Le, Man Thai v. Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems, Inc.

2024 TN WC 58
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedAugust 13, 2024
Docket2023-06-6704
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 TN WC 58 (Le, Man Thai v. Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems, 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
Le, Man Thai v. Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems, Inc., 2024 TN WC 58 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2024).

Opinion

FILED Aug 13, 2024 07:00 AM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

Man Thi Le, ) Docket No. 2023-06-6704 Employee, ) v. ) Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems, ) Inc., ) State File No. 72362-2023 Employer, ) And ) Mitsui Sumitomo Ins. USA, Inc., ) Carrier. ) Judge Kenneth M. Switzer

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS

Man Thi Le requested benefits at an expedited hearing on August 8, 2024. She suffers from carpal tunnel syndrome that she claimed resulted from her work at Sumitomo. Sumitomo denied the claim, contending that her condition did not arise primarily out of her employment. The Court finds she is unlikely to prove at a hearing on the merits that her work was the primary cause of her injury and denies her request.

Claim History

Per Ms. Le’s affidavit, she reported suffering a repetitive motion injury to her hands on September 16, 2023. She had worked approximately 60 hours per week rolling and coiling electrical wiring. According to Ms. Le, Sumitomo immediately denied her request for treatment. She testified that she went to the emergency room twice on her own but offered no records from either visit.

Ms. Le saw Dr. Clinton Morgan on her own on September 25, where she reported weakness in her hands and 2/5 hand grip strength. Dr. Morgan wrote, “She is losing function in her hands and cannot do her work. She has visible atrophy in her hands as well on the right side, worse than the left side, which is now starting to progress to the left side.”

Ms. Le saw her regular provider, a nurse practitioner, in early October, who

1 diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Release surgery was scheduled but never performed because Sumitomo denied the claim on November 10.

Ms. Le offered a note from Dr. Morgan, where he later gave the following opinion:

Ms. Le testified that she has been fully disabled from working since September 19, 2023. She requested a panel of hand-specialist physicians. Sumitomo countered, in part, that her requests should be denied because the injury did not arise primarily out of employment.

Sumitomo also contended that her carpal tunnel syndrome preexisted her employment with it and pointed to medical records from March and June, 2023. In the earlier visit, she reported “multiple joints pain” in several body parts including her hands. She also complained of numbness in all fingertips of both hands. At the follow-up, she reported the same complaints, which were worsening. The nurse practitioner diagnosed “multiple joint pain” and “numbness of hand.” He wrote, “[R]efer to hand orthopedic for further evaluation. Likely CTS?”1

1 Sumitomo offered detailed testimony from Ms. Le’s supervisor and its human resources director about the circumstances of Ms. Le reporting the alleged injury and her termination. However, Sumitomo has not raised a notice defense. Further, given the ruling that Ms. Le is unlikely to prove at a hearing on the merits that her carpal tunnel syndrome arose primarily out of her employment, the Court need not recount this testimony. 2 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

To grant Ms. Le’s requests, she must show she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2023); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015).

As a threshold issue, Ms. Le must show that her carpal tunnel syndrome meets the definition of “injury” under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Section 50-6-102(12) specifically lists as compensable “carpal tunnel syndrome . . . arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, that causes . . . disablement or the need for medical treatment.” Further, she must show “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that her work “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment.” Id. at -102(12)(B)-(C). “Shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” means that in the physician’s opinion, “it is more likely than not, considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or possibility.” Id. at -102(12)(D).

Here, the Court has only Dr. Morgan’s medical opinion. Sumitomo argued that his opinion does not meet the above definition. Ms. Le suffers from carpal tunnel syndrome and needs surgery. The question is whether she is likely to show at a hearing on the merits that her work caused her condition or need for treatment.

Dr. Morgan’s opinion is expressed using a percentage favorable to Ms. Le’s position, but it also conveys uncertainty. He has examined Ms. Le and reviewed the results of her diagnostic testing. He considered her work: “bending and flexing her hands frequently, this is an extremely high risk activity for developing carpal tunnel syndrome.” Dr. Morgan continued, “It is entirely possible that the nature of this work has significantly contributed more than 50% to her symptom development; however I do not have a baseline examination before she began this work to know how she functioned beforehand[.]” (Emphasis added). While the first clause of that sentence states that a greater than 50% chance exists that Ms. Le’s work caused her carpal tunnel syndrome, the second clause injects doubt when Dr. Morgan expresses the need to consider a “baseline examination.” Moreover, the statute expressly rejects “possibility” and requires greater certainty.

Ms. Le had complained of numbness in her hands to a nurse practitioner in March and June, 2023—several months before the date of injury—and in June, the nurse practitioner noted that he suspected carpal tunnel syndrome. Apparently Dr. Morgan did not have that information.

Given Dr. Morgan’s desire for more information before cementing his opinion, and the treatment notes pre-dating the injury at work, the Court cannot find at this time that Ms.

3 Le is likely to prove at trial that her carpal tunnel syndrome arose primarily out of her employment.2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Ms. Le’s requests for medical and temporary disability benefits are denied.

2. The Court sets a status hearing on November 12, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. Central Time. You must call 615-532-9552 or 866-943-0025 to participate.

ENTERED August 13, 2024.

________________________________________ JUDGE KENNETH M. SWITZER Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

2 Sumitomo also argued that Ms. Le knowingly and willfully misrepresented her previous injuries/physical condition in a post-offer medical questionnaire. Given the ruling above, however, the Court does not need to address this contention. 4 Appendix

Exhibits: 1. Ms. Le’s Affidavit 2. Ms. Le’s deposition transcript 3. Dr. Morgan December 22, 2023 note and April 2024 referral 4. Employer’s composite medical records 5. Denial 6. Ms. Le’s deposition transcript 7. Text messages between Ms. Le and James Dillon 8. Text messages between Ms. Le and Israel Ocampo 9. Sumitomo-Medical history form 10. Request for Information-Medical Statement-Dr. Morgan

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the Order was sent as indicated on August 13, 2024.

Name Mail Email Service sent to: David Weatherman, X david@theweathermanfirm.com Employee’s Attorney Jeffrey Taylor, X jeff@taylorlawfirmtn.com Employer’s Attorney kathy@taylorlawfirm.com

_____________________________________ PENNY SHRUM, Court Clerk 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(d)(1)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 TN WC 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/le-man-thai-v-sumitomo-electric-wiring-systems-inc-tennworkcompcl-2024.