Lane, Sandra v. REBO LIGHTING & ELECTRONICS, LLC

2025 TN WC 6
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedFebruary 18, 2025
Docket2022-04-0191
StatusPublished

This text of 2025 TN WC 6 (Lane, Sandra v. REBO LIGHTING & ELECTRONICS, LLC) 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
Lane, Sandra v. REBO LIGHTING & ELECTRONICS, LLC, 2025 TN WC 6 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2025).

Opinion

FILED Feb 18, 2025 07:00 AM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

SANDRA LANE ) Docket No.: 2022-04-0191 Employee, ) v. ) REBO LIGHTING & ) ELECTRONICS, LLC, ) State File No.: 17921-2022 Employer, ) And ) ACCIDENT FUND INS. CO. ) Insurer, ) Judge Robert Durham And ) TROY HALEY, Administrator, ) SUBSEQUENT INJURY FUND. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS

This Court held an Expedited Hearing on February 11, 2025, on Ms. Lane’s request that Rebo pay benefits for injuries she allegedly sustained from particulate exposure at work. The Court granted Rebo’s motion for dismissal because Ms. Lane did not submit a medical opinion showing that her alleged injuries arose primarily out of her employment.

History of Claim

From December 2021 to February 2022, Rebo renovated its factory. The work included spray-painting the walls and grinding and polishing the concrete floor. Ms. Lane, 78 years old at the time, continued working during construction. She testified to the pervasive smell of paint fumes and accumulation of white dust over the entire factory.

Ms. Lane stated that she experienced some difficulty breathing at the plant and informed her supervisor, who told her he had the same problem. She said that he reported their concerns to Rebo management, who told him that the paint fumes were not toxic.

On February 6, 2022, Ms. Lane had trouble breathing, and her son took her to the

1 emergency room. She said her employer was painting at the factory, and she had noticed some shortness of breath toward the end of the week but felt fine that weekend until early Sunday evening.

Ms. Lane was admitted to the hospital and diagnosed with an atrial heart flutter with acute congestive heart failure and respiratory failure. She suffered from swelling in the pleural lining of her lungs, which caused partial lung collapses. Her pulmonologist, Dr. Jack Carey, said the lung condition was “likely all from heart failure.”

Ms. Lane was hospitalized until February 19. Other than the emergency room admission report, none of the records mentioned her exposure to paint fumes or any other substance at work. After discharge, she continued taking medication and treating for “recurrent atrial flutter.”

After Ms. Lane’s discharge, she reported her condition as a work injury to Rebo. Rebo provided a panel of physicians, and she chose Dr. Ty Webb, a general practitioner, but did not see him for several months.

In the meantime, Ms. Lane followed up with her primary care doctor, Robert Baker, on February 24. Dr. Baker noted her recent hospital stay and diagnosed chronic heart failure, atrial flutter, and esophagitis. She returned three other times with the last visit occurring in April. None of his notes attributed her symptoms to a hazardous material exposure or even mentioned that type of event.

After seeing Dr. Baker, Ms. Lane saw cardiologist Brian Dockery on her own. Ms. Lane said she was feeling well, and Dr. Dockery noted that she had maintained sinus rhythm since a cardioversion in March. When Ms. Lane’s son asked if her exposure to chemicals could have caused her heart problems, Dr. Dockery said the workplace renovation was “somewhat temporally related” but “we cannot definitely say this was related to her condition.”

Ms. Lane then saw Dr. Webb twice, who ultimately did not find her condition related to work.

At the first visit, she described her injury as an “allergic reaction to paint fumes.” Upon exam, Dr. Webb found that the acute respiratory failure and pleural effusion diagnosed in February had “resolved.” He also noted that her atrial flutter had improved and saw no reason she could not return to work. The note did not address causation.

Ms. Lane returned to Dr. Webb in January 2023 complaining of a slight cough, some generalized fatigue, and some shortness of breath when climbing stairs. According to the note, Ms. Lane’s son felt her symptoms, including the heart condition, stemmed from her exposure at work. Dr. Webb recommended a chest x-ray and pulmonary function tests, but

2 Mr. Lane told him that Ms. Lane’s own doctor had done them, so Dr. Webb decided to get the records from him. However, Dr. Webb asserted that “[based on the ER report and associated tests done in Feb 2022, I do NOT find evidence of causation between any type of particulate or chemical inhalation and the onset of atrial fibrillation.” (Emphasis in original).

Ms. Lane did not offer any other medical opinions addressing causation. She and her son testified that she had been in good health before the exposure but she now requires multiple medications and can no longer work.

Ms. Lane filed a complaint with the Tennessee Occupational and Safety and Health Administration as to the safety measures Rebo had in place during construction. The investigation revealed that the paint fumes were not a hazardous exposure to employees. However, Rebo did not follow safety and health standards in preventing employees’ exposure to dust, including silica particles created from grinding and polishing the concrete floor. TOSHA penalized Rebo for these violations.

At the end of Ms. Lane’s proof, Rebo moved for involuntary dismissal of Ms. Lane’s hearing request, which the Court granted.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Ms. Lane must prove a likelihood of prevailing at a hearing on the merits that she is entitled to the requested benefits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2024).

To prove causation, Ms. Lane must establish that her symptoms and need for treatment primarily arose out of her alleged work injury in February 2022. Id. at - 102(12)(A) (2024). Further, causation must be proven to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty,” which requires an expert medical opinion. Id. at -102(12)(C).

Ms. Lane did not submit an expert opinion establishing causation. Other than recording that Ms. Lane said she was exposed to paint fumes, none of the records from her emergency room visit and hospital stay mentioned this exposure. In fact, the pulmonologist’s records said that her difficulty breathing was “likely” due to her congestive heart failure.

Dr. Dockery, Ms. Lane’s personal cardiologist, could only say the symptoms were “temporally related” to her workplace exposure and could not attribute her symptoms to it. Finally, Dr. Webb, the authorized physician, said he did not find any evidence of causation between her exposure and her heart condition. 1 His opinion is presumed correct. Id. at -

1 When granting Rebo’s motion for dismissal, the Court misspoke as to the extent of Dr. Webb’s record review. While he did review the hospital notes from Ms. Lane’s February stay, nothing in his records 3 102(12)(E).

While TOSHA found Rebo violated safety regulations, that is not enough to find that Ms. Lane’s condition primarily arose from the exposure. Thus, the Court holds that Ms. Lane is unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that she suffered a work-related injury.

Rebo moved for involuntary dismissal under Rule 41.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure (2024). In Carrillo v. Hurtado, TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 40, at *9, 10 (Aug. 16, 2023), the Appeals Board held that the Court could grant a Rule 41.02 motion to dismiss but noted it applies to the expedited hearing only and does not dismiss the claim entirely. Applying this authority, the Court grants Rebo’s motion to dismiss the hearing request.

This case is set for a Scheduling Hearing on March 27, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. Central Time. The parties must call 615-253-0010.

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 TN WC 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lane-sandra-v-rebo-lighting-electronics-llc-tennworkcompcl-2025.