Sprague, Susan v. Bartlett City Schools

2019 TN WC 49
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedMarch 28, 2019
Docket2018-08-1044
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 TN WC 49 (Sprague, Susan v. Bartlett City Schools) 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
Sprague, Susan v. Bartlett City Schools, 2019 TN WC 49 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2019).

Opinion

FILED Mar 28, 2019 02:51 PM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

AT MEMPHIS SUSAN SPRAGUE, ) Docket No. 2018-08-1044 Employee, ) Vv. ) State File No. 8259-2018 BARTLETT CITY SCHOOLS, ) Self-Insured Employer. ) Judge Amber E. Luttrell

COMPENSATION HEARING ORDER GRANTING BENEFITS

The Court held a Compensation Hearing on February 28, 2019, on Ms. Sprague’s compensable workers’ compensation claim. The sole legal issue concerned the proper calculation of her average weekly wage and resulting compensation rate applicable to her permanent partial disability award. For the reasons below, the Court holds Ms. Sprague’s average weekly wage is $468.34, resulting in a compensation rate of $312.23. Thus, she is awarded permanent partial disability totaling $11,240.28 and future medical benefits.'

History of Claim Stipulations

The stipulated facts are summarized as follows: Ms. Sprague works for Bartlett City Schools as a Special Education Teacher’s Assistant. On January 30, 2018, she fell off a ladder and injured her right shoulder. She reported her injury and sought authorized treatment with orthopedist Dr. Mark Harriman, who diagnosed a dislocated shoulder and humerus fracture. Following treatment, Dr. Harriman concluded she reached maximum medical improvement on July 11, 2018, and assigned a permanent impairment rating of

' The parties participated in post-discovery mediation on February 7; however, due to technical errors, the mediator did not forward the post-discovery Dispute Certification Notice to the parties until the day before trial. At trial, the parties agreed to waive their statutory five-business day period to review and revise the DCN and advised the Court of their corrections. The parties stated that the mediator erroneously included several issues on the DCN and that the only issue is the proper calculation of the average weekly wage and resulting compensation rate. With those corrections, the parties agreed to the DCN. eight percent to the body as a whole. He released Ms. Sprague to full duty with no restrictions, and she returned to work earning the same wages.

Regarding Ms. Sprague’s employment, she has worked continuously as a regular full-time employee for Bartlett Schools since July 2014. She was and continues to be paid $16.65 per hour. She is not paid when she does not work except for certain paid school holidays, vacation days, inclement weather days, sick time, and personal days.

Ms. Sprague was not scheduled or paid to work during the ten weeks of summer break when school was not in session. The summer break is an annual event; she was aware there would be an annual summer break when she began her employment in 2014; and she has never been paid during the summer. Before her employment with Bartlett City Schools, she worked in the same position for a different school system that also did not pay her during summer.

Because Ms. Sprague did not work during the ten weeks of summer, she contended her average weekly wage should be divided by forty-two weeks instead of fifty-two, which yields an average weekly wage of $579.84 and a compensation rate of $386.56. Thus, she argued her permanent partial disability award of eight percent totals $13,916.16.

Bartlett Schools contended Ms. Sprague’s average weekly wage should be divided by fifty-two weeks, which yields an average weekly wage of $468.34 and a compensation rate of $312.23. Thus, it argued her permanent partial disability award is $11,240.28.

Trial Testimony

Ms. Sprague testified she is paid differently than teachers, who are paid an annual salary by contract. She stated both teachers and regular employees are off during summer; however, teachers’ salaries are spread throughout fifty-two weeks, while she is only paid over the forty-two weeks of the school year. Ms. Sprague stated she is willing to work during the summer but was never given the opportunity because of the school closure. She also was not given the option to spread her pay over the calendar year.

On cross examination, Ms. Sprague agreed she did not work but was paid on vacation days, sick days, school holidays, and personal days. She acknowledged that she knew the school closed for summer when she accepted the job and that she would not be paid then. Ms. Sprague confirmed she was paid $16.65 per hour and was scheduled for a seven-hour workday on the date of injury. If she did not work a full seven-hour day and did not use leave time, she was not paid for her time off work. Some days, she worked more than seven hours and was paid more. She acknowledged the school never informed her they did not have seven hours of work for her to do, nor was she ever sent home early for lack of work. Brittany Clark, Human Resources Coordinator, testified for Bartlett City Schools. She explained that teachers are under a contract that requires the payment of salaries over the calendar year. However, staff assistants, like Ms. Sprague, are not required to sign employment contracts. Ms. Clark confirmed that during the forty-two-week school year, Ms. Sprague receives seventy hours of sick leave, two personal days, two inclement weather days, ten vacation days, and ten school holidays.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

“At a compensation hearing where the injured employee has arrived at a trial on the merits, the employee must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is, in fact, entitled to the requested benefits.” 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).

By stipulation of the parties, the Court holds Ms. Sprague sustained a compensable shoulder injury for which she retained an eight-percent permanent impairment to the body as a whole. Further, as this is a compensable claim, the Court holds Ms. Sprague is entitled to reasonably necessary future medical treatment under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204.

Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(A) provides Ms. Sprague is entitled to an “original” award of permanent partial disability benefits for her eight percent permanent impairment rating multiplied by 450 weeks or thirty-six weeks. Because she returned to employment at the same or greater wage during her initial compensation period, she is not entitled to additional benefits based on any enhancement factors.

To determine the value of Ms. Sprague’s permanent partial disability award, the Court considers the sole issue of her average weekly wage. The parties agreed that Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(3)(A) governs this case and defines average weekly wage as follows,

Average weekly wage means the earnings of the injured employee in the employment which the injured employee was working at the time of the injury during the period of fifty-two (52) weeks immediately preceding the date of the injury divided by fifty-two (52); but if the injured employee lost more than seven (7) days during the period when the injured employee did not work, . . . then the earnings for the remainder of the fifty-two (52) weeks shall be divided by the number of weeks remaining after the time so lost has been deducted.

Ms. Sprague argued she lost more than seven days of work and pay during the

3 fifty-two weeks preceding her injury, thus the ten weeks of summer should be deducted from her average weekly wage calculation. She contended that the statute does not define lost time. She relied on the Tennessee Supreme Court’s analysis of “voluntary” versus “involuntary” absences from work in Goodman v.

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

Related

Goodman v. HBD Industries, Inc.
208 S.W.3d 373 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 TN WC 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sprague-susan-v-bartlett-city-schools-tennworkcompcl-2019.