Larsen, Danny v. Walker Truck Contractors, Inc.

2020 TN WC 6
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedJanuary 20, 2020
Docket2015-02-0461
StatusPublished

This text of 2020 TN WC 6 (Larsen, Danny v. Walker Truck Contractors, 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
Larsen, Danny v. Walker Truck Contractors, Inc., 2020 TN WC 6 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2020).

Opinion

FILED Jan 22, 2020 11:09 AM(ET)

TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

AT KNOXVILLE DANNY LARSEN, ) Docket No. 2015-02-0461 Employee, ) V. ) WALKER TRUCK CONTRACTORS, ) INC., ) State File No. 30692-2017 Employer, ) And ) ACCIDENT FUND GENERAL ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) Judge Lisa A. Lowe Carrier. )

COMPENSATION HEARING ORDER

This case came before the Court for a Compensation Hearing on January 21, 2020. Mr. Larsen suffered a work-related injury and reached a settlement on his original award. The issue currently before the Court is whether he is entitled to past temporary total disability (TTD) benefits from February 29, 2016, through April 25, 2016.' For the reasons below, the Court finds that Mr. Larsen failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence entitlement to TTD benefits.

History of Claim

Mr. Larsen injured his right hip while working for Walker Truck Contractors on February 25, 2015. He was treated and returned to work three days later. Mr. Larsen worked until he failed his required DOT physical. Walker terminated Mr. Larsen on February 15, 2016, due to lack of a DOT physical card. He then filed a Petition for Benefit Determination seeking additional treatment. At that time, Walker provided a panel of physicians, from which Mr. Larsen selected Dr. Paul Yau. Dr. Yau treated him and ultimately performed surgery.

'Mr. Larsen previously identified increased benefits as an issue. However, during his testimony he confirmed that he was only seeking 8.5 weeks of TTD benefits.

1 Walker paid TTD benefits from February 27 through March 31, 2015, and April 25, 2016, through maximum medical improvement on May 15, 2018. Dr. Yau assigned an impairment rating of 10%, and the parties settled Mr. Larsen’s original award.

At the Compensation Hearing, Mr. Larsen asserted entitlement to an additional 8.5 weeks of TTD benefits for the time he waited to see Dr. Yau. Mr. Larsen did not introduce any medical records or medical opinions into evidence. He confirmed that he did not seek medical treatment before seeing Dr. Yau and that Dr. Yau never addressed his ability to work for the 8.5 weeks before the visit.

Walker countered that Mr. Larsen failed to establish entitlement to additional TTD benefits and moved the Court to grant an involuntary dismissal.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

In nonjury cases, a motion for involuntary dismissal is permissible and governed by Rule 41.02(2). An involuntary dismissal is often referred to as a “directed verdict.” In Burchfield v. Renfree, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 685 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2013), the Court of Appeals reiterated the principles regarding directed verdicts:

The rule for determining a motion for directed verdict requires the trial judge and the appellate courts to look to all of the evidence, take the strongest, legitimate view of the evidence in favor of the opponent of the motion and allow all reasonable inferences from it in his favor. The court must disregard all countervailing evidence and if there is then any dispute as to any material, determinative evidence or any doubt as to the conclusions to be drawn from the whole evidence, the motion must be denied. The court may grant the motion only if, after assessing the evidence according to the foregoing standards, it determines that reasonable minds could not differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence.

Id. at *86-87 (internal citations omitted).

In this case, the Court doubts that reasonable minds would differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the testimony and evidence. However, a motion for involuntary dismissal is rarely appropriate in a workers’ compensation case, since a reversal of the trial court’s ruling resulls in additional proceedings and undue delay. See Cunningham v. Shelton Sec. Serv., 46 8.W.3d 131, 137-38 (Tenn. 2001). The trial court should instead hear the entire case and make appropriate findings of fact. Jd. Thus, the Court denies the motion for involuntary dismissal and decides the case on the merits.

At a Compensation Hearing, Mr. Larsen must establish by a preponderance of the

2 evidence that he is entitled to the requested benefits. Willis v. All Staff; 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 42, at *18 (Nov. 9, 2015); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 239(c)(6) (2019). To establish entitlement to TTD benefits, Mr. Larsen must prove: (1) a disability from working as the result of a compensable injury; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the inability to work; and (3) the duration of the period of disability. Shepherd v. Haren Const. Co., Inc., 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 15, at *13 (Mar. 30, 2016).

Mr. Larsen requested 8.5 weeks of past TTD benefits while waiting to see Dr. Yau. He testified he failed his physical but offered no testimony about his inability to perform any work during that 8.5-week period. Nor did he provide a medical opinion addressing his inability to work during that period.

After careful consideration, the Court holds that Mr. Larsen failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, entitlement to an additional 8.5 weeks of temporary total disability benefits.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows: 1. Mr. Larsen’s claim against Walker Truck Contractors and its insurance carrier for additional temporary disability benefits is dismissed with prejudice against

refiling.

2. Walker Truck Contractors shall pay costs of $150.00 to the Court Clerk within five business days of this order becoming final.’

3. Absent an appeal, this order shall become final thirty days after issuance.

ENTERED January 22, 2020.

Wat. \\ Lug Ge

LISA A. LOWE, JUDGE Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

* The statistical data related to this case can be found in the previously filed SD-2. Since no additional benefits were ordered, neither party needs to file another SD-2.

3 APPENDIX Technical record:

Petition for Benefit Determination

Dispute Certification Notice

Request For Expedited Hearing

Employer’s Response to Employee’s Request for Expedited Hearing Employer’s First Requests for Admission to Employee

Motion to Allow Telephonic Appearance

Order Granting Employer’s Motion to Allow Telephonic Appearance Order Granting Employer’s Motion to Allow Telephonic Testimony 9. Employer’s Pre-Hearing Brief

10.Employer’s Witness and Exhibit List

11.Employee’s Response

SAS ee ee we

Exhibits:

1. Employee’s Response to Employer’s Requests

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on January 22, 2020

Name Mail Fax | Email | Service sent to: Danny G. Larsen XxX X | maymaysmom@yahoo.com Employee’s Attorney 543 Brushy Valley Road Clinton, TN 37716 Cole B. Stinson, X | cole.stinson@accidentfund.com Employer’s Attorney

MAL "i ad! pe Oe

PENNYSHRUM, COURT CLERK we.courtclerk(@tn.gov LB-1103

COMPENSATION HEARING NOTICE OF APPEAL Tennessee Division of Workers’ Compensation

wiww.trgov/labor-wid/weorp.sttm! wc.courtclerk@tn.gov 1-800-332-2667 Docket #:

State File #/YR:

Employee

Employer

Notice Notice is given that

[List name(s) of all appealing party(ies) on separate sheet if necessary]

appeals the order(s) of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims at

to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.

[List the date(s) the order(s) was filed in the court clerk’s office]

Judge

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

Related

§ 50-6
Tennessee § 50-6
§ 50-6-239
Tennessee § 50-6-239(c)(7)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 TN WC 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larsen-danny-v-walker-truck-contractors-inc-tennworkcompcl-2020.