Spencer, John v. Supply Chain Solutions, LLC

2016 TN WC 213
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedSeptember 22, 2016
Docket2016-08-0316
StatusPublished

This text of 2016 TN WC 213 (Spencer, John v. Supply Chain Solutions, 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
Spencer, John v. Supply Chain Solutions, LLC, 2016 TN WC 213 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2016).

Opinion

FILED September 22, 2016

TN COURT OF WORKERS ' COl iPINSATION CLAIMS

Time 2 :19PM

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

John Spencer, ) Docket No.: 2016-08-0316 Employee, ) v. ) State File No.: 22995-2016 Supply Chain Solutions, LLC, ) Employer, ) Judge: Jim Umsted ) Travelers Insurance Co., ) Insurance Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY DISABILITY BENEFITS

This case came before the undersigned Workers' Compensation Judge upon the Request for Expedited Hearing filed by the employee, John Spencer, under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239 (20 15). The present focus of this case is whether the employer, Supply Chain Solutions, LLC (SCS), must provide temporary disability benefits for Mr. Spencer's work-related right-hand injury. The central legal issue is whether Mr. Spencer can demonstrate a likelihood of success at a trial on the merits on this issue. For the reasons set forth below, the Court holds Mr. Spencer is likely to succeed at a hearing on the merits in proving entitlement to temporary disability benefits. 1

History of Claim

The following facts were established at the Expedited Hearing held on September 7, 2016. Mr. Spencer is a fifty-seven-year-old resident of Shelby County, Tennessee. (T.R. 1 at 1.) He has worked as a woodcutter at SCS for approximately fifteen months.

On November 25, 2015, Mr. Spencer sustained a work-related injury to his right hand when it was caught in the machine he was operating. According to Mr. Spencer, he hit the machine's emergency stop button but needed assistance pulling his hand out of the 1 A complete listing of the technical record and exhibits is attached to this Order as an appendix. machine. He testified his injury occurred around lunchtime, and he called to the only two employees left on the floor to help him. Once his hand was free, Mr. Spencer ran to the office to report his injury, but he could not find anyone in the human resources office or the reception area. Therefore, Mr. Spencer asked a co-worker to tell his supervisor, Dennis Sullivan, about the injury once Mr. Sullivan returned from lunch. 2 He called his brother to take him to get medical attention. 3

While SCS does not dispute the compensability of Mr. Spencer's right-hand injury, it offered conflicting testimony about the events of November 25, 2015. Specifically, it offered the testimony of owner Robert Keskey, who advised that they always have someone in the front office. According to Mr. Keskey, he and at least three other employees were in the office on November 25, 2015, when Mr. Spencer left the building after his injury. (Ex. 4 at 2.) Human Resources Assistant Lee Ann Ballard also testified at the hearing that she rarely leaves the office for lunch.

In the days following his injury, Mr. Spencer did not request SCS to furnish medical treatment, but he continued to look for treatment on his own. Ultimately, he obtained unauthorized medical treatment from Christ Community Health Services (CCHS) on Wednesday, December 2, 2015. (Ex. 11 at 1.) CCHS instructed him to return in a week for follow-up. (Ex. 11 at 1.) CCHS also advised him to return to work on Monday, December 7, 2015. (Ex. 11 at 1.) Mr. Spencer did not return to CCHS for further treatment.

Mr. Spencer returned to work on December 7, 2015, and participated in a meeting with Human Resources Specialist LeAmecia Raiford and Ms. Ballard. (Ex. 5 at 1.) The parties offered differing versions of what happened at this meeting.

Ms. Ballard testified Mr. Spencer refused to see a company doctor and stormed out of the meeting when he was told he could not go back to work until a company doctor released him. Mr. Spencer denied that he refused to see a company doctor. Instead, he testified Ms. Raiford advised he would need to see a company doctor for his work injury and indicated she would send him a panel of physicians. According to Mr. Spencer, he stormed out of the meeting after Ms. Raiford terminated his employment. Ms. Ballard testified there was no mention of termination during the December 7, 2015 meeting. It was not until December 16, 2015, that SCS prepared a Separation Notice terminating Mr. Spencers employment for job abandonment due to his decision to walk off the job on November 25 2015. 4 (Ex. 8 at 1.)

2 Mr. Spencer testified he called Mr. Sullivan each morning from November 30, 2015, to December 4, 2015, to update Mr. Sullivan on his condition. 3 Mr. Spencer testified he tried to obtain treatment from three different clinics after his accident on November 25, 20 15, but none of the clinics would treat him because he did not have insurance. 4 While SCS argued that it based Mr. Spencer's termination on a number of factors, the separation notice only addresses the events ofNovember 25, 2015. After ultimately receiving a panel of physicians from SCS, Mr. Spencer selected Dr. Christian Fahey as his authorized treating physician. He presented to Dr. Fahey for the first time on April 29, 2016. Dr. Fahey diagnosed Mr. Spencer with a crush injury, partial traumatic transphalangeal amputation, and injury to the nail bed of the fingers on his right hand. Dr. Fahey placed him on light duty work status, restricting him from grasping with his right hand. On July 15, 2016, Dr. Fahey performed surgery on Mr. Spencer's right middle finger. He kept Mr. Spencer off work until July 22, 2016, when he released Mr. Spencer to full duty work. Mr. Spencer continues to treat with Dr. Fahey, and SCS continues to pay for this treatment.

The representatives of SCS testified they would have provided light duty work for Mr. Spencer but did not because of his termination for cause. SCS submitted a copy of Mr. Spencer's wage statement, and the parties agreed to the accuracy of the statement. Accordingly, Mr. Spencer's agreed average weekly wage is $310.53, which leads to a compensation rate of$207.12. (Ex. 6 at 1.)

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

General Legal Principles

Mr. Spencer need not prove every element of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence in order to recover temporary disability benefits at an Expedited Hearing. McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, No. 2014-06-0063, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Mar. 27, 2015). Instead, he must come forward with sufficient evidence from which this Court might determine he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. !d.; Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(l) (2015).

This lesser evidentiary standard does not relieve Mr. Spencer of the burden of producing evidence of an injury by accident that arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment at an Expedited Hearing, but "allows some relief to be granted if that evidence does not rise to the level of a 'preponderance of the evidence."' Buchanan v. Carlex Glass Co., No. 2015-01-0012, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 39, at *6 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Sept. 29, 2015). In analyzing whether he met his burden, the Court will not construe the law remedially or liberally in his favor but instead shall construe the law fairly, impartially, and in accordance with basic principles of statutory construction favoring neither Mr. Spencer nor SCS. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-116 (2015).

Temporary Disability Benefits

Mr. Spencer seeks ongoing temporary disability benefits from the date of his injury. To establish a case for temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, Mr.

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

Related

Gray v. Cullom MacHine, Tool & Die, Inc.
152 S.W.3d 439 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 TN WC 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spencer-john-v-supply-chain-solutions-llc-tennworkcompcl-2016.