Jones, Katelyn v. Upper East Tennessee Human Development Agency

2019 TN WC 78
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedMay 16, 2019
Docket2018-02-0409
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 TN WC 78 (Jones, Katelyn v. Upper East Tennessee Human Development Agency) 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
Jones, Katelyn v. Upper East Tennessee Human Development Agency, 2019 TN WC 78 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2019).

Opinion

FILED

May 16, 2019 07:34 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

CLAIMS

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

AT GRAY

KATELYN JONES, ) Docket No. 2018-02-0409 Employee, )

Vv. )

UPPER EAST TENNESSEE HUMAN __)

DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, ) State File No. 37058-2018 Employer, )

And )

PUBLIC ENTITY PARTNERS, ) Carrier. ) Judge Brian K. Addington

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING REQUESTED BENEFITS

The Court held an Expedited Hearing on May 14, 2019, on Katelyn Jones’s entitlement to medical and temporary disability benefits. The issue is whether Ms. Jones is likely to establish at trial that she is entitled to these benefits for a knee injury she suffered from a fall at work. For the reasons below, the Court denies the requested relief.

History of Claim

Ms. Jones worked as a family resource specialist at Upper East Tennessee Human Development Agency (UETHDA). Her position included “engagement activities,” which are planned events where all students and their parents participate in social activities coordinated by teachers, their assistants, and the family resource specialists.

During an engagement activity in UETHDA’s gym on May 18, 2018, Ms. Jones ensured that the activities progressed, the children and parents stayed engaged, and the participants remained safe. After an activity ended, she walked across the gym floor and suddenly fell injuring her left knee. The floor was level and unobstructed. Ms. Jones did not observe anything that caused her to fall.

UETHDA provided a panel, and Ms. Jones chose Holston Medical Group. After two visits, UETHDA denied her claim on the basis she suffered an idiopathic injury. Ms.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION Jones continued limited treatment at her own expense and testified that she needs surgery to repair a ligament and bone spur.

Ms. Jones asserted her injury occurred at work and she never experienced knee complaints before the fall. She argued her work duties supervising children and interacting with the adults during the engagement activity presented a hazard that caused her injury. UETHDA argued Ms. Jones suffered an idiopathic injury; no work hazard caused her to fall. It asked the Court to deny Ms. Jones’s claim and moved to dismiss the case.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

To prevail at an expedited hearing, Ms. Jones must provide sufficient evidence to show she would likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in proving her claim for medical and temporary disability benefits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2018). She failed to do so.

Since Ms. Jones does not know why she fell, UETHDA argued she suffered an idiopathic injury. An idiopathic injury is defined as “one that has an unexplained origin or cause, and generally does not arise out of the employment unless ‘some condition of the employment presents a peculiar or additional hazard.’” Veler v. Wackenhut Servs., No. E2010-00965-WC-R3-WC, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 78, at *9 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel Jan. 28, 2011). Since Ms. Jones fell on a level, unobstructed surface, she must establish that her unexplained fall was due to a condition of the employment that presented a peculiar or additional hazard to her. Byrom v. Randstad N. Am., L.P., No. E2011-00367-WC-R3-WC, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 152, at *13 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel Mar. 8, 2012).

Ms. Jones’s argument that her job duties presented a hazard that caused her injury is not persuasive. As the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board explained in McCaffery v. Cardinal Logistics, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 50, at *8-11 (Dec. 10, 2015), the relevant inquiry is not what caused the alleged idiopathic condition or event but what caused the injury. The Board noted that “cause” in the context of idiopathic injuries “means that the accident originated in the hazards to which the employee was exposed as a result of performing his job duties.” /d. at *10. Here, the important inquiry is not what caused Ms. Jones’s fall, but what caused her knee injury. Ms. Jones did not submit any evidence as to what caused her knee injury, and her mere presence at work is not a “hazard.” See Rogers v. Kroger Co., 832 S.W.2d 538, 541 (Tenn. 1992). Therefore, the Court holds Ms. Jones did not come forward with sufficient evidence to prevail at a hearing on the merits and she is not entitled to the requested benefits.

Finally, UETHDA’s motion to dismiss, presumably a motion for involuntary dismissal under Rule 41.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, is denied. Ms.

2 Jones sought interlocutory relief at an expedited hearing, so this is a nonfinal order

subject to modification at any time before the final compensation hearing. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(3).

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows: 1. Ms. Jones’s requested relief is denied at this time. 2. This matter is set for a Status Hearing on August 27, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The parties must call 855-543-5044 toll-free to participate in the hearing.

Failure to appear by telephone may result in a determination of the issues without your further participation.

ENTERED May 16, 2019. /s/ Brian K. Addington JUDGE BRIAN K. ADDINGTON Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims APPENDIX Exhibits

Ms. Jones’s Affidavit

Notice of Denial of Claim for Compensation

Medical records of HMG Urgent Care

Medical records of Family Physicians of Johnson City Franklin Woods’s radiology report

Medical records of Appalachian Orthopedics Collective-Medical bills and receipts

Pay Stubs from April and May 2018

Job Description

S98 SO ew Ne

Technical Record

1. Petition for Benefit Determination 2. Dispute Certification Notice 3. Request for Expedited Hearing 4. Motion to Dismiss 5. Agreed Order

6. Statement of Stipulated Facts 7. Ms. Jones’s Pre-Hearing Brief 8. Employer’s Pre-Hearing Brief CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the Order was sent to these recipients by the following methods of service on May 16, 2019.

Name Certified Mail Email Service sent to:

Josh Hoeppner, x josh@hoeppnerlaw.com Employee’s Attorney

Sam McPeak, xX sam@hbm-lawfirm.com Employer’s Attorney

Lio _ SO PENNY SHUM, COURT CLERK Court of Werkers’ Compensation Claims

Expedited Hearing Order Right to Appeal:

If you disagree with this Expedited Hearing Order, you may appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. To appeal an expedited hearing order, you must:

1. Complete the enclosed form entitled: “Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal,” and file the form with the Clerk of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims within seven business days of the date the expedited hearing order was filed. When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must serve a copy upon all parties.

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

3. You bear the responsibility of ensuring a complete record on appeal.

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

Related

Rogers v. Kroger Co.
832 S.W.2d 538 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 TN WC 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-katelyn-v-upper-east-tennessee-human-development-agency-tennworkcompcl-2019.