Newton, Cameron v. OM Hixson, LLC

2019 TN WC 2
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedJanuary 7, 2019
Docket2018-01-0040
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 TN WC 2 (Newton, Cameron v. OM Hixson, 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
Newton, Cameron v. OM Hixson, LLC, 2019 TN WC 2 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2019).

Opinion

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

AT CHATTANOOGA

Cameron Newton, ) Docket No. 2018-01-0040 ja bis

Employee, ) TENNESSIce COURT OF Vv. ) WORKERS! COMPENSATION OM Hixson, LLC, ) State File No. 98735-2017

Employer, ) and ) Trumbull Insurance Company, ) Judge Thomas Wyatt

Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL MEDICAL BENEFITS AND REFERRAL TO THE BUREAU’S COMPLIANCE UNIT (ON-THE-RECORD DECISION)

This claim came before the Court on January 4, 2019, on Mr. Newton’s Request for Expedited Hearing seeking an on-the-record decision. OM Hixson, LLC (OMH) did not request an in-person hearing, and the Court finds it needs no additional information to decide the issue based on a review of the record.’ The issue is whether Mr. Newton is entitled to a panel of psychotherapists. For the reasons below, the Court holds that he is.

History of the Claim

Mr. Newton sustained a psychological injury on December 21, 2017, when confronted by a threatening guest at the motel where he worked. OMH accepted the claim as compensable and provided a panel of physicians for authorized treatment. Mr. Newton selected and saw a general practitioner, who recommended treatment by a psychiatrist.

Mr. Newton previously requested an Expedited Hearing when OMH did not provide a compliant panel because it allegedly could not locate psychiatrists willing to

"The Court gave OMH until December 7, 2018, to submit evidence and set January 3, 2019, as both parties’ deadline for filing position statements and objections to evidence. OMH did not submit evidence, but filed a position statement. treat under workers’ compensation. After an in-person hearing, the Court ordered OMH to provide a compliant psychiatric panel. OMH did so, and Mr. Newton selected Knoxville psychiatrist Dr. John Robertson.

Mr. Newton saw Dr. Robertson on September 16, 2018. Dr. Robertson diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and ordered: “Psychotherapy twice weekly with trauma focus and EMDR therapy.” When OMH failed to provide a panel of psychotherapists after two months, Mr. Newton requested an on-the-record Expedited Hearing seeking a psychotherapist panel.”

OMH contended that Mr. Newton did not establish that Dr. Robertson was not providing, or would not provide, the psychotherapy described in his order. It further contended it does not owe Mr. Newton a panel of psychotherapists because the law limits treatment of psychological injuries to that provided by psychiatrists or psychologists.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Mr. Newton is entitled to a panel of psychotherapists if he shows he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in establishing his entitlement to the requested panel. McCord vy. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015). Here, the unrebutted evidence shows that the authorized treating psychiatrist ordered Mr. Newton to undergo psychotherapy. However, OMH contends that Mr. Newton did not meet his burden of proof because he failed to establish that (1) Dr. Robertson is unwilling to provide the prescribed psychotherapy, and (2) Dr. Robertson’s psychotherapy order is not expressly limited to therapy by a psychiatrist or psychologist.

Tennessee Code Annotated subsection 50-6-204(a)(1)(A) (2018) provides that the employer “shall furnish, free of charge to the employee, such medical and surgical treatment . . . including . . . psychological services as ordered by the attending physician[.]” (Emphasis added.) In addition, Tennessee Code Annotated subsection 50- 6-102(h) limits treatment for work-related psychological injuries to that “rendered only by psychologists and psychiatrists[.]”

OMH has denied the psychotherapy ordered by Dr. Robertson, the authorized treating psychiatrist, for three and one-half months. Its reason is alleged ambiguities in the doctor’s handwritten order. However, OMH submitted no evidence to support its claim that Dr. Robertson’s order is fatally ambiguous. OMH likewise introduced no evidence that it made any effort to clarify the alleged ambiguities.

* Mr. Newton filed a separate Request for Expedited Hearing seeking temporary disability benefits. He withdrew it after OMH agreed to pay benefits from the date of injury.

2 The Court holds that Mr. Newton will likely prevail at a hearing on the merits that Dr. Robertson ordered Mr. Newton to undergo psychotherapy from a provider other than Dr. Robertson himself. Mr. Newton’s affidavit indicated that he understood the psychotherapy order included a referral to a provider other than Dr. Robertson. This understanding is logical, in that Mr. Newton lives more than 100 miles away from Dr. Robertson’s office. Jn any event, OMH could have contacted Dr. Robertson to clarify any perceived ambiguity, but it did not do so.

OMH?’s contention that it had no obligation to act upon Dr. Robertson’s order because he did not specify treatment by a psychiatrist or psychologist is without merit. Instead, OMH had a duty to make a reasonable effort to compile a panel of psychiatrists or psychologists from which Mr. Newton could select a provider for the prescribed psychotherapy. Thus, the Court orders that OMH promptly provide Mr. Newton a panel of psychotherapists in compliance with the Workers’ Compensation Law, and that it schedule an appointment with the selected provider as soon as possible.

The Court is troubled by the pattern of delay by OMH and/or its carrier in providing Mr. Newton the benefits to which he is entitled. Mr. Newton was previously forced to request an Expedited Hearing and participate in an in-person hearing due to OMH’s delay in providing a psychiatric panel. OMH’s defense was that it could not locate three psychiatrists willing to treat Mr. Newton under workers’ compensation; however, it located three psychiatrists willing to treat under workers’ compensation after the Court ordered it to do so. Finally, OMH did not pay temporary disability benefits until almost a year after Mr. Newton’s injury, and then only after he requested an Expedited Hearing.

Here, OMH’s delay in providing a psychotherapy panel forced Mr. Newton to again seek relief from the Court. This delay was lengthened by OMH’s request for additional time to submit responsive evidence, which the Court granted, but OMH did not use,

Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-118(a)(11) provides that “[t]he bureau of workers’ compensation shall . . . establish and collect penalties for . . . [the] [flailure of any employer to timely provide medical treatment made reasonably necessary by the accident and recommended by the authorized treating physician[.]” Here, OMH failed to timely provide treatment recommended by the authorized physician, and the Court refers the case to the Bureau’s Compliance Unit for consideration of a penalty. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

l.

OMH and/or its carrier shall promptly provide a panel of psychiatrists or psychologists for psychotherapy. After Mr. Newton’s selection, OMH and/or its carrier shall immediately schedule an appointment.

This matter is referred to the Compliance Unit of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation for assessment of a penalty in the amount it deems appropriate to address OMH’s delay in providing the services prescribed by Dr. Robertson.

. This matter is set for a Status Hearing at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on

March 1, 2019. The parties must call (615) 741-3061 or toll-free at (855) 747- 1721 to participate in the Status Hearing. Failure of a party to call may result in a determination of the issues without that party’s further participation.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 TN WC 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newton-cameron-v-om-hixson-llc-tennworkcompcl-2019.