Nickens. Michael v. Anitox Corp.

2019 TN WC 135
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedSeptember 10, 2019
Docket2018-06-2263
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 TN WC 135 (Nickens. Michael v. Anitox Corp.) 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
Nickens. Michael v. Anitox Corp., 2019 TN WC 135 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2019).

Opinion

FILED Sep 10, 2019

02:26 PM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

CLAIMS

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

AT NASHVILLE

Michael Nickens, ) Docket No. 2018-06-2263 Employee, )

Vv. )

Anitox Corp., ) State File No. 19179-2018 Employer, )

And )

National Liability & Fire Ins. Co., ) Judge Kenneth M. Switzer Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING REQUESTED RELIEF (DECISION ON THE RECORD)

Michael Nickens inhaled an unknown substance while working for Anitox Corporation. Anitox briefly accepted the claim but later denied it. While the claim was accepted, Mr. Nickens used a prescription card to pay for medication. He seeks an order that Anitox reauthorize the card. Anitox opposes the request on grounds that the treating physician has not prescribed any medication necessary to treat Mr. Nickens’s pulmonary and heart conditions. The Court agrees and denies the requested relief.

Claim History

Mr. Nickens’s petition for benefit determination alleged exposure to a “toxic substance” at work on December 11, 2017. Anitox denied the claim on February 5, 2018.

At a scheduling hearing in May 2019, the parties informed the Court that Mr. Nickens treated on his own and reached maximum medical improvement in the fall of 2018. The Court set discovery deadlines in anticipation of scheduling a compensation hearing.

Mr. Nickens filed a motion for medical benefits in July seeking reauthorization of

WORKERS' COMPENSATION the prescription card and attorney fees.’ The Court construed the motion as a request for expedited hearing and ordered Mr. Nickens to complete an affidavit, set a deadline for Anitox to respond to the requested relief, and clarified that the sole issue is Mr. Nickens’s entitlement to the prescription card.

After the hearing, Mr. Nickens filed an affidavit stating:

At some point in time, I was provided a prescription card from the workers’ compensation insurer to use in order to fill my medications needed to treat and manage the symptoms arising from this injury. That card was recently declined by the pharmacist and I was informed that the card was no longer active. I am seeking further medical benefits and to have the prescription card reactivated.

Other than his affidavit, Mr. Nickens submitted no medical proof or other evidence supporting his entitlement to the requested relief. Among its objections, Anitox argued there was no “outstanding prescription that is necessary” relating to his pulmonary or cardiac conditions.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Mr. Nickens must show at an expedited hearing that he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2018); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015).

The parties’ evidence and arguments focused largely on whether Mr. Nickens’s heart failure and stroke were work-related. However, judicial economy dictates that the Court need not decide that question at this point, using the relaxed standard described above, because Mr. Nickens did not meet his burden regarding his requested relief.

Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(1)(A) requires employers to provide injured employees medication made reasonably necessary by the work accident. Here, Mr. Nickens presented detailed expert opinions on medical causation, but he offered vague information about the medical necessity of his requested relief — reissuance of the prescription card. His affidavit mentioned “medications needed to treat and manage the symptoms arising from this injury.” However, Mr. Nickens offered no evidence, medical or lay, identifying the medicine he was prescribed, who prescribed it, and why it was reasonably necessary to treat his alleged injuries.

For these reasons, the Court holds he is unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the

' Mr. Nickens agreed to reserve the attorney fee request until the compensation hearing.

2 merits on his entitlement to the prescription card and denies the request at this time. The Court will address medical causation after the compensation hearing.

It is ORDERED.

ENTERED September 10, 2019.

Cont MW. Ow AD)

JUDGE KENNETH M. SWI oe Court of Workers’ Compensa Claims

APPENDIX The Court considered the following documents:

Petition for Benefit Determination

Dispute Certification Notice

Request for Scheduling Hearing

Order on Scheduling Hearing

Motion to Compel Medical Benefits

a. Progress notes, Dr. Sevin, November 1, 2018

b. Forms C-30A, C-32, Dr. Sevin, May 9, 2019

c. Dr. Sevin’s response to causation letter, May 9, 2019 d

e.

WRWN

. Medical opinion statement of Dr. Sevin (supplement to C-32) Dr. Sevin’s CV 6. Response to Motion to Compel Medical Benefits a. C-20, First Report of Injury b. First Report of Injury c. Notice of Denial of Claim d. Notice of Denial Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff's First Requests for Admission Medical opinion statement of David Slosky, M.D. Motion to Compel Discovery 0. Order on Motion to Compel Medical Benefits and Setting the Case for an Expedited Hearing/Decision on the Record 11. Affidavit of Michael Nickens 12. Response Brief to Employee’s Motion to Compel Benefits a. Rule 72 Statement of Jacqueline Hannigan and payment log b. Excerpt from Mr. Nickens’s deposition transcript c. Progress notes, Dr. Sevin, November 1, 2018 d. Progress notes, Drs. Reagan/Tuchman, December 27, 2017

seas

mye rho

i. Report, Dr. Milstone

13.Employee’s Notice of Objection

Progress notes, Dr. Slosky, April 26, 2018 Progress notes, Ms. Pierce, April 5, 2018

Progress notes, Ms. Lord, March 27, 2018 Records review of Patient Michael Nickens, Dr. Kreth

14.Employer’s Response to Employee’s Objection to Medical Statements

15. Docketing Notice

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the Expedited Hearing Order was sent as indicated on

September 10, 2019.

Name Certified Via Via_ | Service sent to: Mail Fax Email Michael Fisher, X michael@rockylawfirm.com Employee’s attorney Allen Callison, xX Allen.callison@mgclaw.com

Employer’s attorney

Aes AU ~—

PENNY SE fLUM, COURT CLERK WC.CourtVCierk@tn.gov

Expedited Hearing Order Right to Appeal:

If you disagree with this Expedited Hearing Order, you may appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. To appeal an expedited hearing order, you must:

1. Complete the enclosed form entitled: “Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal,” and file the form with the Clerk of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims within seven business days of the date the expedited hearing order was filed. When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must serve a copy upon all parties.

2. You must pay, via check, money order, or credit card, a $75.00 filing fee within ten calendar days after filing of the Notice of Appeal. Payments can be made in-person at any Bureau office or by U.S. mail, hand-delivery, or other delivery service. In the alternative, you may file an Affidavit of Indigency (form available on the Bureau’s website or any Bureau office) seeking a waiver of the fee. You must file the fully- completed Affidavit of Indigency within ten calendar days of filing the Notice of Appeal. Failure to timely pay the filing fee or file the Affidavit of Indigency will result in dismissal of the appeal.

3. You bear the responsibility of ensuring a complete record on appeal.

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

Related

§ 50-6-239
Tennessee § 50-6-239(d)(1)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 TN WC 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nickens-michael-v-anitox-corp-tennworkcompcl-2019.