Stansbury, Pamela v. Federal Exprress Corp.

2021 TN WC 257
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedDecember 20, 2021
Docket2021-08-0423
StatusPublished

This text of 2021 TN WC 257 (Stansbury, Pamela v. Federal Exprress Corp.) 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
Stansbury, Pamela v. Federal Exprress Corp., 2021 TN WC 257 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2021).

Opinion

FILED Dec 20, 2021 12:52 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

PAMELA STANSBURY, ) Docket No.: 2021-08-0423 Employee, ) v. ) ) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP., ) State File No.: 69937-2020 Employer, ) And ) ) ABIGAIL HUDGENS, Admin. of ) Judge Dale Tipps SUBSEQUENT INJURY ) FUND FOR THE TENN. ) BUREAU OF WORKERS’ ) COMPENSATION. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS

The Court held an Expedited Hearing on December 14, 2021, to determine whether Ms. Stansbury is likely to prove at a hearing on the merits that she is entitled to additional medical and temporary disability benefits. Although all agreed that Ms. Stansbury suffered a compensable head injury, the Court holds that she did not meet her burden for the requested benefits and denies them at this time.

History of Claim

While working at FedEx, Ms. Stansbury was struck in the head on October 21, 2020. FedEx provided a panel of physicians, from which she selected Dr. Alan Nadel.

Dr. Nadel diagnosed a mild posttraumatic headache, prescribed medication, and took Ms. Stansbury off work. After seeing her several times, he released her with no work restrictions on April 1, 2021, finding that nothing suggested any residual neurologic problems. FedEx made temporary total disability payments from the date of injury until Dr. Nadel released her to return to work. However, due to the pandemic and transportation problems, Ms. Stansbury was unable to cash or deposit several of the temporary disability checks. The parties announced an agreement at the start of the hearing that FedEx would examine its payment records and reissue any disability benefits that had not been cashed or deposited.

In addition to the temporary disability benefit issue, Ms. Stansbury also sought payment of medical expenses she says she incurred for emergency treatment before FedEx offered her a panel. Further, she expressed dissatisfaction with Dr. Nadel’s treatment.

FedEx contended that it has provided all the medical treatment and disability payments to which Ms. Stansbury is entitled. It argued that Ms. Stansbury did not present any evidence supporting her claim for additional benefits or a different medical provider.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

For the Court to grant Ms. Stansbury’s requests, she must prove she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2021); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015). FedEx does not contest the compensability of her injury. Therefore, the question is whether she is likely to show she is entitled to the additional requested benefits.

Medical Benefits

Ms. Stansbury requested additional medical treatment and payment of past medical expenses.

Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(1)(A) provides that the employer shall furnish, free of charge to the employee, medical treatment made reasonably necessary by the accident. Further, the employer shall designate a group of three or more independent reputable physicians, from which the employee shall select one to be the treating physician. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(i).

Ms. Stansbury selected Dr. Nadel from a panel, and FedEx authorized treatment with him for several months. She offered no proof that FedEx ever refused to authorize a return to Dr. Nadel or that he refused to see Ms. Stansbury after he released her. Further, although Ms. Stansbury was dissatisfied with Dr. Nadel’s treatment and felt she would have done better with another doctor, she has not offered medical proof or identified any legal basis that would justify an order changing her authorized physician.1

1 Ms. Stansbury was very frustrated about her inability to get copies of Dr. Nadel’s records, either from him or from FedEx, and she characterized this as a coverup. While the Court is sympathetic, it has no remedy Regarding the medical expenses, in certain circumstances an employer might be held responsible for medical benefits obtained from a medical provider of the employee’s choice. See McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *13 (Mar. 27, 2015). However, Ms. Stansbury stated in her petition that she received a panel of physicians “around October 28,” or about a week after the accident. She presented no proof that FedEx knew of her need for emergency room treatment or failed to provide it. Without that evidence, the Court cannot order FedEx to pay for her unauthorized treatment.

For these reasons, Ms. Stansbury has not proven she is likely to prevail on her claims for additional medical benefits.

Temporary Disability Benefits

To receive temporary total disability benefits, Ms. Stansbury must prove (1) she became disabled from working due to a compensable injury; (2) a causal connection between her injury and her inability to work; and (3) her period of disability. For temporary partial disability benefits, she must show that her treating physician returned her to work with restrictions that FedEx either could not or would not accommodate. See Jones v. Crencor Leasing and Sales, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 48, at *7, 8 (Dec. 11, 2015).

Beginning with the first category of benefits, the only medical opinion is Dr. Nadel’s conclusion that Ms. Stansbury was unable to work after the injury until March 31, 2021. FedEx has paid temporary disability benefits for that entire period (or will pay under the parties’ agreement). As to temporary partial disability, Ms. Stansbury offered no medical evidence of any work restrictions. Therefore, she is not likely to prove entitlement to additional temporary disability benefits.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Ms. Stansbury’s claims against FedEx for additional benefits are denied at this time.

2. This case is set for a Scheduling Hearing on March 9, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. You must call toll-free at 855-874-0473 to participate. Failure to call might result in a determination of the issues without your further participation. All conferences are set using Central Time.

ENTERED December 20, 2021.

available under the current posture of the case. _____________________________________ Judge Dale Tipps Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

APPENDIX

Exhibits: 1. Ms. Stansbury’s Rule 72 Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury 2. Wage Statement 3. Dr. Nadel’s treatment notes 4. Dr. Nadel’s Form C-30A (identification only) 5. EMT records 6. October 29, 2020 LaBonheur record (identification only) 7. Methodist Minor Medical record (identification only) 8. October 29, 2020 St. Francis record (identification only) 9. October 29, 2020 emergency room discharge record 10. October 29, 2020 St. Francis Final Report (identification only) 11. Emergency discharge instructions (identification only) 12. Records from Church Health (identification only) 13. Petition for Benefit Determination

Technical record: 1. Petition for Benefit Determination 2. Dispute Certification Notice 3. Request for Expedited Hearing 4. FedEx’s Pre-Hearing Brief CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the Expedited Hearing Order was sent as indicated on December 20, 2021.

Name Certified Via Via Service sent to: Mail Fax Email Pamela Stansbury X X Pstans20@gmail.com Stephen Miller, X smiller@mckuhn.com Employer’s Attorney Timothy Kellum, X Timothy.kellum@tn.gov SIVRF Attorney

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

Related

§ 50-6-204
Tennessee § 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(i)
§ 50-6-239
Tennessee § 50-6-239(d)(1)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2021 TN WC 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stansbury-pamela-v-federal-exprress-corp-tennworkcompcl-2021.