Patterson, Michael v. Huff & Puff Trucking

2018 TN WC 51
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedApril 17, 2018
Docket2017-05-1265
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 TN WC 51 (Patterson, Michael v. Huff & Puff Trucking) 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
Patterson, Michael v. Huff & Puff Trucking, 2018 TN WC 51 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2018).

Opinion

FILED Apr 17, 2018 08:00 AM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION IN THE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS AT MURFREESBORO

MICHAEL PATTERSON, ) Docket No.: 2017-05-1265 Employee, ) v. ) HUFF & PUFF TRUCKING, ) State File No.: 85818-2016 Employer, ) AND ) ) Judge Robert Durham PRAETORIAN INS. CO., ) Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER GRANTING MEDICAL AND TEMPORARY DISABILITY BENEFITS

This case came before the Court for an Expedited Hearing on April 3, 2018. The issues are whether Mr. Patterson is entitled to additional medical and temporary disability benefits following his release from the authorized orthopedist's care. The Court holds Mr. Patterson is likely to establish that Huff and Puff is required to provide the requested benefits. Thus, it grants his requests. 1

History of Claim

On October 17, 2016, Mr. Patterson was driving a truck for Huff and Puff on Interstate 40 just east of Knoxville. Traffic stopped due to construction, and as he sat on the interstate, Mr. Patterson's truck was rear-ended by another tractor-trailer. The impact caused Mr. Patterson's truck to ram the vehicle in front of him, creating extensive damage to the truck's cab. Mr. Patterson testified he felt several other crashes jarring him back and forth as other vehicles became involved. However, he did not seek medical attention immediately following the accident.

Mr. Patterson reported the wreck to Paul Wheeler, Safety Director for Huff and

1 The parties stipulated that Mr. Patterson suffered a work-related accident; that his compensation rate is $771.02; that if the right-shoulder labral tear was compensable, Huff and Puff shall pay the reasonable and necessary medical expenses incurred for treatment and temporary disability benefits from April 18, 2017. Puff. Mr. Wheeler drove to the scene from the Murfreesboro area, and he and Mr. Patterson spent several hours transporting and securing the truck and its cargo. Mr. Wheeler then drove Mr. Patterson to his home in Cannon County, approximately 30 miles southeast of Murfreesboro.

Mr. Patterson testified he woke up the next morning in "excruciating pain up and down his right side." At the emergency room, he complained of bilateral shoulder and low back pain and possible loss of consciousness the previous day. Diagnostic tests reported normal findings except for cervical x-rays which showed moderate degenerative changes. After providing medication, the hospital discharged Mr. Patterson with diagnoses of possible concussion and low bac~ and right shoulder pain.

Huff and Puff authorized Dr. Martin Glynn, a general practitioner, to treat Mr. Patterson's asserted injuries. At his first visit, Mr. Patterson complained of headaches and severe pain in his right shoulder and the right side of his neck. Dr. Glynn diagnosed a concussion, cervical strain, and right shoulder strain. He eventually ordered physical therapy for the cervical and shoulder complaints. Dr. Glynn later noted that Mr. Patterson claimed he could no longer lift his right arm above his head with his arm extended out to the side. Dr. Glynn noted "slow progress" with the right shoulder because Mr. Patterson continued reporting he could not extend his right arm above ninety degrees without pain, despite participating in ongoing physical therapy. Mr. Patterson also began complaining of low back pain, depression, anxiety, and "flashbacks."

Mr. Patterson completed therapy with little improvement. In December, Dr. Glynn referred him for orthopedic and neurologic care. Huff and Puff provided specialist panels to Mr. Patterson. The orthopedic panel included Dr. James Rungee, who practices in Murfreesboro, and two Nashville-based orthopedists. Mr. Patterson chose Dr. Rungee.

Dr. Rungee first saw Mr. Patterson in January 20 17. Mr. Patterson noted a primary complaint of right shoulder pain extending to his neck on the intake form. Dr. Rungee diagnosed him with "persistent right neck and shoulder pain." A cervical MRI revealed a "disc osteophyte complex" but no obvious impingement. Dr. Rungee felt the osteophyte pre-existed the accident but that the accident could have made it symptomatic. Mr. Patterson underwent an epidural steroid injection but claimed the injection did not help. Dr. Rungee still felt most of Mr. Patterson's complaints stemmed from his neck, although he did not rule out a shoulder problem.

In March, Mr. Patterson returned to Dr. Rungee. Before returning, he underwent neuropsychological testing by Dr. James Walker, as ordered by Mr. Patterson's authorized neurologist, Dr. Richard Rubinowicz. 2 Dr. Rungee noted Dr. Walker's 2 Dr. Rubinowicz treated Mr. Patterson for asserted neurologic complaints, including memory loss, headaches, double vision and loss of cognitive function. Following Dr. Walker's assessment, Dr. Rubinowicz released Mr. Patterson from neurologic care and declined to refer him for psychological treatment.

2 conclusion that Mr. Patterson did not suffer from any cognitive disorders that prevented him from working and related "his complaints of extreme psychiatric symptoms ... to his rather histrionic style." Dr. Rungee also noted a change in Mr. Patterson's shoulder complaint. He now claimed that he could not physically elevate his arm because his shoulder became "mechanically stuck." On exam, Mr. Patterson would only actively abduct his shoulder above 30 degrees. Dr. Rungee ordered a shoulder MRI despite his belief that it would not show anything to explain Mr. Patterson's symptomology.

Upon return to Dr. Rungee following the MRI, Mr. Patterson still complained of his shoulder "locking up" at 90 degrees abduction as well as pain in his neck and shoulder radiating to his fingertips. On exam, Mr. Patterson actively lifted his arm only level with his head, but Dr. Rungee stated he could passively move the shoulder through full range of motion. Dr. Rungee reviewed the MRI and found a labral tear but no damage to the rotator cuff. Dr. Rungee stated their meeting was a "bit tense" as he conveyed the labral tear did not explain Mr. Patterson's symptoms and that surgery would not alleviate them.

In April, Mr. Patterson returned for an evaluation of his low back complaints. Dr. Rungee reviewed MRI film and told Mr. Patterson he did not have any nerve compression to explain his complaints. At that point, Mr. Patterson "expressed frustration" and requested another doctor for his shoulder. Dr. Rungee again told him that the labral tear did not explain his symptoms or his purported inability to raise his arm. He declined to make any recommendation other than a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) to determine Mr. Patterson's physical capabilities.

The FCE stated that Mr. Patterson put forth a valid effort and could work in the "light physical demand" category. On April 17, Dr. Rungee met with Mr. Patterson for the last time. Mr. Patterson remained discontented and complained he felt he did not receive good care from Dr. Rungee. He again demanded a second opinion and told Dr. Rungee that when he got one, he would bring it to Dr. Rungee to "prove" he was wrong. Dr. Rungee stated it was clear that "there was nothing I could tell him that would salvage a relationship." He determined Mr. Patterson was at maximum medical improvement (MMI) and released him subject to the FCE restrictions. He concluded his report by stating, "We will not see him back."

Mr. Patterson's counsel emailed the handling adjuster and requested another orthopedic panel because Dr. Rungee refused to provide further treatment. The adjuster declined. On April 28, Huff and Puff terminated Mr. Patterson because it could not accommodate his restrictions.

On May 19, 2017, Mr.

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

Related

Dorris v. INA Insurance Co.
764 S.W.2d 538 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 TN WC 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-michael-v-huff-puff-trucking-tennworkcompcl-2018.