Shalabi, Mina v. Amazon.com Services, LLC

2022 TN WC 78
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedNovember 10, 2022
Docket2021-06-1493
StatusPublished

This text of 2022 TN WC 78 (Shalabi, Mina v. Amazon.com Services, LLC) 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
Shalabi, Mina v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, 2022 TN WC 78 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2022).

Opinion

FILED Nov 10, 2022 02:28 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

Mina Shalabi, ) Docket No. 2021-06-1493 Employee, ) v. ) Amazon.com Services, LLC, ) State File No. 72776-2021 Employer, ) And ) American Zurich Ins. Co., ) Judge Kenneth M. Switzer Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

Mina Shalabi requested temporary disability benefits and additional treatment for injuries to his foot and ankle suffered while working for Amazon.com Services, LLC. The Court held an expedited hearing on November 3, 2022. For the reasons below, the Court concludes Mr. Shalabi is entitled to two days of past temporary disability benefits, but he is not likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits regarding additional treatment.

Claim History

A coworker pushing a cart hit Mr. Shalabi’s left heel on September 14, 2021. Amazon offered no evidence to suggest that the incident did not happen as Mr. Shalabi described. Instead, it initially accepted the claim and offered a panel of physicians. Mr. Shalabi chose Dr. Harold Nevels, whom he saw three times.

At the first two visits, Dr. Nevels assessed a heel contusion and recommended over- the-counter medications, ice and modified duty. He declined to order x-rays for a “[s]imple bruise of heel.” At the third and final visit on September 24, Dr. Nevels ordered x-rays, which were “negative.” He found that Mr. Shalabi was “at functional goal, not at end of healing,” placed him at maximum medical improvement, and released him to work full- duty.

1 As to causation, at the second and third visits, Dr. Nevels noted he was “here today for a recheck workers [sic] comp injury.” Mr. Shalabi testified, without objection, that Dr. Nevels said the injury was work-related.

Amazon then agreed to allow Mr. Shalabi to obtain a second opinion from orthopedist Dr. Lucas Ritchie. On October 5, Dr. Ritchie examined the foot and read the x-rays, which showed only chronic changes. He wrote:

I cannot state with medical certainty that greater than 50% of his current symptoms are a direct result of an injury that has occurred while he was at work[.] . . . [H]e has global tenderness that cannot be fully attributed to a direct impact on his achilles. [T]here is no one true definable pathology and pain is out of proportion to what I would expect from a direct injury weeks ago. [W]ith a direct injury I would expect more focal pain at the impact site with some possible bruising[,] swelling or more specific examination findings.

(Emphasis added). Dr. Ritchie returned Mr. Shalabi to work with restrictions, “but causation not established.” He referred Mr. Shalabi to a foot specialist but also wrote that the workers’ compensation carrier was unlikely to cover it.

A few days later, Amazon denied the claim because “MD indicated that this was a non-work related injury.”

Mr. Shalabi testified that his heel is still painful. He has seen his private physician, who prescribed a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory. Mr. Shalabi did not introduce records from the visit, however.

As for Mr. Shalabi’s earnings while treating with Dr. Nevels, Amazon was unable to accommodate his restrictions. Amazon offered a declaration from Ben Woods, its workers’ compensation manager, to document the times Mr. Shalabi worked after the injury.

Mr. Woods’s declaration and attachments record that on September 15 and 16—the first two days after his accident—Mr. Shalabi worked full shifts of approximately ten hours. Mr. Shalabi was on an approved leave of absence from September 17-28, although neither party introduced evidence of how much, if anything, he was compensated during that time.

Mr. Shalabi generally agreed with the declaration’s accuracy. He testified, without objection, that he had been told not to return to work until September 28. He offered an email from Amazon, which states, “I have processed your return to work to begin 09/28/21.”

2 Mr. Shalabi requested additional treatment with a foot specialist and past temporary disability benefits, although he did not specify a requested amount or for which days he believes he is owed compensation. Amazon countered that, after the second medical opinion, it properly denied the claim, so it has provided all the benefits to which he is entitled.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

At an expedited hearing, Mr. Shalabi must show that he will likely prevail in proving his entitlement to benefits at a hearing on the merits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2022); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015).

Temporary Partial Disability

Turning first to temporary disability benefits, “[w]here the treating physician has released the injured worker to return to work with restrictions before reaching maximum recovery, and the employer cannot return the employee to work within the restrictions, the injured worker may be eligible for temporary partial disability.” Woodard v. Freeman Expositions, LLC, 2021 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 21, at *8 (July 16, 2021). Amazon did not dispute that Dr. Nevels placed restrictions, which it was unable to accommodate.

However, the Workers’ Compensation Law also states: “No compensation shall be allowed for the first seven (7) days of disability resulting from the injury, excluding the day of injury, except [medical benefits], but if disability extends beyond that period, compensation shall commence with the eighth day after the injury.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-205(a).

Here, Dr. Nevels placed restrictions on September 16 for Mr. Shalabi’s injury on September 14, which day (September 14) is excluded from the computation. He worked a full shift on September 15. So, benefits began on September 16, and the benefit period ran until September 24, when Dr. Nevels assigned maximum medical improvement. This period is nine days, including September 24. The statute says that no compensation is owed for the first seven days. But, if the disability extends beyond the first seven days, excluding the date of injury, compensation shall commence with the eighth day. Therefore, Mr. Shalabi is owed benefits for days eight and nine. At his daily compensation rate of $73.65, he is owed $147.30.1 1 Amazon rigorously cross-examined Mr. Shalabi regarding his earnings during the relevant timeframe from another employer. However, Amazon offered no specific proof on this issue and ultimately did not request credit for these other earnings. It likewise did not seek credit for sums Mr. Shalabi received from the short- term disability carrier, if any. 3 Medical Benefits

Next, the Court considers Mr. Shalabi’s entitlement to additional treatment. The question is whether he satisfied his burden to show that his current condition qualifies as an “injury” as defined in the Workers’ Compensation Law. Specifically, an “injury” must arise “primarily out of employment,” meaning that it must be shown “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the injury contributed more than fifty percent” in causing the need for medical treatment, considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 102(12)(C).

Applying that definition, Mr. Shalabi correctly argued that Dr. Nevels believed his injury was work-related. However, Dr.

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

Related

§ 50-6
Tennessee § 50-6
§ 50-6-205
Tennessee § 50-6-205(a)
§ 50-6-239
Tennessee § 50-6-239(d)(1)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2022 TN WC 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shalabi-mina-v-amazoncom-services-llc-tennworkcompcl-2022.