer/Carrier last payment was June 13, 2018.” Because Ms. Jackson did not show a disputed issue of fact regarding the last voluntary payment date, the Court deems statement four admitted.

Finally, Ms. Jackson disputed statement five, which states that she filed her PBD for her December 15, 2016 work injury on August 12, 2019. However, she did not identify any fact in the record to dispute the filing date of her PBD. Thus, the Court deems statement five admitted.

Based on these facts, Federal Express argued the Court should grant summary judgment because it affirmatively negated an essential element of Ms. Jackson’s claim ̶ that she timely filed the PBD ̶ and that the facts are insufficient for Ms. Jackson to prove this element. In response, Ms. Jackson invoked the discovery rule, arguing that she did not learn that her eye condition was work-related until 2020. Thus, Ms. Jackson contended her claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.

Law and Analysis

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there

1 Statement three regarding Ms. Jackson’s authorized treatment did not include a citation. However, the fact was supported by the affidavit of the claims examiner and Ms. Jackson’s response. 2 is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 (2019).

As the moving party, Federal Express must do one of two things to prevail: (1) submit affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of Ms. Jackson’s claim, or (2) demonstrate that Ms. Jackson’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of her claim. Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-16-101 (2019); see also Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 264 (Tenn. 2015). If Federal Express meets this burden, Ms. Jackson must then show that the record contains specific facts upon which the Court could rule in her favor. Rye, at 265.

The essential element at issue here is compliance with the statute of limitations. Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-203(b)(2) provides that when benefits are initially paid, a claim shall be forever barred unless a PBD is filed within one year of the date of the last authorized treatment or payment for treatment.

The Court finds Federal Express proved it provided medical care for Ms. Jackson’s December 15, 2016 injury; the last authorized treatment occurred in early 2018; it paid for the last visit on June 13, 2018; it did not make any further payments; and, Ms. Jackson filed her PBD more than one year later on August 12, 2019. These facts are sufficient for Federal Express to shift the burden to Ms. Jackson to produce specific facts upon which the Court could rule in her favor.

In response, Ms. Jackson argued the discovery rule applies. “The discovery rule provides that the statute of limitations ‘is suspended until by reasonable care and diligence it is discoverable and apparent that a compensable injury has been sustained.’” Linsey v. Acadia Healthcare Co. d/b/a Delta Med. Ctr.-Memphis, 2019 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 17, at *13 (May 13, 2019) (internal citations omitted).

Ms. Jackson contended the statute of limitations should be suspended because she did not know her ongoing condition was work-related until 2020, but she did not submit a supporting affidavit. Instead, she offered letters from two authorized treating physicians, Dr. Dennis Mathews and Dr. Subba Gollamudi. They concluded her work-related corneal abrasion had healed, but they could not determine the cause of her other reported symptoms or relate them to her work injury.2 Ms. Jackson argued that she treated on her own for ongoing symptoms and saw a provider in 2020, who believed she has possible corneal neuralgia due to her work injury.

Her argument is unpersuasive. Regardless of when Ms. Jackson learned of a possible diagnosis for her ongoing complaints, the undisputed material facts prove Ms.

2 Federal Express also submitted these letters in support of summary judgment and attached them as Exhibit 11. 3 Jackson knew she sustained an acute compensable injury to her eye on December 15, 2016. The parties agreed she timely reported the injury, was diagnosed with a corneal abrasion, and received authorized treatment through early 2018 with a last payment for treatment on June 13, 2018. Thus, the Court holds the discovery rule does not apply to toll the statute of limitations, and her PBD was untimely filed.

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

Related

Michelle RYE Et Al. v. WOMEN’S CARE CENTER OF MEMPHIS, MPLLC Et Al.
477 S.W.3d 235 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 TN WC 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-rodnecia-a-v-federal-express-corporation-tennworkcompcl-2020.