Lee, Dana v. Journeypure Holdings,Inc.

2021 TN WC 171
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedApril 8, 2021
Docket2020-05-1027
StatusPublished

This text of 2021 TN WC 171 (Lee, Dana v. Journeypure Holdings,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
Lee, Dana v. Journeypure Holdings,Inc., 2021 TN WC 171 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2021).

Opinion

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

AT MURFREESBORO

DANA LEE, ) Docket No.: 2020-05-1027 Employee, )

V. )

JOURNEYPURE HOLDINGS, INC., ) State File No.: 56826-2020 Employer, )

And )

ACCIDENT FUND GEN. INS. CO., ) Judge Dale Tipps Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER GRANTING BENEFITS

Ms. Lee’s request for medical and temporary disability benefits came before the Court on March 30, 2021, for an Expedited Hearing. The central legal issue is whether Ms. Lee is likely to show at a hearing on the merits that her presence at the scene of a violent assault meets the requirement of an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. For the reasons below, the Court cannot find she 1s likely to prove this but holds Ms. Lee is entitled to a panel of physicians.

History of Claim

Ms. Lee worked as a licensed practical nurse for JourneyPure, a medical detox center. As she checked in medicine from the pharmacy on July 31, 2020, a patient became belligerent and assaulted another nurse in a nearby treatment room. Ms. Lee did not witness the incident but heard raised voices and other loud noises. She called for assistance from people working in a different area and then dialed 9-1-1.

While she stayed on the phone with 9-1-1, Ms. Lee could hear her colleagues loudly trying to subdue the patient, as the altercation moved to a different part of the unit. She could see the nurse sitting on the floor crying and holding a cloth to her bloody face.! Ms. Lee locked herself in a treatment room because she feared she might be assaulted.

' JourneyPure introduced testimony that questioned whether Ms. Lee actually saw the blood on her coworker’s face. The Court finds this minor discrepancy does not affect Ms. Lee’s credibility or diminish the significance of the event. Ms. Lee was upset after the incident and told her supervisor she needed to go home. She pulled her car over and stopped a few times on the way home because she was so shaken.

Before the incident, Ms. Lee had seen a psychologist, Dr. Deborah Driggs, for treatment of mild anxiety. She testified that she returned to Dr. Driggs after the work incident because she began suffering from severe anxiety, sleep disturbance, and fearfulness. Ms. Lee was so affected that she was unable to return to work for several months after the incident.

Ms. Lee also asked her employer for help and began an application for short-term disability. Ms. Lee didn’t file the disability application because she felt her condition was work-related and should be filed as a workers’ compensation claim. JourneyPure filed a C-23 form denying Ms. Lee’s workers’ compensation claim.

Ms. Lee testified that she continues to suffer from severe anxiety that has affected her relationships and quality of life. She seeks a panel of physicians and temporary disability benefits.

JourneyPure contended that Ms. Lee is not entitled to benefits because the workplace incident does not meet the definition of a compensable mental injury. Even if it did, JourneyPure maintained that Ms. Lee failed to prove medical causation.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Ms. Lee must provide sufficient evidence from which this Court might determine she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2020); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015).

Mental Injury

A mental injury is defined as “a loss of mental faculties or a mental or behavioral disorder.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(17). To be compensable, a mental injury must arise “primarily out of a compensable physical injury or an identifiable work-related event resulting in a sudden or unusual mental stimulus.” /d. Ms. Lee did not sustain a physical injury, so the Court must determine whether she is likely to prove the July 31 event meets the second set of criteria.

Case law focusing on this second category makes clear that (1) the injury must stem from an identifiable stressful, work-related event producing a sudden mental stimulus, and (2) the event must be unusual compared to the ordinary stress of the worker’s job. Edwards

2 v. Fred’s Pharmacy, 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 9, at 7 (Feb. 14, 2018).

Regarding the first requirement, the Court finds Ms. Lee presented sufficient proof to establish an identifiable stressful, work-related event producing a sudden mental stimulus. She testified that a patient violently assaulted her coworker in a treatment room on the same ward where she was working. It took some time for several people to subdue the patient, and the incident was serious enough that Ms. Lee felt it necessary to call 9-1- 1. These basic facts are uncontroverted. Also undisputed is Ms. Lee’s testimony that she was startled, frightened, and shocked by the event. Her tearful recounting of the incident was both credible and convincing.

The next question, then, is whether the incident was unusual compared to the ordinary stress of Ms. Lee’s job. JourneyPure argued that the incident did not rise to the level of “extraordinary and unusual in comparison to the stress ordinarily experienced by an employee in the same type of duty.” JourneyPure suggested that events like this are common enough in detox centers that this incident cannot meet the “sudden or unusual mental stimulus” requirement.

However, JourneyPure submitted no evidence on this issue. Thus, the only proof before the Court regarding whether this melee was a normal part of an LPN’s experience in a detox center is Ms. Lee’s testimony that she had never experienced and did not expect incidents of this nature in her work. Based on this unrefuted testimony, the Court must conclude that this was an unusual event for this type of workplace and Ms. Lee is likely to prove a compensable incident at trial.

Causation

Having found a likelihood of proving compensability, the Court turns to medical causation. Ms. Lee must show, “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [her alleged work injury] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the .-- disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C). “Shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” means that, in the opinion of the treating physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes as opposed to speculation or possibility. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(D).

The Court cannot find at this tme that Ms. Lee is likely to meet this burden, as she did not offer any medical opinions addressing causation. Without a medical opinion on this issue, the Court cannot find at this time that she is likely to prove “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, considering all causes.”

Ms. Lee argued that medical proof is unnecessary in this case because she suffered an obvious injury. See Cloyd v. Hartco Flooring Co., 274 S$.W.3d 638, 643 (Tenn. 2008)

3 (medical evidence is not required to establish a causal relationship, “in the most obvious, simple and routine cases”). The Court disagrees.

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

Related

§ 50-6-102
Tennessee § 50-6-102(17)
§ 50-6-239
Tennessee § 50-6-239(d)(1)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2021 TN WC 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-dana-v-journeypure-holdingsinc-tennworkcompcl-2021.