Payne, Ian-Chanel v. Signet Jewelers

2024 TN WC 75
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedOctober 28, 2024
Docket2023-05-2463
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 TN WC 75 (Payne, Ian-Chanel v. Signet Jewelers) 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
Payne, Ian-Chanel v. Signet Jewelers, 2024 TN WC 75 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2024).

Opinion

FILED Oct 28, 2024 01:23 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

IAN-CHANEL PAYNE, ) Docket No. 2023-05-2463 Employee, ) v. ) ) SIGNET JEWELERS, ) State File No. 860156-2023 Employer, ) And ) ) XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE, ) Judge Dale Tipps Insurance Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS

The Court held an Expedited Hearing on October 17, 2024. The issue was whether Ms. Payne is likely to prove at trial that her mental injury arose primarily out of her employment, entitling her to medical and temporary disability benefits. For the reasons below, the Court holds she did not meet this burden and denies the requested benefits.

History of Claim

Ms. Payne worked as a sales associate for Signet Jewelers. In February 2023, her store manager, Kelly Sandlin, sent her an email with the subject line “Written warning of unprofessional behavior.” Ms. Sandlin wrote that team members had reported statements made by Ms. Payne that made them uncomfortable. Before her shift began on March 3, Ms. Payne called Ms. Sandlin about the email.

Ms. Sandlin was off work that day, and she wanted to meet in person with everyone involved in the alleged behavior, so she asked Ms. Payne not to discuss the matter with her coworker, Storm Thomas, until they were all together. However, Ms. Payne did not follow this instruction. Instead, she confronted Ms. Thomas when she arrived at the store, which led to a verbal altercation. Ms. Payne testified that Ms. Thomas yelled at her, cursed, and raised her fist. She characterized the incident as being bullied, threatened, and insulted in front of customers and other coworkers. She confirmed that Ms. Thomas did not actually touch her.

Ms. Sandlin testified that her regional manager called about the incident soon after it happened and asked her to go to the store to meet with Ms. Payne and Ms. Thomas. During that meeting, both employees again began yelling and stepped toward each other, leading Ms. Sandlin to step between them and escort Ms. Thomas to another room.

Both employees were sent home for the rest of the day, but neither was disciplined. Afterwards, Ms. Sandlin tried to minimize any potential conflict by scheduling them for different shifts. No further incidents occurred, and Ms. Payne was terminated for an unrelated reason.1

Ms. Payne admitted she had preexisting anxiety for which she treated with her primary physician, Dr. Jian Wei. However, she testified that her anxiety increased dramatically after the work incident, and she had to seek counseling in addition to the medications he prescribed. She requested temporary disability benefits for missed work and payment of her medical bills.

Signet contended that Ms. Payne was not entitled to any benefits because she was unlikely to prove that the incident was the primary cause of her increased anxiety.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Ms. Payne must show she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2024); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015). Because she claims a mental injury not caused by a physical trauma, she must prove it (or any aggravation of an existing condition) arose primarily out of “an identifiable work-related event resulting in a sudden or unusual mental stimulus.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(15). This stimulus must be “fright, shock, or excessive unexpected anxiety” that is “extraordinary and unusual.” Gatlin v. Knoxville, 822 S.W.2d 587, 592 (Tenn. 1991).

Ms. Payne presented no proof that the altercation with Ms. Thomas was the type of sudden or unusual mental stimulus required by the statute. Instead, she described an event that was not unexpected, since she initiated the confrontation, despite being instructed not to. Further, arguments, even heated disputes, are not beyond the pale of common occurrences in the workplace. Shouting, cursing, and insults are unpleasant but do not 1 The parties presented a considerable amount of evidence on the circumstances of Ms. Payne’s termination,

which might have bearing on her entitlement to temporary disability benefits. However, because of the Court’s holding on the compensability threshold, it will not recount that proof here. The same is true of the medical proof. automatically qualify as an unusual mental stimulus. This may be especially true when the employee claiming a mental injury instigates the event.

Without proof that the incident was “extraordinary and unusual,” the Court cannot hold that Ms. Payne is likely to prove she suffered a mental injury arising primarily out of the work-related event, as required by section 50-6-102(15).

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Ms. Payne’s claim against Signet Jewelers is denied at this time.

2. This case is set for a Scheduling Hearing on January 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. You must call at 855-874-0473. Failure to call might result in a determination of the issues without your further participation. All hearings are set using Central Time.

ENTERED October 28, 2024.

_____________________________________ Judge Dale Tipps Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims APPENDIX

Exhibits: 1. Wage Statement 2. Form C-32 of Dr. Jian Wei 3. Transcript of Dr. Wei’s deposition 4. Ms. Payne’s Rule 72 Declaration 5. Absence from Work note signed by Dr. Wei 6. Ms. Payne’s 2023 W-2 from Signet 7. Copies of text messages between Ms. Payne and her regional manager 8. Police case identification form 9. Summary of medical charges (identification only) 10. Counselling records from Agape (identification only) 11. March 16, 2023 progress note from Dr. Wei 12. Photographs of prescriptions 13. Copy of February 12, 2023 email from Ms. Sandlin to Ms. Payne

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the Expedited Hearing Order was sent as indicated on October 28, 2024.

Name U.S. Fax Email Service sent to: Mail Ian Payne, X X 40 Whitsett Road Employee Nashville, TN 37210 Chanel2001.ip@gmail.com Gerard Jabaley, X gjabaley@wimberlylawson.com Employer’s Attorney cc: aburge@wimberlylawson.com

______________________________________ PENNY SHRUM, COURT CLERK wc.courtclerk@tn.gov Right to Appeal: If you disagree with the Court’s Order, you may appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. To do so, you must: 1. Complete the enclosed form entitled “Notice of Appeal” and file it with the Clerk of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims before the expiration of the deadline. ¾ If the order being appealed is “expedited” (also called “interlocutory”), or if the order does not dispose of the case in its entirety, the notice of appeal must be filed within seven (7) business days of the date the order was filed. ¾ If the order being appealed is a “Compensation Order,” or if it resolves all issues in the case, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty (30) calendar days of the date the Compensation Order was filed. When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must serve a copy on the opposing party (or attorney, if represented).

2. You must pay, via check, money order, or credit card, a $75.00 filing fee within ten calendar days after filing 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.

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

Related

Gatlin v. City of Knoxville
822 S.W.2d 587 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 TN WC 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payne-ian-chanel-v-signet-jewelers-tennworkcompcl-2024.