Jones, Kenneth M. v. Valero Memphis Refinery

2024 TN WC 37
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedApril 25, 2024
Docket2022-08-1014
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 TN WC 37 (Jones, Kenneth M. v. Valero Memphis Refinery) 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, Kenneth M. v. Valero Memphis Refinery, 2024 TN WC 37 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2024).

Opinion

FILED Apr 25, 2024 08:48 AM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

KENNETH M. JONES, ) Docket No.: 2022-08-1014 Employee, ) v. ) VALERO MEMPHIS REFINERY, ) Employer, ) State File No.: 15005-2022 And ) ACE AMERICAN INS. CO., ) Carrier. ) ) Judge Shaterra R. Marion

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER GRANTING BENEFITS IN PART

The Court held an expedited hearing on April 18, 2024, on Mr. Jones’s request for medical benefits for his wrist and hand injury. He also requested temporary disability benefits despite the fact he has not missed work due to his alleged injury. Valero argued that Mr. Jones received all treatment that the law affords for his injury.

Upon consideration of the evidence and the positions of the parties, the Court grants Mr. Jones’s request to return to the doctor but denies his request for temporary disability benefits.

History of Claim

Mr. Jones alleged he injured his wrists and hands when he fell at work on May 16, 2021. After the injury, he stopped doing any sort of outside or physical work. However, a few months after the injury, when picking up bags at home, he testified that he felt symptoms in his hands. He knew then that he had a problem stemming from his work- related injury.

Mr. Jones requested medical treatment, and Valero provided a panel from which he selected Dr. Christian Fahey. Dr. Fahey ordered x-rays that showed no objective evidence

1 of injury. He diagnosed a hand and wrist contusion and recommended home exercises. He also placed Mr. Jones at maximum medical improvement in February 2022 and noted that he could return “PRN.”

Mr. Jones testified he then saw a Dr. Weller on his own. 1 He stated Dr. Weller performed two injections and ordered an MRI.

Mr. Jones also testified that Dr. Weller referred him back to Dr. Fahey, but Valero would not authorize the visit. According to Mr. Jones, he still experiences pain in his hands and wrists.

Dr. Fahey testified that he has not seen Mr. Jones since releasing him and does not have any additional treatment to offer him. Further, he does not anticipate Mr. Jones needing any future medical care. Therefore, Valero argued that Mr. Jones received all the medical benefits he is entitled for his work injury.

As to temporary disability benefits, Mr. Jones testified that he did not miss work after his injury.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Mr. Jones has the burden of proving he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits on his claim for medical and temporary benefits for an alleged wrist and hand injury. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2023); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015).

On the issue of medical benefits, Valero argued that Mr. Jones did not establish entitlement to additional treatment because Dr. Fahey testified he had nothing more to offer him. In other words, Valero seeks a ruling that Mr. Jones has no further right to medical benefits.

By law, parties may settle the issue of future medical benefits if a judge reviews and approves the settlement. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-240(d). But “[u]nless a court terminates an employee’s entitlement to medical benefits or approves a settlement in which the parties reach a compromise on the issue of future medical benefits, an injured worker remains entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment causally-related to the work injury.” Limberakis v. Pro-Tech Sec., Inc., 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 53, at *7 (Sept. 12, 2017). This is especially true for interlocutory hearings and where the employer accepted the claim as compensable. Id. at *9.

1 The parties did not submit Dr. Weller’s records into evidence. 2 Here, the Court has not terminated Mr. Jones’s benefits by approval of a settlement between the parties. Further, this hearing seeks interlocutory relief. Although Dr. Fahey stated that he has no additional treatment to offer Mr. Jones, his opinions are based on diagnostic testing and an examination dating back two years. Mr. Jones credibly testified that he has continuing pain from his work injury. “An employee’s assessment as to his or her own physical condition is competent testimony that is not to be disregarded.” Id. at *6.

Therefore, Mr. Jones showed that he will likely prevail at trial is establishing his entitlement to reasonable and necessary medical treatment causally related to his work injury, which includes a return visit to his authorized treating physician, Dr. Fahey.

Turning now to Mr. Jones’s claim to temporary disability benefits, the Appeals Board laid out the requirements for eligibility for these benefits in Jones v. Crencor Leasing and Sales, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 48, at *7 (Dec. 11, 2015). One of those requirements is that the employee show “the duration of the period of disability.” Id.

Here, Mr. Jones testified he did not miss any time from work. Thus, he is not eligible for temporary disability benefits.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows:

1. Mr. Jones’s request for a return visit to Dr. Fahey is granted.

2. Mr. Jones’s request for temporary disability benefits is denied.

3. The Court sets a status conference for June 25, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. Central Time. The parties must call (866) 943-0014 to participate. Failure to call might result in a determination of the issues without the party’s participation.

4. Unless an interlocutory appeal of the Expedited Hearing Order is filed, compliance with this Order must occur no later than seven business days from the date of entry of this Order as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(3). The Employer must submit confirmation of compliance with this Order to the Bureau by email to WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov no later than the seventh business day after entry of this Order. Failure to submit confirmation within seven business days may result in a penalty assessment for non-compliance. For questions as to compliance, contact the Workers’ Compensation Compliance Unit by email at WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov.

3 ENTERED April 25, 2024.

________________________________________ Judge Shaterra R. Marion Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

APPENDIX Exhibits: 1. Deposition of Dr. Christian Fahey, with exhibits 2. Wage Statement 3. Choice of Physician Form 4. First Report of Injury 5. Referral to hand physical therapy

Marked for Identification Only: 6. Single page medical record without physician signature 7. Fit for duty evaluation

Technical Record: 1. Petition for Benefit Determination 2. Dispute Certification Notice 3. First Request for Expedited Hearing, with affidavit 4. Second Request for Expedited Hearing, with affidavit 5. Jan. 23, 2024, Status Order 6. Employer Witness and Exhibit List 7. Employer Response to Hearing on the Record 8. April 10, 2024, Status Order

4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on April 25, 2024.

Name Regular Email Sent to Mail Kenneth Jones, X X 6639 Olivia Forest Road Employee Memphis, TN 38141 kmjoneschamp@gmail.com Donna Wilkerson, X dwilkerson@wimberlylawson.com Employer’s Attorney bcopeland@wimberlylawson.com

_______________________________________ Penny Shrum Clerk, Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov

5 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

§ 50-6-239
Tennessee § 50-6-239(c)(6)
§ 50-6-240
Tennessee § 50-6-240(d)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 TN WC 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-kenneth-m-v-valero-memphis-refinery-tennworkcompcl-2024.