Seaton, Keith v. Mountainside Pools & Spas, Inc.

2024 TN WC 62

• Court: Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
• Decided: September 4, 2024
• Docket: 2018-01-0243
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED Sep 04, 2024 09:46 AM(ET) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

Keith Seaton, ) Docket No. 2018-01-0243 Employee, ) v. ) Mountainside Pools & Spas, Inc., ) State File No. 43970-2017 Employer, ) And ) Travelers Indemnity Company, ) Judge Thomas Wyatt Carrier, ) And ) Troy Haley, Administrator of the ) Bureau of Workers’ Compensation ) Subsequent Injury and Vocational ) Recovery Fund. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS Decision On The Record

Keith Seaton sought benefits by a decision on the record. 1 Mountainside Pools & Spas, Inc. and the Subsequent Injury and Vocational Recovery Fund argued that Mr. Seaton’s non-work-related conditions and injuries, not a work injury, caused his need for treatment. For the reasons below, the Court denies the requested benefits.

Claim History

Mr. Seaton owned and operated Mountainside Pools. He opted for an owner workers’ compensation policy.

On June 9, 2017, Mr. Seaton, then 60 years old, overturned a Bobcat tractor while installing a pool for his company. He landed on his tailbone and allegedly sustained several

1 Neither Mountainside nor the Subsequent Injury and Vocational Recovery Fund objected to a hearing on the record. injuries, the most persistent and painful being to his low back. He worked in a limited capacity after this incident until March 2019, when he said his back pain totally disabled him.

Mountainside initiated benefits but soon denied the claim, arguing that causes other than the work injury accounted for more than 50% of Mr. Seaton’s need for ongoing treatment and disability.

The medical evidence reveals possible causes for Mr. Seaton’s spinal pain that are unrelated to his work injury. In 2015, he underwent surgical repair of a large L3-4 disc extrusion that was impinging the L3 nerve root. An MRI taken shortly before that surgery showed multilevel lumbar degenerative disc disease in his lumbar spine. Mr. Seaton testified that he fully recovered from that surgery and had no recurrent low-back problems until the work injury.

A few days after the work incident, Mr. Seaton was involved in a collision in which his vehicle was struck in the side. He testified that his tailbone was already hurting from the work incident when the collision occurred. In any event, he went to an emergency room a few days after the collision but left without receiving treatment.

Finally, in 2019, Mr. Seaton reported a flare-up of back pain occurring after he used a pressure washer on a personal project.

Regarding treatment, the records show that Mr. Seaton received emergency care the day after the work incident occurred. X-rays showed multilevel lumbar degenerative disc disease. After his claim was denied, Mr. Seaton sought treatment from Dr. Christopher Gallati, who had performed the 2015 surgery. Dr. Gallati referred him to Dr. Bruce Fry.

Dr. Fry testified that a 2020 MRI showed multilevel lumbar degenerative disc disease and degenerative changes in the lumbar facet joints that were caused by wear and tear and aging, as opposed to an acute injury. Dr. Fry completed a Final Medical Report assigning an impairment rating of 3%.

Mr. Seaton also received treatment from Dr. John Maguire, who recorded that Mr. Seaton apportioned 75% of his pain to the back and 25% to the leg. Dr. Maguire attributed this pain to degenerative changes, and said, “it is really impossible for me to say with certainty whether or not this is a work-related injury[.]” He added that nothing in the radiological studies supported the work-relatedness of Mr. Seaton’s spinal conditions.

After seeing Dr. Maguire, Mr. Seaton returned to Dr. Gallati, who testified that he needs a discogram to determine if Mr. Seaton is a candidate for fusion surgery or a spinal stimulator. He did not place Mr. Seaton at maximum medical improvement or give a causation opinion.

2 Finally, Dr. Thomas Koenig saw Mr. Seaton for an independent medical examination. He reviewed treatment records and gave the opinion that the work incident caused recurrent lumbosacral strain without immediate radiculopathy and recurrent coccydynia (tailbone pain). He testified that tests revealed “chronic degenerative changes, nothing new.” Further, Dr. Koenig stated that the facet-joint findings “pre-dated the bobcat injury in June 2017.”

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

To recover in this expedited hearing, Mr. Seaton must prove he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015).

Mr. Seaton’s claim turns on whether he met his evidentiary burden on the causation of his low-back symptoms and need for treatment. By law, an employee must prove that his claimed work injury and its need for treatment arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-102(14) (2016). To do that, he must present an opinion from a physician “that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes.” Id. at -102(14)(B)-(D).

The record here contains no medical evidence that the degenerative changes in Mr. Seaton’s back and facet joints, any temporary disability he has from those conditions, and any needed treatment, arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. Dr. Fry stated that the degenerative conditions suggest wear, tear, and age rather than an acute injury. Dr. Maguire stated it was “impossible” to say whether Mr. Seaton’s lumbar conditions constituted a work injury, and Dr. Koenig stated that the facet-joint condition pre-dated the work incident.

Based on the facts and medical evidence, the Court holds that Mr. Seaton failed to show that he will likely prevail at a hearing on the merits in proving that his lumbar condition and need for treatment are work-related. For that reason, the Court denies his interlocutory claim for benefits.2

This case is set for a Status Hearing on January 6, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time. You must call (615) 741-3061 or (855) 747-1721 to participate. Failure to call may result in a determination of the issues without your further participation.

2 This decision makes it unnecessary to decide whether Mr. Seaton’s vehicular collision severed any causative connection between the work incident and his spinal pain and need for treatment. 3 IT IS ORDERED.

ENTERED September 4, 2024.

___________________________ Judge Thomas Wyatt Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

APPENDIX

Exhibits:

1. Final medical report of Dr. Bruce Fry 2. Interrogatory responses of Keith Seaton 3. Affidavit of Keith Seaton 4. Excerpt from Dr. Thomas Koenig’s deposition 5. Vocational assessment of John McKinney, III 6. Excerpt from Dr. Bruce Fry’s deposition 7. Excerpt from Dr. Keith Seaton’s deposition 8. Excerpts from Dakota Henderson’s deposition 9. UT Medical Center records 10. Knoxville Orthopedic Clinic records 11. Ortho Tennessee records 12. Diagnostic Outpatient Center of Knoxville records 13. Dr. Christopher Gallati records 14. Michael Galloway deposition excerpt

4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on September 4, 2024.

Name U.S. Email Service sent to: Mail John Willis X john@foxlawtn.com Employee’s Attorney sarah@foxlawtn.com Robert J. Uhorchuk X rju@spicerfirm.com Luke Neder lneder@spicerfirm.com Employer/Carrier lboydston@spicerfirm.com Attorneys Allison Lowry X Allison.lowry@tn.gov Subsequent Injury Fund Attorney

______________________________________ PENNY SHRUM, COURT CLERK wc.courtclerk@tn.gov