White, Carole v. Community Care of Rutherford Co.

2018 TN WC 143
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedSeptember 7, 2018
Docket2017-05-0944
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 TN WC 143 (White, Carole v. Community Care of Rutherford Co.) 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
White, Carole v. Community Care of Rutherford Co., 2018 TN WC 143 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2018).

Opinion

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

CAROLE WHITE, ) Docket No. 2017-05-0944 EMPLOYEE, ) v. ) ) COMMUNITY CARE OF ) State File No. 40374-2017 RUTHERFORD CO., ) EMPLOYER, ) And ) ) EASTERN ALLIANCE INS. CO., ) Judge Dale Tipps CARRIER. )

COMPENSATION ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter came before the Court upon Community Care’s Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons below, the Court finds Community Care is entitled to summary judgment.

Procedural History

Ms. White filed a Petition for Benefit Determination seeking medical and temporary disability benefits. After an expedited hearing on the record, this Court issued an interlocutory order holding that Ms. White was unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in establishing that she suffered a mental injury arising primarily out of her employment.

Community Care later filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, accompanied by a Memorandum of Law and a Statement of Undisputed Facts. Ms. White did not file a response. The Court heard the Motion telephonically on August 30, 2018, with Ms. White and Nicholas Snider, attorney for Community Care, participating.

1 Facts

Community Care’s Statement of Undisputed Facts included the following:

1. “The PBD described how the injury occurred as ‘from working in a hostile work environment for so long.’”

2. “The alleged date of injury is February 2017. No specific date of injury is provided.”

3. “Employee has offered no evidence of an identifiable stressful, work related event that produced a sudden mental stimulus.”

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04.

Community Care, as the party who does not bear the burden of proof at trial, must do one of two things to prevail on its motion for summary judgment: (1) submit affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of Ms. White’s claim, or (2) demonstrate that Ms. White’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of her claim. Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-16-101 (2017); see also Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 264 (Tenn. 2015). If Community Care is successful in meeting this burden, Ms. White “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleading.” Id. at 265. Rather, she must respond by producing affidavits, pleadings, depositions, responses to interrogatories, or admissions that set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id.; Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.06. She must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Rye, at 265.

Here, Ms. White filed no response to the Statement of Undisputed Facts. She attended the hearing to oppose the motion but identified nothing in the record to support her assertions. While her response did not comply with the rule, Rule 56.06 also states that if the party opposing the motion does not respond, summary judgment shall be entered against the adverse party “if appropriate.”

To determine whether summary judgment is appropriate, the Court looks to whether there are genuine issues of material fact on causation, an essential element of Ms. White’s claim. Tennessee courts apply a two-part test in order to determine whether an injury caused by mental or emotional stimulus is compensable. First, the injury must

2 stem from “an identifiable stressful, work-related event producing a sudden mental stimulus such as fright, shock, or excessive unexpected anxiety.” Second, “the event must be extraordinary in comparison to the stress ordinarily experienced by an employee in the same type of duty.” Creasman v. Waves, Inc., 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 13, at *7 (Apr. 16, 2018).

The undisputed facts establish that Ms. White did not identify a specific date of injury or a stressful, work related event that produced a sudden mental stimulus. Instead, she contends the injury occurred “from working in a hostile work environment for so long.” However, gradual employment stress is insufficient to establish a claim for an injury caused by mental or emotional stimulus. See Gatlin v. Knoxville, 822 S.W.2d 587, 591 (Tenn. 1991). Therefore, based on these undisputed facts, the Court holds that Community Care has demonstrated Ms. White’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of her claim.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Community Care’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and Ms. White’s claim against Community Care and its workers’ compensation carrier for the requested workers’ compensation benefits is dismissed on the merits with prejudice to its refiling.

2. The filing fee of $150.00 is taxed to Community Care under Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.07, for which execution may issue as necessary.

3. Absent appeal, this order shall become final thirty days after entry.

ENTERED this the 7th day of September, 2018.

_____________________________________ Judge Dale Tipps Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Order Granting Summary Judgment was sent to the following recipients by the following methods of service on this the 7th day of September, 2018.

Name Certified Fax Email Service sent to: Mail Carole White, X X 1209 John Hood Drive Employee Rockvale, TN 37153 sdwhite101@gmail.com Nicholas Snider, X nsnider@morganakins.com Employer’s Attorney

_____________________________________ Penny Shrum, Clerk of Court Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov

4 II I 'I

Compensation Hearing Order Right to Appeal:

If you disagree with this Compensation Hearing Order, you may appeal to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board or the Tennessee Supreme Court. To appeal to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, you must:

1. Complete the enclosed form entitled: "Compensation Hearing Notice of Appeal," and file the form with the Clerk of the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims within thirty calendar days of the date the compensation hearing order was filed. When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must serve a copy upon the opposing party (or attorney, if represented).

2. You must pay, via check, money order, or credit card, a $75.00 filing fee within ten calendar days after filing of the Notice of Appeal. Payments can be made in-person at any Bureau office or by U.S. mail, hand-delivery, or other delivery service. In the alternative, you may file an Affidavit of Indigency (form available on the Bureau's website or any Bureau office) seeking a waiver ofthe filing fee. You must file the fully- completed Affidavit of Indigency within ten calendar days of filing the Notice of Appeal. Failure to timely pay the filing fee or file the Affidavit of lndigency will result in dismissal of your appeal.

3~ You bear the responsibility of ensuring a complete record on appeal. You may request from the court clerk the audio recording of the hearing for a $25.00 fee. A licensed court reporter must prepare a transcript and file it with the court clerk within fifteen calendar days of the filing the Notice of Appeal.

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

Related

Gatlin v. City of Knoxville
822 S.W.2d 587 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1991)
Michelle RYE Et Al. v. WOMEN’S CARE CENTER OF MEMPHIS, MPLLC Et Al.
477 S.W.3d 235 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 TN WC 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-carole-v-community-care-of-rutherford-co-tennworkcompcl-2018.