Polk, Ricky v. Delta Faucet

2019 TN WC 74
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedMay 10, 2019
Docket2017-07-0644
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 TN WC 74 (Polk, Ricky v. Delta Faucet) 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
Polk, Ricky v. Delta Faucet, 2019 TN WC 74 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2019).

Opinion

FILED May 10, 2019 08:39 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

AT JACKSON RICKY POLK, ) Docket No. 2017-07-0644 Employee, ) Vv. ) State File No. 40864-2017 DELTA FAUCET, ) Self-Insured Employer. ) Judge Allen Phillips )

COMPENSATION HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS

The Court held a Compensation Hearing on May 7, 2019, on Mr. Polk’s request for medical and permanent disability benefits. For the reasons below, the Court holds Mr. Polk did not prove entitlement to the requested benefits and denies his claim.

History of Claim

Mr. Polk claimed an injury as a result of a lift truck accident on May 22, 2017. On June 7, Delta provided him a panel of physicians and required him to take a drug test.

During the drug test, a nurse discovered a container of “yellow liquid” in Mr. Polk’s underwear. The nurse terminated the test, and Delta fired Mr. Polk. Delta also denied Mr. Polk’s claim for benefits, contending his concealment of the container was an attempt to provide a false sample and the equivalent of a positive test. Because Delta was a member of the Tennessee Drug Free Workplace Program, it further asserted that a positive test created a presumption that drug use was the proximate cause of the accident.

For his part, Mr. Polk admitted he concealed a container of urine in his underwear. He offered an explanation of why he did so that the Court later found implausible and lacking credibility. However, he also argued that if Delta had tested him immediately after the accident, then the test would not have been an issue. After an Expedited Hearing, the Court held Mr. Polk would likely prevail at a hearing on the merits in rebutting Delta’s Drug Free Workplace defense. In so holding, the Court found that administration of the test sixteen days after the accident was untimely and that OSHA regulations require testing when an accident is recorded in the OSHA injury log. In this case, the Court found Delta should have recorded the injury in the log on May 22 and administered the test then. Because it did not, the test was invalid.

Delta appealed the Court’s order. The Appeals Board affirmed but found the Court erred when it determined that the test was invalid. Instead, the Board held that the Court had insufficient evidence to conclude Delta should have recorded the accident on May 22. However, the Board found that Mr. Polk came forward with sufficient evidence that he would likely prevail at a hearing on the merits and remanded the case for further proceedings.

After remand, the Court entered a Scheduling Order that set a deadline for expert medical proof, provided dates for pre-Compensation Hearing filings, and set the Compensation Hearing date. Mr. Polk obtained no medical evidence and did not file the required pre-hearing statement. At the hearing, he said he still suffered pain that affected his ability to work, but he had no health insurance to seek further treatment. On cross- examination, he admitted Delta provided him a medical evaluation pursuant to the Court’s Expedited Hearing Order and that the authorized physician did not recommend further treatment.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

At a Compensation Hearing, Mr. Polk must establish his entitlement to benefits by a preponderance of the evidence. Willis v. All Staff, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 42, at *18 (Nov. 9, 2015); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2018). As pertinent here, he must establish his injury arose primarily out of his employment at Delta by showing that his employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing his injury. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A) and (B). Mr. Polk must establish the required contribution to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 102(14)(C).

Here, Mr. Polk did not introduce any medical expert opinion. Thus, he did not establish to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that his injury arose primarily out of his employment, and the Court must deny his claim for further benefits. Because of this holding, the Court need not address any issues regarding the Drug Free Workplace.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Mr. Polk’s claim against Delta is dismissed with prejudice against its refiling. Za.

4,

ENTERED May 10, 2019.

Costs of $150.00 are assessed against Delta under Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.07 (2018), to be paid to the Court Clerk within five business days of this order becoming final.

Delta shall prepare and file a statistical data form (SD2) with the Court Clerk within ten business days of the date of this order under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-244.

Absent an appeal, this Order shall become final in thirty days.

Court of Workers’ C pensation Claims

APPENDIX

Exhibits:

None

Technical record:

Pee Pe

Expedited Hearing Order and Exhibits Appeals Board Opinion

Scheduling Order

Amended Scheduling Order Pre-Compensation Hearing Order Employer’s Index of Medical Records Post-Discovery Dispute Certification Notice CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of this Compensation Hearing Order was sent to the following recipients by the following methods of service on May 10, 2019.

Name First Class Email Service Sent To: Mail Ricky Polk, x Xx 513 Reid Ave. Self-Represented Employee Brownsville, TN 38012 rickypolk@gmail.com Hailey David, x davidh@waldrophall.com Attorney for Employer

{ /

LLY M1 —

Penny Shrum, Court Clerk

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims Wwc.CourtClerk@tn.gov

Compensation Hearing Order Right to Appeal:

If you disagree with this Compensation Hearing Order, you may appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board or the Tennessee Supreme Court. To appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, you must:

1. Complete the enclosed form entitled: “Compensation Hearing Notice of Appeal,” and file the form with the Clerk of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims within thirty calendar days of the date the compensation hearing order was filed. When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must serve a copy upon 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 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 filing 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 your appeal.

3. You bear the responsibility of ensuring a complete record on appeal. You may request from the court clerk the audio recording of the hearing for a $25.00 fee. A licensed court reporter must prepare a transcript and file it with the court clerk within fifteen calendar days of the filing the Notice of Appeal. Alternatively, you may file a statement of the evidence prepared jointly by both parties within fifteen calendar days of the filing of the Notice of Appeal. The statement of the evidence must convey a complete and accurate account of the hearing.

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

Related

§ 50-6
Tennessee § 50-6
§ 50-6-102
Tennessee § 50-6-102(14)(A)
§ 50-6-239
Tennessee § 50-6-239(c)(6)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 TN WC 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polk-ricky-v-delta-faucet-tennworkcompcl-2019.