Turner, Arebius v. Advantage Human Resourcing, Inc.

2020 TN WC 73
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedAugust 10, 2020
Docket2019-06-2251
StatusPublished

This text of 2020 TN WC 73 (Turner, Arebius v. Advantage Human Resourcing, Inc.) 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
Turner, Arebius v. Advantage Human Resourcing, Inc., 2020 TN WC 73 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2020).

Opinion

FILED Aug 10, 2020

11:52 AM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

AT NASHVILLE AREBIUS TURNER, ) Docket No. 2019-06-2251 Employee, ) V. ) ADVANTAGE HUMAN ) State File No. 108266-2019 RESOURCING, INC., ) Employer, ) ) Judge Joshua Davis Baker ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER (DECISION ON THE RECORD)

Mr. Turner requested an expedited hearing on a review of the record without an in- person evidentiary hearing, which Advantage Human Resourcing did not oppose. The Court gave the parties until July 16, 2020, to file position statements and to object to the admissibility of documents. Advantage filed a position statement.! Mr. Turner did not.

Mr. Turner requested medical benefits for a mght-thumb and mental injury. Advantage argued it offered all the benefits to which Mr. Turner is entitled for his thumb and denied the compensability of his alleged mental injury. For the reasons below, the Court holds he is unlikely to prove at a final hearing that: his thumb injury requires additional medical treatment, he suffered a compensable mental injury, or he is entitled to a panel of physicians.

Claim History

' Advantage also filed records concerning child support. These records are irrelevant to this proceeding, so the Court neither considered them nor included them in the record.

] Mr. Turner lacerated and “shaved about 1/3 of the nail off his thumb” on machinery at work. Advantage accepted his claim for a right-thumb laceration and nail avulsion.

Although Advantage authorized Dr. Malcolm Steele for treatment, Mr. Turner alleged that he did not choose Dr. Steele from a panel of three doctors. Advantage acknowledged it does not have a panel signed by Mr. Turner. Rather, it authorized treatment with Dr. Steele because the emergency provider recommended Dr. Steele’s clinic for follow-up in a “referral order.”

During treatment, Advantage accommodated Mr. Turner’s work restrictions but kept him working on the machine that injured him, which Mr. Turner alleged caused a mental injury. In his affidavit, he wrote, “I was put on light duty .. . on the same machine I was injured on. . . and I was told to just use my other hand and I was constantly hit on my injured thumb and hand by the man running the machine.” He asserted this caused sweating, increased heartbeat, weakness and lightheadedness, trouble sleeping, and anger.

He relayed these symptoms to Dr. Steele, but the doctor only noted that he had high blood pressure and recommended he see a family doctor. Mr. Turner then sought unauthorized emergency treatment with a physician’s assistant, who urged him to “follow- up with [his] regular doctor” for high blood pressure and anxiety, as “[t]here are many conditions that can cause symptoms like these.”

To prove his mental injury, Mr. Turner submitted a signed letter from a nurse practitioner. The letter explained that he receives treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and since the accident, he has “experienced intrusive, unwanted memories/flashbacks from the accident, nightmares, hypervigilance, sense of impending doom, generalized anxiety, and panic attacks.”

After about a dozen appointments and physical therapy, Dr. Steele released Mr. Turner to full-duty work and recommended no further treatment. The doctor noted Mr. Turner’s complaints of some “new symptoms” in his thumb but wrote, “[R]ight thumb nailbed avulsion is now well healed.”

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

To receive medical benefits, Mr. Turner need only present sufficient evidence at this stage that he is likely to prevail at a final hearing. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2019); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *9 (Mar. 27, 2015). He failed to present sufficient evidence.

Given the relief requested, the Court must decide three issues: 1) whether Mr. Turner’s thumb presently requires treatment “made reasonably necessary” by his work accident; 2) whether Mr. Turner’s employment contributed more than fifty percent in

2 causing high blood pressure and anxiety, considering all causes; and 3) whether Advantage’s failure to provide a panel of physicians at the claim’s outset entitles Mr. Turner to a panel of physicians now or the right to see another physician.

The Worker’s Compensation Law requires an employer to “furnish, free of charge to the employee, such medical and surgical treatment . . . made reasonably necessary by accident as defined in this chapter.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(a)(1)(A) (2019). When an injury requires medical care, an employer is obligated to “designate a group of three (3) or more... physicians .. . from which the injured employee shall select one to be the treating physician.” /d. at § 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(1).

The employer must offer the panel “as soon as is practicable but no later than three (3) business days” after being notified of the injury and the request for medical care. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-01-.06 (1) (2018). Where the employer fails to provide a panel, the employer may be assessed a civil penalty. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-01-.06

(2).

Additionally, an injury is work-related when “the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(B). An employee must present expert medical proof that an alleged injury is causally related to employment when the case is not “obvious, simple [or] routine.” Willis v. All Staff, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 42, at *27 (Nov. 9, 2015). Further, an employee’s testimony about causation is probative but insufficient alone to meet his burden of proof in the absence of medical evidence. Arciga v. AtWork Pers. Servs., 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7 (Feb. 2, 2016).

First, the Court finds Mr. Turner is unlikely to prevail in proving he presently requires treatment “made reasonably necessary” by his compensable thumb injury. Dr. Steele returned him to full duty, noted how his thumb was healing, and recommended no additional treatment. Mr. Turner presented no contrary medical evidence to contradict Dr. Steele’s opinions. Simply put, the Court cannot substitute its, or Mr. Turner’s, medical opinion or judgment for that of a trained physician. See Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *8; see also Lurz v. Int’l Paper Co., 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 8, at *17 (Feb. 14, 2018).

Next, the Court holds Mr. Turner is unlikely to prevail in proving his employment “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing” his high blood pressure and anxiety for two reasons. First, he offered only lay testimony to support his contention, since a nurse practitioner is not an expert who can testify about medical causation. Dorsey v. Amazon, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 13, at *9 (May 14, 2015). Second, even if the nurse practitioner could testify about medical causation, the nurse’s letter failed to address it. Instead, the letter merely relayed that Mr. Turner received treatment for PTSD and recounted his symptoms. Lastly, the Court finds Mr. Turner is unlikely to prove at trial that he is entitled to either a panel of physicians or another physician based on these circumstances. A panel is not a practical remedy here, where Mr. Turner already received medical treatment that healed his injury.

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

Related

§ 50-6-102
Tennessee § 50-6-102(14)(B)
§ 50-6-204
Tennessee § 50-6-204(a)(1)(A)
§ 50-6-239
Tennessee § 50-6-239(d)(1)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 TN WC 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-arebius-v-advantage-human-resourcing-inc-tennworkcompcl-2020.