MCMILLIAN, LANELL v. ULG COMPANIES, LLC

2025 TN WC 25
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedMay 12, 2025
Docket2021-02-0554
StatusPublished

This text of 2025 TN WC 25 (MCMILLIAN, LANELL v. ULG COMPANIES, 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
MCMILLIAN, LANELL v. ULG COMPANIES, LLC, 2025 TN WC 25 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2025).

Opinion

FILED May 12, 2025 12:03 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

LANELL MCMILLIAN, ) Docket Number: 2021-02-0554 Employee, ) v. ) ULG COMPANIES, LLC, ) Employer, ) State File Number: 81115-2021 And ) UNITED WISCONSIN INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) Carrier. ) Judge Brian K. Addington

COMPENSATION ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Mr. McMillian filed a request under the open medical provisions of a Compensation Order seeking payment of past unauthorized medical bills, current medical treatment, and settlement of his open medical benefits. ULG Companies, LLC filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court heard on May 2. Mr. McMillian did not appear. The issue is whether Mr. McMillian can present sufficient evidence that his current need for medical treatment is primarily related to his September 18, 2021, work injury. For the reasons below, the Court holds Mr. McMillian did not present the necessary evidence and ULG is entitled to summary judgment.

Claim History

On September 18, 2021, Mr. McMillian suffered a left-leg injury that arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment.

In April 2024, this Court entered a Compensation Order denying Mr. McMillian permanent disability benefits but awarding “reasonable and necessary medical benefits for [his] work-related left-ankle sprain under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204.”

1 In October 2024, Mr. McMillian filed a Motion to Compel seeking reimbursement of unauthorized medical bills, medical treatment, and settlement of his open medical benefits. The parties mediated unsuccessfully.

After issuance of a dispute certification notice, the Court set scheduling deadlines, including deadlines for filing dispositive motions and the date for a compensation hearing on the record. Later, ULG filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with a statement of undisputed material facts with citations to the record in compliance with Rule 56.03 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

The statement of undisputed material facts included:

1. Mr. McMillian injured his left-lower extremity on September 18, 2021, while working for ULG. 2. Mr. McMillian received authorized treatment for his left-lower extremity injuries from Dr. Paul Kerner. 3. Dr. Kerner diagnosed Mr. McMillian with a left-ankle sprain. 4. Dr. Kerner placed Mr. McMillian at maximum medical improvement without any permanent physical impairment on July 19, 2022. 5. Dr. Kerner concluded that any additional treatment is less than 50% related to the September 2021 work injury.

Mr. McMillian filed a response disputing some of the above facts, but he did not cite to the record or supply affidavits from any medical providers. He offered medical records, unauthorized medical bills, and a C-32 signed by Edwin Newman; however, he did not include a curriculum vitae showing Mr. Newman’s credentials.

Law and Analysis

Mr. McMillian submitted unauthorized medical bills that he wants ULG to pay. He incurred these unauthorized medical bills before the 2024 Order for Summary Judgment. This claim is barred by res judicata.

The Supreme Court held that “res judicata, also referred to as claim preclusion, bars a second suit between the same parties on the same cause of action with respect to all issues that . . . could have been litigated in the former suit.” Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.2d 363, 376 (Tenn. 2009).

The Court considers its 2024 award of summary judgment as a full and final disposition of benefits sought by Mr. McMillian except for his right to future medical treatment of his left-ankle sprain. In Harrogate Corp. v. Systems Sales Corp., 915 S.W.2d

2 812, 816 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), the Court held, “[s]ummary judgment resolves the [issues] treated on their merits and is a final judgment for the purposes of res judicata.” The Court considers Mr. McMillian’s claim for payment of medical services incurred before the 2024 summary judgment order ended on the date of that order.

As to Mr. McMillian’s request for medical treatment, summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 (2024).

ULG must do one of two things to prevail on its motion: (1) submit affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the other party’s claim, or (2) demonstrate that the evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of the claim. Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-16-101 (2024); see also Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 264 (Tenn. 2015).

If ULG does either or both, Mr. McMillian must respond by producing specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Id.; Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.06. If Mr. McMillian does not, then “summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against [him].” Id.

Here, ULG submitted evidence from Dr. Kerner stating Mr. McMillian’s current need for medical treatment is not primarily related to his work injury. Thus, Mr. McMillian must present evidence showing a genuine issue for trial. He did not do so. He did not submit a properly completed C-32 or affidavits from medical providers showing that he needs treatment primarily caused by his work injury.

Based on these facts, ULG successfully showed that Mr. McMillian’s evidence is insufficient to establish medical causation, which is an essential element of his claim. Therefore, no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the question of causation, and the Court holds ULG is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Finally, the Court cannot order ULG to pay Mr. McMillian to close his right to future medical benefits under the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law. Section 50-6- 240(d) delegates “compromising and settling” future medical benefits solely among parties. Therefore, the Court denies Mr. McMillian’s request.

Given this ruling, ULG’s recently filed motions are moot, and the scheduled compensation hearing on the record is canceled.

3 IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. The Court denies Mr. McMillan’s request for payment of past unauthorized medical expenses.

2. The Court denies Mr. McMillan’s request to require ULG to settle his right to future medical benefits.

3. ULG is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on the issue of Mr. McMillian’s request for current medical treatment.

4. The Court taxes the $150.00 filing fee to ULG under Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-06 (2023) payable to the Clerk within five business days.

5. Unless appealed, this Order shall become final 30 days after entry.

ENTERED May 12, 2025.

Brian K. Addington ______________________________________ JUDGE BRIAN K. ADDINGTON Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this Order was sent on May 12, 2025.

Name Mail Email Service sent to: Lanell McMillian, X lannellmcm27@gmail.com Employee Allen Grant, X agrant@eraclides.com Ben Norris, X bnorris@eraclides.com Employer’s Attorneys

______________________________________ PENNY SHRUM, COURT CLERK wc.courtclerk@tn.gov 4 Right to Appeal: If you disagree with the Court’s Order, you may appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.

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

Related

Chandler v. Darwin
281 S.W.2d 363 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1955)
Michelle RYE Et Al. v. WOMEN’S CARE CENTER OF MEMPHIS, MPLLC Et Al.
477 S.W.3d 235 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 TN WC 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmillian-lanell-v-ulg-companies-llc-tennworkcompcl-2025.