Morgan, Deborah v. Beall Manufacturing, Inc.

2021 TN WC 203
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedJuly 16, 2021
Docket2020-07-0266
StatusPublished

This text of 2021 TN WC 203 (Morgan, Deborah v. Beall Manufacturing, 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
Morgan, Deborah v. Beall Manufacturing, Inc., 2021 TN WC 203 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2021).

Opinion

FILED Jul 16, 2021 03:48 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

DEBORAH MORGAN, ) Docket No. 2020-07-0266 Employee, ) v. ) BEALL MANUFACTURING, INC., ) State File No. 29562 2020 Employer, ) And ) TRAVELERS INS. CO., ) Judge Amber E. Luttrell Carrier. )

COMPENSATION ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Court heard Beall Manufacturing’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment on July 13, 2021, on the issue of medical causation. For the reasons below, the Court holds Beall is entitled to summary judgment. Procedural History

Ms. Morgan worked as a press operator for Beall. She alleged she suffered an acute injury to her left hand and wrist while working with small parts on May 5, 2020. Beall offered Ms. Morgan a panel of physicians, and she selected a provider. At her initial visit, Ms. Morgan failed to provide an adequate sample for a post-accident drug screen. Thus, Beall denied any further treatment.

After the denial, Ms. Morgan requested an expedited hearing seeking medical benefits. In addition to its post-accident drug screen defense, Beall further contended that Ms. Morgan did not offer any evidence proving medical causation for her injury. The Court entered an Expedited Hearing Order rejecting the drug screen defense. However, the Court denied benefits because Ms. Morgan did not introduce any medical evidence showing she was likely to succeed at trial in proving causation.

1 Beall then filed its first Motion for Summary Judgment, which the Court denied because it failed to meet its burden under Rule 56 to show that Ms. Morgan’s proof was insufficient to create an issue of fact as to causation. After the denial, Beall authorized treatment with Dr. Michael Calfee, whom Ms. Morgan selected from a panel. Dr. Calfee provided an affidavit containing his causation opinion, and Beall filed this motion. Beall’s Motion In its statement of undisputed facts, Beall stated that Ms. Morgan alleged a specific injury to her left hand/wrist from dragging parts on May 5, 2020. Beall cited Ms. Morgan’s interrogatory responses where she elaborated by stating “[s]omething snapped in my left hand[.]”

Beall’s statement also referred to Dr. Calfee’s affidavit. Ms. Morgan saw Dr. Calfee, her panel selected orthopedist, for her left-wrist complaints. She gave Dr. Calfee a history of “having to manipulate lawnmower blades all day long.” Dr. Calfee diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome and degenerative arthritis of the metacarpophalangeal joint of the left thumb. Regarding the nature of Ms. Morgan’s injury, Dr. Calfee stated that after reviewing Ms. Morgan’s medical records, a causation letter from Travelers, and the Expedited Hearing Order, it was his “understanding on May 5, 2020, while working for Beall Manufacturing, Ms. Morgan was moving parts and felt a pop in her left wrist.”

Regarding causation, Dr. Calfee stated in his affidavit, “It is my opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Ms. Morgan’s current symptoms are attributable to her carpal tunnel syndrome and her carpal tunnel syndrome was not primarily or greater than 50% caused by the pop that occurred on May 5, 2020.” Further, he concluded, “I do not feel Ms. Morgan’s current symptoms are primarily or greater than 50% related to her pop in her wrist that occurred on May 5, 2020.”

In her response to the motion, Ms. Morgan attached a medical note from P.A. Michael Brown, co-signed by Dr. James Williams, which recorded her history that “on May 6, 2020 while racking steel parts into a bin she felt a snap in her hand.” P.A. Brown diagnosed hand pain and noted her work injury contributed greater than fifty percent to her health problem with her hand. She also attached a letter from Dr. Calfee in response to her causation question where he said, “I do think it is possible her carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by repetitive work in her employment at CSI, however it was not caused by her injury on May 5, 2020.” As for Dr. Calfee’s causation opinion, Ms. Morgan acknowledged that she’s alleged in this case a “pop” or “snap” in her left hand on May 5, 2020; however, she argued she had experienced hand/wrist pain for a while.

Beall argued that, based on the undisputed facts, namely the affidavit of Dr. Calfee, it submitted affirmative evidence that negates the essential element of medical causation

2 and showed that Ms. Morgan’s proof is insufficient to prove causation. As for P.A. Brown’s record, Beall contended that the record is not admissible as it is not in a form sufficient under Rule 56 to overcome a motion for summary judgment, citing Lemons v. Elwood Staffing Services, Inc., 2021 TN. Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 12, at *13 (May 4, 2021). Analysis

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that 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 (2020).

As the moving party, Beall must do one of two things to prevail on its motion: (1) submit affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of Ms. Morgan’s claim, or (2) demonstrate that Ms. Morgan’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of her claim. Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-16-101 (2020); see also Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. Of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 264 (Tenn. 2015). If Beall does either or both of these things, Ms. Morgan must respond by producing specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Id.; Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.06.

The Court finds Beall successfully negated the essential element of medical causation and established Ms. Morgan’s proof is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to causation. Dr. Calfee concluded in his affidavit that Ms. Morgan’s carpal tunnel syndrome and “current symptoms” are not primarily related to her May 5, 2020 “pop” injury. As the panel-selected treating physician, Dr. Calfee’s causation opinion is presumed correct. See Tenn. Code Ann. §50-6-102(14)(E).

Because Beall met its burden, Ms. Morgan must “demonstrate the existence of specific facts in the record which could lead a rational trier of fact to find in her favor[.]” Rye, at 265. Here, Ms. Morgan produced no admissible material facts to lead the Court to find in her favor. Instead, Ms. Morgan submitted a medical record from P.A. Brown and Dr. Williams and letter from Dr. Calfee to support her claim. The Appeals Board recently addressed the use of medical records in support of or opposition to summary judgment. The Board held,

At the summary judgment stage, parties must comply with the requirements of Rule 56 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, which sets out what a court may consider in ruling on such a motion. Specifically, Rule 56.04 allows a court to consider “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any.” Medical records, standing alone, are not included in that list.

Sadeekah v. Zaher Abdelaziz d/b/a Home Furniture and More, 2021 TN. Wrk. Comp. App.

3 Bd. LEXIS 19, at *12-13 (June 22, 2021) (quoting Rule 56). Under this authority, the submitted record and letter were not presented to this Court in an admissible form to overcome summary judgment.

While the Court is aware of Ms.

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

Related

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)
2021 TN WC 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-deborah-v-beall-manufacturing-inc-tennworkcompcl-2021.