Miller, Sr., Reginald v. Logan's Roadhouse, Inc.

2018 TN WC 134
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedAugust 30, 2018
Docket2018-06-0225
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 TN WC 134 (Miller, Sr., Reginald v. Logan's Roadhouse, 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
Miller, Sr., Reginald v. Logan's Roadhouse, Inc., 2018 TN WC 134 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2018).

Opinion

FILED Aug 30, 2018 08:29 AM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

REGINALD MILLER, SR., ) Docket No. 2018-06-0225 Employee, ) v. ) LOGAN’S ROADHOUSE, INC., ) State File No. 3595-2018 Employer, ) And ) AGRI GENERAL, ) Judge Joshua Davis Baker Carrier. )

____________________________________________________________________

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER GRANTING MEDICAL BENEFITS (DECISION ON THE RECORD) ____________________________________________________________________

This claim came before the Court on Mr. Miller’s request for expedited hearing. Mr. Miller asked the Court to decide his interlocutory claim for benefits based on a review of the record without an evidentiary hearing. Logan’s did not oppose his request. This Court determined it needed no further information to determine Mr. Miller’s request and issued a docketing notice giving the parties until August 7, 2018, to file position statements. Both parties filed statements.

Mr. Miller seeks temporary disability and medical benefits, including reimbursement of medical expenses, for a head injury he suffered in a fall while working at Logan’s. Logan’s argues his injury was not primarily caused by his employment and/or is idiopathic in nature. This Court holds Mr. Miller presented sufficient evidence to establish he would likely succeed at a hearing on the merits concerning entitlement to additional medical treatment and payment of some past medical expenses. The Court denies his request for temporary disability benefits.

Claim History

As Mr. Miller requested a decision without an evidentiary hearing, the Court derived the facts from file-documentation. While working in Logan’s kitchen, Mr. Miller felt faint, lost consciousness, and fell. In the fall, he injured his head and left elbow. He attributed his loss of consciousness to fumes from a chemical oven-cleaner and heat emanating from the ovens that a coworker was cleaning. Logan’s denied his claim and paid for none of his medical care.

Mr. Miller sought emergent care at Sumner Regional Medical Center. The medical records indicate he passed out at work, fell, and hit his head on a shelf. Dr. Vivian Lei diagnosed a “superficial injury of head; contusion of left elbow.” She reported his head had “a 1 cm laceration,” which required a staple, and “tenderness over the left elbow.” Using imaging studies, providers found “no evidence of skull fracture or acute intracranial hemorrhage” and “no evidence of fracture or malalignment” in his left elbow. An elbow MRI revealed only “mild degenerative changes.” Dr. Lei instructed Mr. Miller to see his primary care physician, Dr. Jack Patterson, for staple-removal and follow-up care.

A week later, Dr. Patterson removed the staple and recommended a CT scan of Mr. Miller’s head because of his complaints about headaches, balance and memory loss. The CT scan demonstrated “no acute intracranial abnormality.” Dr. Patterson then recommended a neurologic examination. When asked whether the “injury” resulted in permanent disability, Dr. Patterson declined to answer citing a lack of qualification. He also noted Mr. Miller was “still on disability unrelated to injury.”

Due to the neurology referral from Dr. Patterson, Mr. Miller saw Dr. Wesley Chou. He recommended a brain MRI and EEG, which proved normal. Dr. Chou also reported normal results from physical and neurological examinations.

Several months after his fall, Mr. Miller attended a previously-scheduled orthopedic appointment for an unrelated condition. He told his physician, Dr. Chaitanya S. Malempati, that he “injured his back and both knees” in a fall at work. Mr. Miller complained of lower back and left shoulder pain, “shooting pain down both legs,” and “difficulty ambulating.” Dr. Malempati noted no abnormalities from pelvic and lumbar spine x-rays, apart from degenerative disc disease, and suggested an MRI of the lumbar spine if his symptoms worsened. He recommended physical therapy for left shoulder pain and decreased arm strength.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Mr. Miller must present sufficient evidence to show he would likely prevail at that final hearing to receive relief at this expedited hearing. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 239(d)(1) (2017); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *9 (Mar. 27, 2015). The Court holds he carried that burden regarding his request for medical benefits and payment for some past medical treatment.

2 To establish causation, Mr. Miller must show he suffered an injury “caused by a specific incident, or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment . . . [that] is identifiable by time and place of occurrence.” An injury “arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment” only if the “employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

In his affidavit and Petition for Benefit Determination, Mr. Miller claimed he passed out and hit his head after being exposed to high temperatures and fumes from an oven-cleaner. While not stated in his affidavit, emergency room records indicate he hit his head on a shelf when he fell. The incident occurred while he worked in the kitchen at Logan’s. Logan’s presented no evidence contradicting Mr. Miller’s version of events.

Logan’s argued Mr. Miller cannot prevail because he failed to produce medical proof that his injury arose primarily out of his work. Specifically, he failed to produce a doctor’s opinion affirmatively linking his fainting episode to heat and fume exposure. However, at an expedited hearing, an employee need not establish medical causation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lewis v. Molly Maid, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 19, at *8-9 (Apr. 20, 2016). Rather, if the employee comes forward with evidence showing that a work event resulted in injury, it may be sufficient to support an order compelling an employer to provide a panel. Id.

The Court finds that Mr. Miller presented sufficient evidence to establish that he is entitled to a panel of physicians. Logan’s argument concerning lack of evidence on medical causation is premature.

Logan’s also asserted that Mr. Miller’s injury is idiopathic. The Court disagrees. An idiopathic injury has “unexplained origin or cause, and generally does not arise out of the employment unless ‘some condition of the employment presents a peculiar or additional hazard.’” Frye v. Vincent Printing Co., 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 34, at *11 (Aug. 2, 2016) (internal citation omitted). “Cause” in this context is not “proximate cause” as used in the law of negligence; rather, “cause means that the accident originated in the hazards to which the employee was exposed as a result of performing his or her job duties.” Id. at *12.

Logan’s cited two cases supporting its argument: Sudduth v. Williams, 517 S.W.2d 520 (Tenn. 1974); and Dickerson v. Trousdale Mfg. Co., 569 S.W.2d 803 (Tenn. 1978). In those cases, however, the facts showed the employees lost consciousness due to conditions unrelated to the workplace: a seizure and fainting spell, respectively. Additionally, the employees fell and hit the floor. Here, Mr. Miller alleged that he passed out from exposure to heat and oven-cleaner fumes.

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

Related

Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc.
803 S.W.2d 672 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1991)
GAF Building Materials v. George
47 S.W.3d 430 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2001)
Sudduth v. Williams
517 S.W.2d 520 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1974)
Tindall v. Waring Park Ass'n
725 S.W.2d 935 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1987)
Dickerson v. Trousdale Manufacturing Co.
569 S.W.2d 803 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 TN WC 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-sr-reginald-v-logans-roadhouse-inc-tennworkcompcl-2018.