Stewart, Michael v. Don Kennedy Roofing

2019 TN WC 174
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedDecember 6, 2019
Docket2019-06-0815
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 TN WC 174 (Stewart, Michael v. Don Kennedy Roofing) 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
Stewart, Michael v. Don Kennedy Roofing, 2019 TN WC 174 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2019).

Opinion

FILED

Sree

Dec 06, 2019 10:03 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF BEEBE S WORKERS' COMPENSATION WOE AEE STS. a CLAIMS Pixs a H < AGRICU! RE heli : 3

‘ (ofs

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

AT NASHVILLE

Michael Stewart, ) Docket No. 2019-06-0815 Employee, )

Vv. )

Don Kennedy Roofing, ) State File No. 23463-2019 Employer, )

And )

American Cas. Co. of Reading, PA, ) Judge Kenneth M. Switzer Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING REQUESTED RELIEF

Michael Stewart filed a Request for Expedited Hearing challenging the denial of his workers’ compensation claim. The present focus of this case is whether Mr. Stewart suffered an injury when he allegedly fell at work. After an expedited hearing on December 3, 2019, the Court holds Mr. Stewart is unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits and denies the requested relief.

History of Claim

Mr. Stewart testified that on March 26, 2019, he arrived at work at approximately 5:46 a.m., used an employee entrance to the left side of the main entrance near a gate, got some coffee and then went to the restroom. He slipped on “something wet” on the restroom floor, fell and hit his left shoulder. In response to the Court’s questioning, Mr. Stewart clarified he went to the restroom on the side of the building near the employee entrance he used.

According to Mr. Stewart, about eight or nine minutes later, he saw Tom Burns, a superintendent, and told him about his fall. Mr. Burns responded that he was busy and walked into his office. Mr. Stewart then saw Bill Childress, the safety director, and told him about the fall, but Mr. Childress likewise said he was busy and would talk to him later. A few minutes later, per Mr. Stewart, Mr. Childress said he and Mr. Burns wanted to meet with him. They went to a large conference room, where Mr. Childress and Mr. Burns terminated Mr. Stewart.

Mr. Stewart testified that he sought emergency treatment on his own two days later but introduced no records of that treatment.

Don Kennedy Roofing denied the claim, arguing Mr. Stewart did not fall in the bathroom as described. It relied on the testimony of Mr. Childress and Mr. Burns. Specifically, Mr. Childress denied having a conversation with Mr. Stewart before they fired him and added that Mr. Stewart did not report a fall in the restroom during the termination meeting. Mr. Burns’s testimony was equivocal. He testified on direct examination that Mr. Stewart neither reported a fall in the bathroom before the termination meeting nor did he mention it during the meeting. However, on cross- examination, he said he did not remember speaking with Mr. Stewart about a fall in the bathroom.

Much of the testimony revolved around videos from various vantage points inside the building on the morning at issue. Mr. Stewart did not object to the admissibility of the videos. Mr. Childress stated that Don Kennedy Roofing has forty-one or forty-two surveillance cameras. Mr. Childress stated repeatedly that the video shows Mr. Stewart using the main entrance, but it does not; it shows Mr. Stewart walking down the front hallway. Mr. Stewart denied using the front entrance.

The footage, time-stamped 5:58:30 a.m., shows Mr. Stewart in the front hallway, turning left, and walking down another hall. At 5:59:30, Mr. Stewart entered the work kitchen. Once inside, he got a cup of coffee at approximately 6:00:40. The video then shows Mr. Burns and Mr. Childress back in the hallway. They looked into a room, then turned around and walked in the other direction until they entered the large conference room at 6:02:45. Mr. Burns, Mr. Childress and Mr. Stewart talked for approximately two minutes. The video then shows Mr. Childress escorting Mr. Stewart toward the main entrance in the front hallway.

Mr. Childress testified that he and an IT staffer assembled the video from the various cameras in the facility. He stated that he reviewed all the videotape, but no other footage showed Mr. Stewart was at Don Kennedy Roofing until 5:58 that morning, and therefore the other video was not “relevant.” Mr. Childress said the only conversation he had with Mr. Stewart was in the large conference room when they fired him.

Mr. Stewart countered that employees generally do not use the front entrance because it is locked at that time; Mr. Childress said that entrance automatically unlocks at 5:30 a.m. Mr. Stewart also questioned the reliability of the video generally, arguing that Don Kennedy Roofing only provided footage favorable to its position.

2 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Mr. Stewart, as the employee, has the burden of proof on all essential elements of his claim. Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *6 (Aug. 18, 2015). At an expedited hearing, he must show that he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2019); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015).

Mr. Stewart seeks medical benefits for an alleged injury to his shoulder. An employer must provide, free of charge to the employee, medical treatment made reasonably necessary by accident “as defined in this chapter.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 204(a)(1)(A). Therefore, the Court looks to the statutory definition of “injury” to determine whether Mr. Stewart’s shoulder injury falls within it. Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14) defines “injury” as an “injury by accident. . . arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, that causes .. . the need for medical treatment.” Further, an injury is accidental only if “caused by a specific incident, or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence[.]” Jd. at (14)(A).

Here, Mr. Stewart provided his account of the accident regarding how he fell in the restroom and the events immediately preceding it. In contrast, Mr. Burns and Mr. Childress denied Mr. Stewart ever told them he fell in the restroom. In addition, they relied on videos to bolster their assertion that Mr. Stewart did not arrive at work that morning until 5:58 a.m. and never entered the restroom for the brief time he was in the building.

Considering the conflicting testimony, the Court finds it troubling that, by his own admission, Mr. Childress and a coworker edited the video to include only portions that he considered “relevant.” However, the Court may only take into account the evidence before it. In that regard, the videos clearly show Mr. Stewart walking down the hallway near the main entrance at 5:58 a.m. Importantly, while Mr. Stewart questioned repeatedly why Don Kennedy Roofing did not present video from earlier that morning, he made no effort to obtain it or introduce it into evidence. The Court also finds it significant that Mr. Stewart did not testify as to why he was in the hallway near the main entrance at that time.

In sum, the Court cannot find that Mr. Stewart presented sufficient evidence that he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. IT IS ORDERED as follows:

l.

Di

The Court denies Mr. Stewart’s request for relief at this time.

This case is set for a scheduling hearing on February 3, 2020, at 10:45 a.m. Central. You must call 615-532-9552 or toll-free at 866-943-0025 to participate. Failure to call might result in a determination of the issues without your participation.

ENTERED December 6, 2019.

GE KENNETH M.

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 TN WC 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-michael-v-don-kennedy-roofing-tennworkcompcl-2019.