Judy, Kevin v. Covenant Transport, Inc.

2019 TN WC 114
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedJuly 23, 2019
Docket2018-01-0756
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 TN WC 114 (Judy, Kevin v. Covenant Transport, Inc.) 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
Judy, Kevin v. Covenant Transport, Inc., 2019 TN WC 114 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2019).

Opinion

FILED Jul 23, 2019 04:10 PM(ET) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS AT CHATTANOOGA

Kevin Judy, ) Docket No.: 2018-01-0756 Employee, ) v. ) Covenant Transport, Inc., ) State File No.: 30496-2017 Employer, ) and ) New Hampshire Insurance Company, ) Judge Audrey A. Headrick Carrier. )

COMPENSATION HEARING ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This case came before the Court on July 11, 20 19, on Covenant Transport, Inc.'s (Covenant's) Motion for Summary Judgment. 1 Covenant asserts that Mr. Judy did not file a Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) until more than one year following its last payment for his claimed work injury. Thus, Covenant argues the statute of limitations expired, which entitles it to summary judgment as a matter of law. 2 For the reasons below, the Court finds Covenant is entitled to summary judgment.

Procedural History

The Court summarizes the factual background to this motion as follows. Kevin Judy, an over-the-road truck driver, allegedly sustained a bilateral wrist injury from driving a rental car on either November 24 or 25, 2016. Covenant terminated him on the same day.

Mr. Judy admitted he did not notify Covenant of his injury until April 19, 2017. He claimed that he delayed notice fearing retaliation and humiliation. Mr. Judy stated he gave notice after he "got up the courage to report it."

1 The Court gleaned the facts from Covenant's statement of undi sputed facts, pleadings, and exhibits. 2 Covenant also raised the issue of untimely notice. Based on the Court's holding regarding the statute of limitations, it need not address notice. Mr. Judy went to Centra Care in April 2017 complaining of bilateral wrist pain while driving on November 24, 2016. He continued treating at Centra Care through November 20, 2017. Covenant filed a Notice of Controversy on May 12, 2017.

Mr. Judy argued that Covenant last paid medical expenses for his claimed injuries on April 13, 2018. He filed a Centra Care invoice showing that Unified Health Services (UHS) paid $72.32 to Centra Care on that date. The invoice shows that UHS received a "collection fee" from Centra Care. The invoice does not reflect from whom UHS collected the money or for which date of service the payment applied. Mr. Judy filed a July 9, 2018 e-mail from a UHS Liaison at Centra Care that confirmed receipt of payments from UHS for services from April 20 to November 20, 2017. The email did not state from whom UHS collected the payments.

Covenant disagreed with these payment dates and filed several affidavits documenting that it last paid on Mr. Judy's claim on September 1, 2017. Covenant stated it did not pay Mr. Judy's Centra Care's bills after September 1. Likewise, Covenant stated that UHS is neither its agent nor does it have a business relationship with Covenant or its third-party administrator.

Mr. Judy filed a PBD on October 23, 2018. Covenant filed this Motion for Summary Judgment, along with a statement of undisputed facts, a memorandum of law, exhibits, and several affidavits.

In response to this motion, Mr. Judy filed his own Rule 71 Declarations, responses to Requests for Admissions, a response to the statement of undisputed facts, and exhibits. Mr. Judy argued that his claim is not barred by the statute of limitations because he filed a PBD within one year ofUHS's last payment to Centra Care.

Covenant countered that the undisputed facts negate essential elements of Mr. Judy's claim. Specifically, Covenant argued that Mr. Judy failed to timely notify Covenant of his injury claim as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-201, and failed to file a PBD either within one year of his alleged November 2016 injury or within one year from the date of the last voluntary payment. It further argued Mr. Judy did not produce proof of agency or affidavits regarding UHS. Covenant maintained that summary judgment is appropriate because Mr. Judy did not respond to its motion as required by Rule 56.

2 Law and Analysis

Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. To meet this standard, Covenant must either: ( 1) submit affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of Mr. Judy's claim, or (2) demonstrate that his evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of his claim. Tenn. Code Ann.§ 20-16-101; see also Rye v. Women's Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 264 (Tenn. 2015). If Covenant satisfies this burden, Mr. Judy must then establish that the record contains specific facts upon which a trier of fact could base a decision in his favor. Rye, at 265.

Regarding the statute of limitations, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 203(b )(2) provides the right to compensation is barred unless a PBD is filed within one year from the time the employer ceased to make payments of compensation. Further, subsection (c) provides the issuing date of the last payment of compensation by the employee constitutes the time the employer ceased making payments.

Here, Covenant submitted proof that it last paid medical expenses on September 1, 2017. Mr. Judy filed a PBD over a year later on October 23, 2018. Thus, the Court holds that Covenant met its burden of negating an essential element of Mr. Judy's claim: his PBD must be filed within one year of the last payment of compensation. Since Covenant met its burden, the Court considers whether Mr. Judy identified facts showing a genuine issue for trial. The Court finds that he did not show that Covenant made a payment within one y~ar of his October 23, 20 18 PBD filing. Instead, Mr. Judy provided documentation showing that UHS, a collection agency, paid Centra Care on April 13, 2018.

In sum, the undisputed facts establish that Mr. Judy waited more than one year after Covenant's last payment before filing his PBD. Having carefully reviewed and considered the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Judy, the Court holds Covenant has demonstrated that his evidence is insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the expiration of the limitations period.

3 IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Court grants Covenant's motion for summary judgment and dismisses Mr. Judy's claim with prejudice to its refiling.

2. Absent an appeal, this order shall become final in thirty days.

3. The Court assesses the $150.00 filing fee against Covenant under Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.07, for which execution may tssue as necessary.

4. Covenant shall pay the filing fee within five business days of the order becoming final.

5. Covenant shall file form SD-2 within ten business days of this order becoming final.

It is ORDERED.

ENTERED July 23,2019.

Workers' Compensation Judge

4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on July 23, 2019.

Name Certified Email Service sent to: Mail Kevin Judy, X X 710-D Wyman Ct. Employee Orlando, FL 32809 kevinsjudy@gmail.com Gary Napolitan, X gary.naQolitan@Jeitnerfinn.com Employer Attorney lisa.sizemore@leitnerfinn.com

~ ~ ~~M4~ PENNYSHRU ,COURTCLERK wc.courtcl rk@tn.gov

5 Compensation Hearing Order Right to Appeal:

If you disagree with this Compensation Hearing Order, you may appeal to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board or the Tennessee Supreme Court.

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)
2019 TN WC 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/judy-kevin-v-covenant-transport-inc-tennworkcompcl-2019.