Phillips, Felicia v. IPS Corporation

2021 TN WC 260
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedDecember 21, 2021
Docket2020-08-0526, 2020-08-0260
StatusPublished

This text of 2021 TN WC 260 (Phillips, Felicia v. IPS Corporation) 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
Phillips, Felicia v. IPS Corporation, 2021 TN WC 260 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2021).

Opinion

FILED Dec 21, 2021 12:42 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

FELICIA PHILLIPS, ) Docket No. 2020-08-0526 Employee, ) 2020-08-0260 v. ) IPS CORPORATION, ) State File Number: 68633-2018 Employer, ) 2201-2020 And ) BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY ) Judge Deana Seymour HOMESTATE INSURANCE CO. ) And ) LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, ) Carriers. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

The Court heard Ms. Phillips’s requests for additional temporary disability benefits during expedited hearings on December 6, 2021. One request claimed a September 5, 2018 injury; the second, a December 31, 2019 injury. Berkshire insured IPS for the first claim, and Liberty Mutual insured it for the second. Neither insurer paid temporary disability benefits from January 20, 2020, forward. For the reasons below, the Court holds that Ms. Phillips is likely to prove at a hearing on the merits that she is entitled to these benefits, and Liberty Mutual is responsible.

History of Claim

Ms. Phillips injured her right foot at work for IPS on September 5, 2018. Dr. John Lochemes provided authorized orthopedic treatment until February 13, 2019, when he referred her to pain management for neuropathic foot pain. Dr. Lochemes restricted Ms. Phillips’s work activities to fifty percent standing/walking and fifty percent sitting. 1 IPS provided Ms. Phillips a position with a stool to accommodate the restrictions. 1 Dr. Lochemes provided a statement confirming he ended orthopedic care on February 13 and referred Ms. Phillips for continued medical care for pain management.

1 On December 30, 2019, Ms. Phillips fell while getting up from the stool. She was transported to the emergency room, prescribed medication, and restricted from work until January 2, 2020.

IPS notified Liberty Mutual of the fall, and it provided a panel from which she chose Dr. Gregory Anderson. Dr. Anderson evaluated Ms. Phillips on January 3, and he diagnosed a cervical sprain, concussion, and strains of the left shoulder and arm. He restricted her work activities.

Three days later, IPS removed Ms. Phillips’s workstation stool and rescinded light duty. It put her on “a worker’s compensation related leave of absence due to the inability to accommodate restrictions” for her foot injury. IPS also provided Ms. Phillips contact information for Liberty Mutual.

A week later, Liberty Mutual denied Ms. Phillips’s December 30 claim, stating, “[t]his injury is a result of an old injury and there was no additional hazard of the job to cause this.” It challenged Ms. Phillips’s account of the accident by referring to her injury reports, stating that she fell because her foot gave out as she was getting up from her stool.

During cross-examination by the insurance companies, Ms. Phillips said the specifics of her fall were difficult to describe. She testified that her stool shifted as she was getting up, causing her to fall. Ms. Phillips explained that she did not fall because of her right-foot problems. Rather she fell when the stool shifted, and her weak foot prevented her from bracing herself.

Dr. Anderson testified by deposition that he treated Ms. Phillips for injuries from the fall. He acknowledged his notes recorded that she fell when her foot “gave out” as she was getting up from her chair. Dr. Anderson clarified that Ms. Phillips told him the problems with her workstation chair contributed to her fall, but he did not include that discussion in his records.

Dr. Anderson testified, “the problem with a chair leading to her fall is more of a causative factor to her having the multiple complaints than the issue with her right foot . . . The chair is more than 50% in causing her injuries related to the left shoulder, neck, low back and hip.”

Dr. Anderson said he continued to treat Ms. Phillips for her injuries from the fall but never treated her right foot. He placed work restrictions on January 3, 2020, which have continued in some form throughout treatment. He explained that the restrictions would prevent Ms. Phillips from working if IPS could not accommodate them.

2 Berkshire denied Ms. Phillips’s request for temporary disability benefits, claiming that the fall was a separate and distinct injury. Berkshire also relied on Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(1)(E), contending that Ms. Phillips was conclusively presumed at maximum medical improvement for her foot injury on February 13, 2019, when Dr. Lochemes ended orthopedic treatment and referred her for pain management. Therefore, it was not responsible for temporary disability benefits from the fall.

Liberty Mutual countered that it did not insure IPS for the foot injury, which it argued caused the fall and resulting temporary disability. It relied on the medical histories that Ms. Phillips fell when her “foot gave way.” Liberty Mutual pointed out that Ms. Phillips worked with restrictions for her foot injury before her fall. After the fall, IPS rescinded its accommodations for her foot injury, which prevented her from working. Thus, it was not responsible for temporary disability benefits.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Ms. Phillips must provide sufficient evidence from which the Court might determine she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 239(d)(1) (2021); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015).

To receive temporary total disability benefits, Ms. Phillips must prove (1) she became disabled from working due to a compensable injury; (2) a causal connection between her injury and her inability to work; and (3) her period of disability. For temporary partial disability benefits, she must show that her treating physician returned her to work with restrictions that IPS either could not or would not accommodate. See Jones v. Crencor Leasing and Sales, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 48, at *7, 8 (Dec. 11, 2015).

Beginning with the first criterion, Ms. Phillips offered no medical opinion that she was totally disabled by her work injury. As a result, she is not likely to prove entitlement to temporary total disability benefits.

Regarding temporary partial disability, the Court found Ms. Phillips credible in her account of the work injuries she sustained. She was forthcoming, self-assured and consistent in her testimony, as she explained each injury and confidently detailed her fall under rigorous cross-examination. The Court also watched a video of the fall, which verified Ms. Phillips’s testimony. Ms. Phillips relied on medical records from Dr. Lochemes for her right-foot claim and Dr. Anderson’s deposition testimony for her fall claim. Both physicians placed Ms. Phillips on restricted duty, and IPS could not or would not accommodate those restrictions after her fall.

3 Berkshire relied on Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(1)(E) to support its denial of the requested benefits. The statute provides that an employee “shall be conclusively presumed to be at maximum medical improvement when the treating physician ends all active medical treatment and the only care provided is for the treatment of pain[.]” Dr. Lochemes ended all active treatment of Ms. Phillips’s right foot on February 13, 2019, and referred her to pain management. Therefore, the Court holds Ms. Phillips reached maximum medical improvement for her foot injury on February 13, 2019, and is not entitled to temporary disability benefits for that injury.

The Court next considers Liberty Mutual’s responsibility to Ms. Phillips for benefits related to her fall. After the fall, IPS rescinded the light-duty work and removed the stool. By that time, Ms.

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

Related

§ 50-6
Tennessee § 50-6

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2021 TN WC 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-felicia-v-ips-corporation-tennworkcompcl-2021.