Reno, Robert v. Xtreme Concrete Pumping, Inc.

2014 TN WC 10
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedNovember 20, 2014
Docket2014-01-0013
StatusPublished

This text of 2014 TN WC 10 (Reno, Robert v. Xtreme Concrete Pumping, Inc.) 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
Reno, Robert v. Xtreme Concrete Pumping, Inc., 2014 TN WC 10 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2014).

Opinion

FILED November 20, 2014 T~ COURT OF WORKERS' C OMPE:'\SATIO:'\ CLAIMS

Time: 7:08AM

COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

EMPLOYEE: Robert Lindsey Reno DOCKET#: 2014-01-0013 STATE FILE#: 60650-2014 EMPLOYER: Xtreme Concrete DATE OF INJURY: July 28, 2014 Pumping, Inc.

CARRIER: Builders Mut. Ins. Co.

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER FOR TEMPORARY PARTIAL DISABILITY BENEFITS

THIS CAUSE came before the undersigned Workers' Compensation Judge upon the Request for Expedited Hearing filed by Robert Lindsey Reno (Employee). On October 29, 2014, Employee filed a Request for Expedited Hearing with the Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims, Division of Workers' Compensation, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(d), to determine if the provision of temporary disability benefits is appropriate.

A telephonic Expedited Hearing was conducted by the undersigned Workers' Compensation Judge on November 6, 2014. Employee was represented by Michael Wagner and Xtreme Concrete Pumping, Inc. (Employer) was represented by Jenny Ebersole-Foster. Considering the positions of the parties, the applicable law, the evidence introduced at the hearing, and the entire record in this claim, this Court hereby finds that Employee is entitled to temporary partial disability benefits for a portion of the period during which he requested said benefits.

ANALYSIS

Issue

Whether Employee performed work after the date of his compensable injury which disqualifies him from receiving temporary partial disability benefits.

Evidence Submitted

The following witnesses testified:

1 • Employee; and • Allen Hixson, Employer's owner.

The following exhibits were admitted into evidence by stipulation:

• Exhibit 1-First Report of Injury; • Exhibit 2-Wage Statement; • Exhibit 3-Choice of Physician form designating Dr. Todd Bonvallet as authorized treating physician; and • Exhibit 4--Medical Records of Spine Surgery Associates/Dr. Todd Bonvallet and Fast Access Healthcare, P.L.L.C. (6 pages).

The parties stipulated that the July 28,2014 work injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment by Employer.

The Court designated the following as the technical record in this claim:

• Petition for Benefit Determination filed September 23, 2014; • Dispute Certification Notice filed October 29, 2014; • Employee's Request for Expedited Hearing filed October 29, 2014; • Employee's Request for Initial Hearing filed October 29, 2014; and • Position statement of Employer dated October 7, 2014.

The Court did not consider attachments to the above filings unless admitted into evidence during the Expedited Hearing. The Court considered factual statements in the above filings as allegations unless established by the evidence.

History of Claim

Employee is employed as a truck driver and concrete worker for Employer. On July 28, 2014, Employee injured his back when he bent over to lift a bucket of concrete slurry from the bed of Employer's truck. Employer stipulates that Employee sustained a compensable injury to his back on July 28, 2014.

Employee received authorized treatment from Fast Access Healthcare (Fast Track), a walk-in clinic, and orthopedic surgeon Dr. Todd Bonvallet. On August 28, 2014, a Physician's Assistant (PA) at Fast Access placed restrictions on Employee's activities. Dr. Bonvallet later continued the same restrictions. Other than providing light duty work for a total of two (2) or three (3) hours, Employer has not offered light duty work which accommodates the restrictions.

Employer refuses to pay temporary disability benefits because it alleges Employee performed landscaping work after he sustained the compensable injury of July 28, 2014. Employee filed a Petition for Benefit Determination seeking temporary partial disability benefits back to the date of injury.

2 Employee's Contentions

Employee contends that, since the date of injury, his injury has disabled him from performing physical labor, including the usual work he performed for Employer. He additionally submits that, except for a single occasion of offering him light duty work for a total of two or three hours, Employer has not offered work which accommodates the restrictions placed on his activities by authorized physicians. Employee testified that, since he was injured on July 28, 2014, he has not worked for other employers nor has he earned income in a self-employed capacity. Employee denies that he performed a landscaping job for an individual named Robert Hodson. Employee contends that he is entitled to temporary partial disability benefits from July 28, 2014, until he either returns to work or attains maximum medical improvement from his work injury.

Employee contends the wages itemized on the Wage Statement (Exhibit 2) do not represent an accurate statement of the wages Employer paid him during his tenure of employment. Someone wrote on the Wage Statement stipulated into evidence that Employer paid Employee net wages totaling $10,022.71. The Court assumed the statement was intended as Employee's allegation in support of his challenge of the information employer provided in the Wage Statement.

Employer's Contentions

Employer contends Employee performed landscaping work for Robert Hodson after the date he was injured. Employer argues that, since Employee is physically able to perform landscaping work, he is not disabled to an extent which entitles him to an award of temporary partial disability benefits under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Standard Applied

When determining whether to award benefits, a workers' compensation judge must decide whether, based on the evidence introduced at the Expedited Hearing, the moving party is likely to succeed on the merits at the Compensation Hearing. See generally, McCall v. Nat '1 Health Care Corp., 100 S.W. 3d 209, 214 (Tenn. 2003). In a workers' compensation action, Employee shall bear the burden of proving each and every element of the claim by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6).

Factual Findings

Upon consideration of the testimony of witnesses, the exhibits introduced by the parties, the argument of the attorneys for the parties, and the entire record in this claim, the Court makes the following factual findings:

• Employee injured his back on July 28, 2014, while lifting a bucket of concrete

3 slurry in the course and scope ofhis employment with Employer; • Other than working two or three hours for which he was paid $25 by Employer, Employee has not worked nor earned income from any source since the work injury of July 28, 2014; • Since August 28, 2014, the authorized treating providers have restricted Employee's activities due to his work injury; and • Employee's average weekly wage is $363.48, resulting in a compensation rate of $242.32 per week.

Application ofLaw to Facts

Tenn. Code Annotated section 50-6-207(2) provides that an injured worker is entitled to an award of temporary partial disability benefits during the time period in which he is able to resume some gainful employment in a disabled condition, but has not reached maximum recovery. The compensation rate for temporary partial disability is sixty-six and two-thirds percent (66 2/3%) of the difference between the wage ofthe worker at the time ofthe injury and the wage that the worker is able to earn in his partially disabled condition.

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

Related

McCall v. National Health Corp.
100 S.W.3d 209 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2003)
Simpson v. Satterfield
564 S.W.2d 953 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1978)
Humphrey v. David Witherspoon, Inc.
734 S.W.2d 315 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2014 TN WC 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reno-robert-v-xtreme-concrete-pumping-inc-tennworkcompcl-2014.