Otey, Eddie v. ASPLUNDH TREEE EXPERT COMPANY

2023 TN WC 85
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedOctober 15, 2023
Docket2021-02-0655
StatusPublished

This text of 2023 TN WC 85 (Otey, Eddie v. ASPLUNDH TREEE EXPERT COMPANY) 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
Otey, Eddie v. ASPLUNDH TREEE EXPERT COMPANY, 2023 TN WC 85 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2023).

Opinion

FILED Nov 15, 2023 01:29 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

EDDIE OTEY, ) Docket No. 2021-02-0655 Employee, ) v. ) ASPLUNDH TREEE EXPERT ) COMPANY, ) State File No. 8267-2021 Employer, ) And ) XL INSURANCE AMERICA ) INCORPORATED, ) Judge Brian K. Addington Carrier. )

COMPENSATION ORDER

This Court held a compensation hearing on November 9, 2023, during which Mr. Otey requested Asplundh to provide dental care under the open future medical benefits provision of the parties’ settlement agreement. He also seeks payment of his attorney’s fee. Asplundh asserted that it tried to provide a panel but was unsuccessful in finding dentists that treated workers’ compensation patients. Based on a preponderance of the evidence provided, the Court holds Mr. Otey is entitled to the requested benefits.

History of Claim

Mr. Otey worked for Asplundh on January 18, 2021, when he fell on uneven ground injuring his right shoulder, neck, back, head, and left hand. He also lost a tooth. Asplundh provided medical treatment for his injuries.

Dr. Stephanie Snelson, DDS originally provided authorized dental treatment, including extraction of two additional teeth. Because Dr. Snelson does not perform oral implant procedures, Mr. Otey requested a panel of oral surgeons. The parties entered a settlement agreement on March 22, 2023, with open future medical benefits including “a panel for future dental care.”

1 On April 26, Mr. Otey filed a Petition for Benefit Determination requesting a panel of oral surgeons. During mediation, Asplundh requested and obtained a waiver from the Tennessee Medical Fee Schedule, as it was unable to locate surgeons that would accept Mr. Otey as a patient. Despite receiving the wavier, Asplundh did not provide a panel of oral surgeons.

Mr. Otey testified that Asplundh offered other medical treatment, but he still needs dental treatment. He asserted he is entitled to a panel of oral surgeons because his work injury caused the loss of his teeth. He also requested attorney’s fees for time spent to obtain a panel.

Asplundh did not dispute Mr. Otey’s entitlement to a panel of oral surgeons. It argued that it should not be penalized because it cannot find oral surgeons to see him. Further, it argued a change in its third-party administrator caused additional delay.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

At a compensation hearing, Mr. Otey must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to the requested benefits. Tenn. Code Ann. Ꞩ 50-6-239(c)(6) (2023). The Court finds he satisfied this burden.

The Workers’ Compensation Law provides that “the employer or the employer’s agent shall furnish, free of charge to the employee, such medical and surgical treatment . . . made reasonably necessary by accident[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(a)(1)(A).

Asplundh did not deny that Mr. Otey is entitled to lifetime medical treatment for his injuries, including dental treatment. However, it has not given him a panel of oral surgeons, after an extensive time to do so. Despite the reasons for the delay, Asplundh must provide a panel of oral surgeons.

The parties are reminded that the Workers’ Compensation Law allows oral surgeons in other states to be placed on a panel within 125 miles of Mr. Otey’s residence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(a)(3)(B).

Attorney’s Fees

Mr. Otey asked the Court to award fees under section 50-6-226(d)(1)(A). Attorney Michael Large argued that Asplundh’s failure to provide a panel required him to act on Mr. Otey’s behalf. In support of his request, Attorney Large submitted a time ledger and affidavit reflecting his work.

Asplundh opposed Mr. Large’s attorney fee request because it worked with attorney Large to find an oral surgeon for Mr. Otey. Asplundh argued that although it has not

2 provided a panel, it has not denied treatment. Further, it asserted Mr. Large’s fees were unreasonable and specifically pointed out that Mr. Large noted two hours for attending the compensation hearing, but it lasted less than an hour.

The Workers’ Compensation Law states an injured employee may recover attorney fees and costs when an employer “[f]ails to furnish appropriate . . . dental treatment or care . . . to an employee provided for in a settlement[.]” Tenn. Code. § 50-6-226(d)(1)(a).

Despite Asplundh’s argument that it attempted to secure dental treatment for Mr. Otey and cannot force a dentist to treat him, the fact remains that it failed to offer Mr. Otey a panel. Therefore, the Court finds that Mr. Otey demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees.

Next, the Court must determine whether Mr. Otey’s fees are reasonable under Rule 8 of the Tennessee Supreme Court Rules and 1.5(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Wright ex. rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 169-70 (Tenn. 2011). These rules require the Court to consider the following factors in deciding reasonableness:

(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer performing the services; (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (9) prior advertisements or statements by the lawyer with respect to the fees the lawyer charges; and (10) whether the fee agreement is in writing.

In deciding whether to award requested attorney’s fees, “[t]he trial Court should develop an evidentiary record, make findings concerning each of the factors, and then determine a reasonable fee that depends upon the particular circumstances of the individual case.” Id. at 185.

Looking to the relevant factors, first, a determination requires consideration of the time and labor required and skill needed to represent Mr. Otey. Here the Court finds that the time and labor spent did not require more than a basic understanding of workers’ compensation law, but as the time ledger shows, Mr. Large did devote ample time into obtaining a panel for his client, including participating in mediation.

3 Second, the Court looks to whether accepting Mr. Otey’s case precluded Mr. Large from accepting other cases. Attorney Large has represented workers’ compensation claimants for several years and the level of complexity attributed to this case would not preclude Mr. Large from accepting other cases.

The third factor requires the Court to evaluate whether the hourly rate charged by Mr. Large is customary for similar legal services. Mr. Large submitted a fee of $350 per hour for his work in this case. The time ledger also includes a charge of $150 per hour for work performed by legal assistants. The Court agrees that these rates are appropriate and comparable to fees customarily charged in this locality for similar legal services and similar facts.

Next, the amount involved, and results obtained supports Mr. Large’s fee. As evidenced by the March 2023 Settlement Agreement, which references the dental panel, Mr. Large sought dental treatment for his client even before settlement. Mr.

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

Related

§ 50-6
Tennessee § 50-6
§ 50-6-204
Tennessee § 50-6-204(a)(1)(A)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2023 TN WC 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/otey-eddie-v-asplundh-treee-expert-company-tennworkcompcl-2023.