Yeoman, Damien v. Transwood Logistics, Inc.

2024 TN WC 92
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedDecember 20, 2024
Docket2024-30-2931
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 TN WC 92 (Yeoman, Damien v. Transwood Logistics, 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
Yeoman, Damien v. Transwood Logistics, Inc., 2024 TN WC 92 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2024).

Opinion

FILED Dec 20, 2024 01:37 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

DAMIEN YEOMAN, ) Docket No. 2024-30-2931 Employee, ) v. ) TRANSWOOD LOGISTICS, INC., ) Employer, ) State File No. 81990-2023 And ) ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, ) Carrier. ) Judge Brian K. Addington

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER GRANTING BENEFITS

The Court held an expedited hearing on December 6, 2024, to determine if Mr. Yeoman is entitled to medical and temporary disability benefits. TransWood Logistics defended on the ground that Mr. Yeoman did not offer a reasonable excuse for his failure to give timely written notice. For the reasons below, the Court grants Mr. Yeoman’s request for benefits.

Claim History

Mr. Yeoman drove cement trucks for TransWood. The parties agreed that he was injured on September 26, 2023, when he slipped on a wet step as he was exiting his truck and felt a pull in his right shoulder. He continued with the delivery and returned to his home base. Mr. Yeoman said he did not report his injury because he had not worked for TransWood very long, and he did not want to “get caught up” in all that a workers’ compensation case entailed. Further, he thought it was a strain that would heal on its own. He also did not often go to the doctor, and his mother scheduled appointments for him when he did go.

1 Mr. Yeoman lives with his mother, and he told her about the incident but did not immediately go to the doctor. Thinking the injury was temporary, he self-limited at work and rested when he was at home. When his mother noticed that he continued to experience pain, she made an appointment for him with a nurse practitioner for October 10.

The nurse practitioner noted that Mr. Yeoman suffered preexisting conditions including high blood pressure, bipolar and attention deficit disorders, and sleep apnea. As for the current injury, he told the nurse practitioner that he believed he may have injured his shoulder while pulling a hose at his new job and that rest improved his shoulder pain. The nurse practitioner requested x-rays and returned him to work.

On October 20, Mr. Yeoman’s manager, Jerry Smith, overheard him talking to a dispatcher about possibly missing work for his shoulder. Mr. Smith testified that Mr. Yeoman could not tell him the date the injury occurred but only that it happened in Hendersonville, North Carolina. Mr. Smith looked through records and determined Mr. Yeoman worked in Hendersonville on September 26.

Mr. Smith asked Mr. Yeoman to complete an accident report, but he only gave a scant account. Despite the lack of detail, Mr. Smith reported the accident to corporate. Mr. Smith testified he had no knowledge of the injury until October 20, and he did not observe Mr. Yeoman in pain or needing assistance before then,

TransWood sent Mr. Yeoman to general practitioner Dr. James Howell, who diagnosed a right-shoulder strain. He gave Mr. Yeoman lifting restrictions of no driving a company vehicle or lifting more than ten pounds and referred him to physical therapy. Mr. Yeoman notified TransWood of his restrictions, and it initially accommodated him at the worksite. Later, it sent him to work for KARM, a non-profit, when it became unable to accommodate the restrictions.

After a few physical therapy visits, Mr. Yeoman reported tingling in his fingers, and Dr. Howell ordered an MRI. The MRI showed “high grade” tendon tears, and Dr. Howell referred him to an orthopedic surgeon in January 2024. TransWood then denied his claim contending that he did not give timely notice. It also stopped his work for the non-profit in September after he missed a few days due to problems with his scheduling app.

While working light duty, Mr. Yeoman was unable to earn his average weekly wage. TransWood paid him one temporary partial disability check but stopped paying when it denied his claim. Mr. Yeoman argued TransWood owed him $17,565.94 in temporary partial disability benefits through September 7. He requested that amount plus continuing full temporary partial disability from September 8 because he has been unable to find work.

On November 13, Mr. Yeoman sent a questionnaire to Dr. Howell about causation and the orthopedic referral. The questionnaire asked if his shoulder tears were more than

2 50% related to his September 2023 injury, and Dr. Howell responded, “yes.” He also said that Mr. Yeoman should only work under his previous restrictions. Lastly, Dr. Howell wrote, “He needs to see the orthopedic specialist as soon as possible and per referral dated January 23, 2024.”

TransWood acknowledged that it originally accepted the claim and provided medical benefits, light-duty work, and some temporary partial disability benefits. It stopped Mr. Yeoman’s benefits on the advice of counsel because he failed to give timely notice and did not provide a reasonable excuse.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Mr. Yeoman must show that he is likely to succeed at a hearing on the merits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2024).

Here, the parties agreed that Mr. Yeoman suffered an injury in the course and scope of his employment. The parties further agreed that he did not report his injury, nor did TransWood have actual knowledge, within 15 days of the incident as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-201(a)(1). Thus, unless Mr. Yeoman had a reasonable excuse for his failure to give timely written notice, his claim must be denied. Ernstes v. Printpack, Inc., No. W2023-00863-SC-R3-WC, 2024 Tenn. LEXIS 1, at *13- 14 (Tenn. Workers. Comp. Panel Jan. 2, 2024). When considering whether an employee has shown a reasonable excuse, the Court can consider the employer’s actual knowledge of the injury, the lack of prejudice to the employer, and the employee’s excuse. Id.

Mr. Yeoman gave several reasons for not meeting the statutory deadline. First, he had not worked for TransWood very long, and he did not want to file a claim. The fear of losing a job is not a reasonable excuse. Beck v. City of Brownsville, No. W2016-01402- SC-R3-WC, 2017 Tenn. Lexis 407, at *11 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel July 18, 2017). However, Mr. Yeoman did not state he feared losing his job. Rather, he did not want to immediately report an injury after he started a new job for what he thought was a pulled muscle that he believed would heal on its own.

Additionally, the nurse practitioner and the authorized doctor initially thought he only suffered a strain—the very condition he thought he had. It was not until Mr. Yeoman underwent an MRI that he and his doctor actually knew he had high-grade tendon tears. Mr. Yeoman is a poor historian. He could not remember the first job he ever worked or the exact year he started working. Though he had heard the agreement in court about his date of injury, he could not recall the date until he had his memory refreshed. When considering this evidence, the Court turns to the reasoning in Livingston v. Shelby Williams Industries, Inc., 811 S.W.2d 511, 514 (Tenn. 1991). There, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that a reasonable excuse for not giving timely notice includes injuries 3 where the symptoms do not reveal the seriousness of the injury, an employee and physician have a limited understanding of his condition, and an employee is unable to keep sequences and events. Finally, TransWood was not prejudiced by Mr. Yeoman’s actions. Although he gave scant information about the date of injury, the manager was able to discern the date it occurred, complete reports about the injury, and send him to Dr. Howell. Mr.

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

Related

Livingston v. Shelby Williams Industries, Inc.
811 S.W.2d 511 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 TN WC 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yeoman-damien-v-transwood-logistics-inc-tennworkcompcl-2024.