Williams, Sarah v. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc.

2019 TN WC 104
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedJuly 11, 2019
Docket2018-01-0175
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 TN WC 104 (Williams, Sarah v. Amazon Fulfillment Services, 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
Williams, Sarah v. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc., 2019 TN WC 104 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2019).

Opinion

FILED Jul 11, 2019

09:39 AM(ET) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS

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

AT CHATTANOOGA

Sarah Williams, ) Docket No.: 2018-01-0175 Employee, )

Vv. )

Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc., ) State File No.: 17157-2018 Employer, )

And )

American Zurich Insurance Company, ) Judge Audrey Headrick Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

Ms. Williams requested that Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. (Amazon) provide her with medical and temporary disability benefits for a left-foot condition allegedly caused from climbing ladders at work. Amazon denied that her job caused her condition based on the panel doctor’s opinion. The Court held an Expedited Hearing on July 9, 2019, and holds Ms. Williams is not likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits regarding her requests.

History of Claim

While working at Amazon on or about October 5, 2017, Ms. Williams alleges she injured her left foot from repetitively climbing a ladder for five hours.

Before 2017, Ms. Williams first sought treatment with Dr. Tamara Martin, a podiatrist, for her left foot in May 2010. She reported a history of left-heel pain for six to seven months with no history of an injury. Ms. Williams also complained of pain “when taking her first steps” in the morning. Dr. Martin diagnosed plantar fasciitis/heel spur syndrome and injected her heel. During that time, Ms. Williams worked for Volkswagen.

Ms. Williams began working for Amazon in November 2015 and did not seek any further left-foot treatment until she reported a September 2016 injury. On the Associate First Report of Injury (FROI), Ms. Williams wrote “bone in the back of the foot hurts

I during & when waking up.” She also noted “no specific incident.” Ms. Williams marked “no” on the FROI when asked if she had previous injury to the same body part. She received authorized treatment from Dr. David Sparks at AFC Urgent Care. An x-ray showed a left-foot bone spur, and Dr. Sparks diagnosed Achilles tendonitis. In September 2016, Dr. Sparks indicated that Ms. Williams’s condition was not work- related and released her to follow up with her podiatrist.

Approximately one year later, Ms. Williams treated with Dr. Joy Russell, podiatrist, for left-Achilles pain. Ms. Williams reported having the pain since June 2017. Dr. Russell diagnosed left-Achilles tendonitis and prescribed an anti-inflammatory, a cam-walker, and physical therapy. Although the record does not show that Dr. Russell took Ms. Williams off work, she released Ms. Williams to return to work on November 6, 2017.

On November 8, Ms. Williams reported another left-foot injury to Amazon. Both the FROI and First Report reflect that Ms. Williams provided September 8 as the actual injury date.’ On the FROI, Ms. Williams wrote that she was going up and down a ladder and stool and walking to a bin when she injured her foot in September 2016. Amazon provided Ms. Williams with a panel, and she selected AFC.

Before seeking treatment at AFC, Ms. Williams returned to Dr. Russell on November 8 and reported returning to work that day and experiencing increased pain with weight-bearing. Dr. Russell diagnosed exacerbated Achilles tendonitis, recommended continued use of the anti-inflammatory and cam-walker, and released her to return to work on November 9.

On November 10, Ms. Williams saw panel physician Dr. Natasha Ballard and reported left-foot pain. Dr. Ballard’s record states Ms. Williams described “[n]o new injury but hurts when walking despite using walking boot from podiatry.” An x-ray showed a heel spur. Dr. Ballard provided an opinion that Ms. Williams’s left-foot condition was “[n]ot work-related due to lack of 51% causation.”

Soon after, Ms. Williams returned to her podiatrist, Dr. Russell. She noted that she remained off work because Amazon would not allow her to work with the cam- walker. Ms. Williams testified Dr. Russell told her that her foot condition was work- related, but her medical records are silent on that issue. In December, Dr. Russell referred Ms. Williams for a second opinion after conservative treatment failed.

Ms. Williams returned to Dr. Martin, her prior podiatrist, for a second opinion in December. She gave a history of left-foot pain since September 2017 and described pain

' The Petition for Benefit Determination and the Dispute Certification Notice provide October 5, 2017 as Ms. Williams’s injury date. Ms. Williams’s affidavit also describes October 2017 as her injury date.

2 with prolonged walking and going up and down ladders at work. Ms. Williams also stated she was not working due to continued pain and use of the cam-walker. On February 22, 2018, Dr. Martin released Ms. Williams to return to work without the cam walker and recommended no additional treatment unless her pain returned. Dr. Martin discussed surgery as an option and indicated she would refer Ms. Williams for a surgery evaluation after she completed treatment for a separate, ongoing knee problem.

Ultimately, Ms. Williams testified she sought treatment with Dr. Matthew Buchanan and had left-foot surgery on December 26, 2018. However, Ms. Williams did not submit his records. Ms. Williams stated that, despite having surgery, she continues to

have ongoing problems with her foot and continues to treat with podiatrist Dr. Jason Wamack.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Standard Applied

At an expedited hearing, Ms. Williams must present sufficient evidence to prove she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2018). The Court holds she did not.

Medical Benefits

The threshold issue is whether Ms. Williams suffered an injury as defined in the statute. An injury arises primarily out of the employment if the employment “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann § 50-6-102(14)(B). Further, an injury causes the need for medical treatment only if it has been shown “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that it contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann § 50-6-102(14)(C). Lay testimony is insufficient to establish causation in the absence of medical evidence. Arciga v. AtWork Pers. Servs., TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7 (Aug. 18, 2015). Further, the opinion of the treating physician selected from a panel is afforded a presumption of correctness on causation although that presumption can be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence standard. Tenn. Code Ann § 50-6-102(14)(E).

Here, Ms. Williams chose AFC from a panel and saw Dr. Ballard. However, Dr. Ballard relied upon an incorrect causation standard. As previously stated, the standard is whether the employment “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing” Ms. Williams’s foot condition. The presumption of correctness cannot apply to Dr. Ballard’s opinion. However, neither Dr. Ballard’s records nor any other medical records establish that Ms. Williams’s employment contributed “more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Therefore, the Court holds

3 she is not likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits and denies her request for medical benefits. Having reached this conclusion, the Court need not address her request for temporary disability benefits.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows: 1. Ms. Williams’s requested relief is denied at this time.

2. This matter is set for a Status Hearing on Tuesday, September 10, 2019, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 TN WC 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-sarah-v-amazon-fulfillment-services-inc-tennworkcompcl-2019.