Opinion

Delgado, Jose v. Pankratz Construction and Valles Roofing

  • 2015 TN WC 40
Court
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Filed
Apr 28, 2015
Status
Published
On the bench
Brian K. Addington
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 12.4%

The opinion

FILED

April 28, 20 IS

T;.; CO URTOF

WORKERS' CO~IPE :'< SA TIO:'<

C LAHIS

Time: 12:02 P~l

COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

EMPLOYEE: JOSE DELGADO DOCKET#: 2014-02-0017

STATE FILE#: 77084-2014

EMPLOYER: VALLES ROOFING DATE OF INJURY: 08/07/2014

INSURANCE CARRIER: LIBERTY MUTUAL

EMPLOYER: PANKRATZ CONSTRUCTION DOCKET#: 2015-02-0011

STATE FILE#: 5046-2015

INSURANCE CARRIER: BUILDERS PREMIER DATE OF INJURY: 08/07/2014

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the undersigned Workers' Compensation Judge on April 8,

2015, upon the Requests for Expedited Hearing filed by Jose Delgado (Mr. Delgado), the Employee,

on March 23,2015, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239 (2014) to determine if

Valles Roofing (Valles), the subcontractor, and Liberty Mutual, its insurance carrier, or Pankratz

Construction (Pankratz), the general contractor, and Builders Premier, its insurance carrier, is

obligated to provide temporary disability benefits and medical benefits. The parties agreed to defer

the issues of Mr. Delgado' s average weekly wage and compensation rate and his entitlement to

temporary disability benefits until an authorized treating physician treats Mr. Delgado and renders an

opinion on his work status from the date of the accident to present.

ANALYSIS

Issue

Whether Valles and Liberty Mutual or Pankratz and Builders Premier is responsible for

payment of medical benefits.

Evidence Submitted

The following witnesses testified:

• Mr. Jose Delgado

• Mr. Ranferi Velediaz -Roofer for Valles Roofing

1

• Oscar Bahena-Owner Valles Roofing

• Jason Pankratz-Owner Pankratz Construction.

The Court designated the following as the technical record:

• Petition for Benefit Determination

• Dispute Certification Notice

• Request for Expedited Hearing.

The Court did not consider attachments to the above filings unless admitted into evidence

during the Expedited Hearing. The Court considered factual statements in the above filings as

allegations unless established by the evidence.

The Court admitted the following into evidence:

• Exhibit 1: Medical Bills for Ranferi Velediaz (20 pages)

• Exhibit 2: The Daily Times News Article on the Accident (1 page)

• Exhibit 3: Medical Bills for Mr. Delgado (12 pages)

• Exhibit 4: Certificate of Liability Insurance Policy Number 10-15628-14132-120444 (1

page)

• Exhibit 5: Certificate of Liability Insurance Policy Number WC5-35S-540883-014 (1

page)

• Exhibit 6: Liberty Mutual Contract oflnsurance Policy Number WC5-35S-540883-014

(43 pages)(marked for identification only).

Stipulations of the Parties

The Parties submitted and admitted the following written stipulated facts:

• Jose Delgado was employed with Valles Roofing on or about August 7, 2014.

• While acting in the course and scope of his employment, Jose Delgado suffered a fall when a

roof collapsed on a home in Maryville, Tennessee.

• Jose Delgado suffered injuries arising from and in the course and scope of his employment

with Valles Roofing on or about August 7, 2014.

• Jose Delgado was treated at the University of Tennessee Medical Center for the injuries he

sustained as a result of the work-related accident on or about August 7, 2014. Mr. Delgado

also incurred medical bills from Rural Metro Ambulance, University General Surgeons, P.C.,

University Radiology, and Rural Metro as a result of his work-related injuries.

• Liberty Mutual Insurance Company filed a Notice of Denial of Jose Delgado's workers'

compensation claim with the Tennessee Department of Labor Workers' Compensation

Division on or about September 23, 2014.

• Builders Premier Insurance filed a Notice of Denial of Jose Delgado's workers'

compensation claim with the Tennessee Department of Labor Workers' Compensation

Division on or about September 30, 2014.

2

• Valles Roofing was a "subcontractor" of Pankratz Construction as that term is used at T.C.A.

§ 50-6-901 et seq. at the work site where Mr. Delgado was injured.

• Pankratz Construction was a "general contractor" as that term is used in T.C.A. § 50-6-901 et

seq. at the work site where Mr. Delgado was injured.

• Jose Delgado has not been provided any medical benefits or temporary total disability

benefits by Valles Roofing or its insurer.

• Jose Delgado has not been provided any medical benefits or temporary disability benefits by

Pankratz Construction or its insurer. 1

History of Claim

Mr. Delgado worked as a roofer for Valles. Valles served as a sub-contractor on various sites

for Pankratz. On August 7, 2014, Mr. Delgado and other workers roofed a home built by Pankratz.

Mr. Delgado fell when an overhang collapsed. He sustained injuries and received medical treatment

from Rural Metro Ambulance, University General Surgeons, P.C., University Radiology, and other

providers.

Mr. Oscar Bahena owns Valles, a Tennessee company. He went to Lilburn, Georgia, to

American Services Group, LLC (American), to file his income taxes and obtain workers'

compensation insurance. Mr. Bahena knew that he had to obtain general liability and workers'

compensation insurance to work on Pankratz's sites. He purchased a workers' compensation

insurance policy from Liberty Mutual through American and paid the insurance premiums to

American. He has never seen a copy of the contract for the insurance he purchased.

Pankratz, a general contractor, selected Valles to work as a roofing subcontractor on the

project in question. Pankratz required Valles to have proof of insurance. Prior to the incident in

question, and after requesting proof of insurance, Pankratz received a Certificate of Liability

Insurance from American. This form listed Liberty Mutual Insurance Corporation as the insurer.

This form contained the policy number 10-15628-14132-120444. Following the incident in

question, Pankratz obtained another Certificate of Liability Insurance from American listing Liberty

Mutual as the workers compensation carrier but with a policy number of WC5-35S-540833-014.

Both of policies indicated that workers' compensation coverage existed between March 15,2014,

and March 15,2015. Both forms indicated Oscar Bahena DBA Valles Roofing, 201 Grayson Drive,

Alcoa, TN 37701, as the insured entity.

Mr. Delgado's Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) requested medical benefits. The

parties did not reach an agreement on the issue. This matter came before the Court on April 8, 2015.

1

The Court recited the parties written stipulations verbatim. The parties failed to use the new "arising

primarily" statutory language for the stipulations when they referenced Mr. Delgado's injuries. The Court

finds that the parties intended to use the statutory language, as contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section

50-6-1 02( 12) (20 I 4), that Mr. Delgado's injuries arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his

employment.

3

Mr. Delgado's Contentions

Mr. Delgado contends that his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his

employment. He argues that he is entitled to medical benefits. He requests a panel of physicians and

payment of past medical expenses.

Valles's Contentions

Valles contends that it secured workers' compensation insurance with Liberty Mutual, and,

therefore, Liberty Mutual should pay benefits for Mr. Delgado's injuries. Valles asserts that it paid

premiums for its workers' compensation coverage. Valles further asserts that when Pankratz

requested proof of coverage, Liberty Mutual's agent sent a Certificate of Insurance to Pankratz.

Liberty Mutual's Contentions

Liberty Mutual contends that it provided workers' compensation coverage for Valles, but

only for work performed in the State of Georgia. It asserts that a Certificate of Insurance is not a

contract or proof of a contract's provisions. It contends that the Court should hold Builders Premier,

the workers' compensation carrier for Pankratz, responsible for payment ofbenefits to Mr. Delgado.

Builders Premier's Contentions

Builder's Premier contends that Valles had workers' compensation insurance with Liberty

Mutual and, therefore, Pankratz is not responsible for payment of benefits to Mr. Delgado.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Standard Applied

The Workers' Compensation Law shall not be remedially or liberally construed in favor of

either party but shall be construed fairly, impartially, and in accordance with basic principles of

statutory construction favoring neither the employee nor employer. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-116

(2014). Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(c)(6) provides that "[u]nless the statute

provides for a different standard of proof, at a hearing, the employee shall bear the burden of proving

each and every element of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence." Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-

239(c) (2014). A different standard of proof exists for the issuance of interlocutory orders at

Expedited Hearings than the standard of proof required at Compensation Hearings. McCord v.

Advantage Human Resourcing, No. 2014-06-0063 (Tenn. Work. Comp. App. Bd., March27, 2015).

A workers' compensation judge may enter an interlocutory order for medical or temporary benefits

upon a determination that the injured employee would likely prevail at a hearing on the merits.

Tenn. Code Ann. 50-6-239(d)(l) (2014); McCall v. Nat'! Health Care Corp., 100 S.W.3d 209,214

(Tenn. 2003).

4

Factual Findings

The evidence proves that Mr. Delgado suffered injuries arising primarily out of and in the

course and scope of his employment as a result of fall from a roof on Pankratz's worksite. Mr.

Delgado worked as a roofer for Valles, a subcontractor for Pankratz. Valles had workers'

compensation insurance with Liberty Mutual. Mr. Delgado incurred medical bills for treatment he

received as a result of the accident.

Application of Law to Facts

The only issue is which party bears responsibility for payment of medical benefits.

Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-113 (2014) addresses the liability of contractors and

provides the following in pertinent part:

(a) A principal contractor, intermediate contractor or subcontractor

shall be liable for compensation to any employee injured while in

the employee of any of the subcontractors of the principal

contractor, intermediate contractor or the subcontractor engaged

and engaged upon the subject matter of the contract to the same

extent as the immediate employer.

(b) Any principal contractor, immediate contractor or subcontractor

who pays compensation under subsection (a) may recover the

amount paid from any person who, independently of this section,

would have been liable to pay compensation to the injured

employee, or from any intermediate contractor.

(c) Every claim for compensation under this section shall be in the

first instance presented to and instituted against the immediate

employer, but the proceedings shall not constitute a waiver of the

employee's rights to recover compensation under this chapter

from the principal or intermediate contractor; provided, that the

collection of full compensation from one (1) employer shall bar

recovery by employee against any others, nor shall the employee

collect from all a total compensation in excess of the amount for

which any of the contractors is liable.

Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-113(a)-(c) (2014).

Liberty Mutual argued it only provided workers' compensation coverage for Valles in

Georgia according to its contract with Valles. However, this Court did not admit the contract into

evidence because Liberty Mutual did not have a witness that could authenticate the contract. The

only proof in evidence indicated that Liberty Mutual provided coverage for Valles in Tennessee. The

Certificate of Insurance listed Valles with a Tennessee address. Mr. Bahena testified he bought

workers' compensation for coverage in Tennessee. When Pankratz, a Tennessee company, requested

proof of insurance, Liberty Mutual's agent sent it to Pankratz in Tennessee.

5

The evidence submitted proves that Valles had secured workers' compensation coverage

from Liberty Mutual for injuries sustained in Tennessee. Therefore, Liberty Mutual is the

responsible workers' compensation canier in this case. Mr. Delgado shall submit all previous

medical bills incurred as a result of this accident to Liberty Mutual for payment according to the fee

schedule. If additional information becomes available demonstrating that Liberty Mutual did not

provide Valles coverage in Tennessee, the Court may issue a further ruling clarifying the

responsibilities of the parties and addressing recoupment pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated

section 50-6-113(b). Until the Court issues such an order, Liberty Mutual shall continue to cover the

cost of benefits pursuant to this order.

Because the parties stipulated that Mr. Delgado suffered an injury arising primarily out of and

in the course and scope of his employment, Liberty Mutual shall provide him a panel of physicians

pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(3)(i) (2014).

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Liberty Mutual, workers' compensation carrier for Valles, is the responsible insurance canier

in this case.

2. Liberty Mutual shall provide a panel of physicians to Mr. Delgado pursuant to Tennessee

Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(3)(i), and shall pay for all prior medical treatment listed

in the parties stipulations and exhibit 3.

3. This Court reserves both the issue of Mr. Delgado's average weekly wage and compensation,

and the issue of his work status following the accident, pending an evaluation and

determination by the authorized treating physician.

4. This matter is set for Initial Hearing on June 18, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

ENTERED this the 28th day of April 2015.

B!!:K.~~l:t:IG

Workers' Compensation Judge

Initial Hearing:

An Initial Hearing has been set with Judge Brian K. Addington, Court of Workers

Compensation. You must call 865-594-6538 or toll free at 855-543-5044 to participate in the Initial

Hearing.

Please Note: You must call in on June 18, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time to participate.

Failure to call in may result in a determination of the issues without your further participation. All

6

conferences are set using Eastern Time (ET).

Right to Appeal:

Tennessee Law allows any party who disagrees with this Expedited Hearing Order to appeal the

decision to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. To file a Notice of Appeal, you must:

1. Complete the enclosed form entitled: "Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal".

2. File the completed form with the Court Clerk within seven (7) business days of the date the

Expedited Hearing Order was entered by the Workers' Compensation Judge.

3. Serve a copy of the Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal upon the opposing party.

4. The parties, having the responsibility of ensuring a complete record on appeal, may request

from the Court Clerk the audio recording ofthe hearing for the purpose ofhaving a transcript

prepared by a licensed court reporter and filing it with the Court Clerk within ten (1 0)

calendar days of the filing of the Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal. Alternatively, the

parties may file a statement of the evidence within ten (1 0) calendar days of the filing of the

Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal. The statement of the evidence must be approved by the

Judge before the record is submitted to the Clerk of the Appeals Board.

5. If the appellant elects to file a position statement in suppmt of the interlocutory appeal, the

appealing party shall file such position statement with the Court Clerk within three (3)

business days of the filing of the Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal, specifying the issues

presented for review and including any argument in support thereof. If the appellee elects to

file a response in opposition to the interlocutory appeal, appellee shall do so within three (3)

business days of the filing ofthe appellant's position statement.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Expedited Hearing Order was sent to the

following recipients by the following methods of service on this the 28th day of April, 2015.

Name Certified First Via Fax Via Mail/Email Address

Mail Class Fax Number Email

Mail

L. Gibbons, Esq. X link@linkgibbonslaw .com

C. Torres, Esg. X torrescharles@bellsouth.net

M. Moore, Esq. X mmoore(t~Jbp_jlaw .com

J. Foster, Esq. X jfoster~.com

M. Dajcar, Esq. X mdajcar~hotmail.com

7

~~ -

YSHRUM

RK OF THE COURT

8

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.