McIntosh, Sarah Miles v. Randstad

2016 TN WC 42
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedFebruary 22, 2016
Docket2015-08-0106
StatusPublished

This text of 2016 TN WC 42 (McIntosh, Sarah Miles v. Randstad) 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
McIntosh, Sarah Miles v. Randstad, 2016 TN WC 42 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2016).

Opinion

FILED February 22 , 2016 TN COURT OF WORKIRS ' COMPINSATION CLAIMS

TIM£ 10,50 AM

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS AT MEMPHIS

Sarah Kaye Mcintosh, Docket No.: 2015-08-0106 Employee, v. State File No.: 24706-2015

Randstad, Judge Jim Umsted Employer, And

ESIS, Insurance Carrier.

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY DISABILITY BENEFITS

THIS CAUSE came before the undersigned Workers' Compensation Judge on January 27, 2016, upon the Request for Expedited Hearing filed by the employee, Sarah Kaye Mcintosh, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239 (2015). Ms. Mcintosh seeks temporary disability benefits from December 30, 2015, to January 18, 2016, for injuries to her wrists.

On September 24, 2015, the Court ordered Randstad to pay temporary disability benefits to Ms. Mcintosh "until she is either placed at maximum medical improvement (MMI) or able to work at a job enabling her to earn a wage equal to or better than that earned at the time of injury." The central legal issue is whether Ms. Mcintosh is entitled to receive temporary disability benefits for the time in question. This issue includes sub- issues of whether Randstad offered Ms. Mcintosh light duty work within her medical restrictions for the time in question and whether Ms. Mcintosh unreasonably refused to accept the offer of light duty work. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds Ms. Mcintosh is not entitled to the requested benefits. 1

1 A complete listing of the technical record and exhibits is attached to this Order as an appendix.

1 History of Claim

Ms. Mcintosh claimed she injured her wrists on March 23, 2015, after filing thousands of files over a period of a few days. The Court previously found her claim compensable, and she is currently receiving medical treatment with her authorized physician, Dr. Wm. Lee Moffatt. On November 24, 2015, Randstad sent notice to Ms. Mcintosh that it would take the deposition of Dr. Moffatt on December 8, 2015. Prior to the deposition of Dr. Moffatt, Randstad paid temporary total disability benefits to Ms. Mcintosh as Dr. Moffatt had taken her completely off work. Ms. Mcintosh, who is self- represented, did not attend the deposition.

In his deposition, Dr. Moffatt testified that Ms. Mcintosh would be able to perform light duty work consisting of answering a telephone with a hands-free headset and writing down an occasional note. After the deposition, Randstad offered Ms. Mcintosh light duty work, which involved limited writing and lifting. Randstad also offered to work with her and her physician to modify the job duties to meet any limitations. Randstad advised Ms. Mcintosh that her job assignment started December 21, 2015.

Ms. Mcintosh failed to accept the offer of light duty work, and on December 30, 2015, Randstad terminated payment of temporary disability benefits. However, on January 18, 2016, Dr. Moffatt performed surgery on Ms. Mcintosh, and Randstad reinstated payment of temporary total disability benefits.

Ms. Mcintosh testified that she never refused Randstad's offer of light duty work. According to Ms. Mcintosh, she contacted Randstad's attorney upon receiving the offer and asked for a copy of Dr. Moffatt's deposition transcript, because she was not aware of the types of work Dr. Moffatt thought she could perform and because she did not believe that Randstad's offer would comply with the work restrictions imposed by Dr. Moffatt. She admitted, however, that she never contacted anyone at Randstad regarding the offer of light duty work.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

General Legal Principles

This Court must interpret the Workers' Compensation Law fairly, impartially, and without favor for either the employee or employer. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-116 (2015). The employee in a workers' compensation claim must prove all essential elements of her claim. Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, No. 2015-01-0055, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *6 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015). However, an employee need not prove every element of her claim by a preponderance of the evidence in order to obtain relief at an expedited hearing. McCord v. Advantage

2 Human Resourcing, No. 2014-06-0063, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7- 8, 9 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Mar. 27, 2015). At an expedited hearing, an employee must come forward with sufficient evidence from which the trial court can determine she is likely to prevail on her claim at trial. !d.

Whether Ms. Mcintosh is entitled to temporary disability benefits from December 30, 2015, to January 18, 2016

An injured worker is eligible for temporary disability benefits if: (1) the worker became disabled from working due to a compensable injury; (2) there is a causal connection between the injury and the inability to work; and (3) the worker established the duration of the period of disability. Simpson v. Satterfield, 564 S.W.2d 953, 955 (Tenn. 1978). Temporary total disability benefits are terminated by either the ability to return to work or attainment of maximum recovery. !d. Temporary partial disability benefits are available when the temporary disability is not total. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-207(1)-(2) (2015). Specifically, "[t]emporary partial disability refers to the time, if any, during which the injured employee is able to resume some gainful employment but has not reached maximum recovery." Williams v. Saturn Corp., No. M2004-01215-WC- R3-CV, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1032, at *6 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. Panel Nov. 15, 2005).

Thus, in circumstances where the treating physician has released the injured worker to return to work with restrictions prior to maximum medical improvement, and the employer either ( 1) cannot return the employee to work within the restrictions or (2) cannot provide restricted work for a sufficient number of hours and/or at a rate of pay equal to or greater than the employee's average weekly wage on the date of injury, the injured worker may be eligible for temporary partial disability.

Jones v. Crencor Leasing, No. 2015-06-0332, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 48, at *8 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Dec. 11, 2015).

The issue in the present case involves entitlement to temporary partial disability. The evidence supports a finding that Dr. Moffatt placed Ms. Mcintosh on light duty work restrictions from December 30, 2015, to January 18, 2016. Randstad presented evidence that it offered to accommodate these restrictions. The Court finds Ms. Mcintosh failed to attempt to perform the light duty work offered by Randstad.

Based on the evidence presented in this case, Ms. Mcintosh has not come forward with sufficient evidence from which this Court can conclude she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits regarding entitlement to temporary disability benefits for the time in question. Therefore, her request for benefits is denied at this time.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

3 1. Ms. Mcintosh's claim against Randstad and its workers' compensation carrier for the requested temporary partial disability benefits is denied at this time.

2. This matter is set for a Status Conference on February 29, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. Central time.

ENTERED this the 22"d day of February, 2016.

Judge Jim Umsted Court of Workers' Compensation Claims

Status Conference:

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

Related

Simpson v. Satterfield
564 S.W.2d 953 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 TN WC 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcintosh-sarah-miles-v-randstad-tennworkcompcl-2016.