Opinion

Blasingim, Eric v. Rite Hite Holding Corporation

  • 2015 TN WC 56
Court
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Filed
May 27, 2015
Status
Published
On the bench
Kenneth M. Switzer
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 12.4%

The opinion

FILED

May 27, 2015

TN COURT OF

WO RKERS' CO:\·I PE =" SAT I O ~·

C LA L\I S

Tim e: 11 :2 1 AM

COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Eric Blasingim, ) DOCKET#: 2015-05-0026

Employee, ) STATE FILE#: 60533-2014

v. ) DATE OF INJURY: August 4, 2014

Rite Hite Holding Corporation, ) Chief Judge Switzer

Employer, )

and, )

Sentry Insurance )

Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the undersigned Workers' Compensation Judge on

May 19, 2015, upon the Request for Expedited Hearing filed by the Employee, Eric

Blasingim (Mr. Blasingim), on March 23, 2015, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated

section 50-6-239 to determine if the Employer, Rite Hite Holding Corporation (Rite Hite)

is obligated to provide medical and temporary disability benefits. Considering the

positions of the parties, the applicable law, and all of the evidence submitted, the Court

concludes that Mr. Blasingim is not entitled to the requested benefits at this time.

ANALYSIS

Issues

o Whether Mr. Blasingim sustained an injury arising primarily out of and in

the course and scope of his employment with Rite Hite.

o Whether Mr. Blasingim 's injury was idiopathic in nature.

Evidence Submitted

The Court admitted into evidence the exhibits below:

• Ex. 1: Medical Records of Eric Blasingim, Vanderbilt University Medical

Center (86 pages)

1

• Ex. 2: FROI, August 5, 2015

• Ex. 3: Form C-41, Wage statement.

The Court designated the following as the technical record:

• Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD), February 9, 2015

• Dispute Certification Notice (Amended), March 23, 2015

• Request for Expedited Hearing, March 23, 2015

• Employer and Insurance Carrier's Pre-Hearing Brief, May 8, 2015.

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 or any attachments thereto as allegations unless established by the evidence.

Mr. Blasingim was the only witness who testified.

The parties stipulated to the following:

• The date of injury is August 4, 2014.

• Rite Hite received timely notice of the injury.

• Mr. Blasingim's compensation rate is $559.08 per week.

• Mr. Blasingim returned to work with no restrictions.

History of Claim

Mr. Blasingim is a forty-two (42) year-old resident of Giles County, Tennessee.

He works for Arbon Equipment Corporation, a division of Rite Hite Holding

Corporation, as a service technician. Mr. Blasingim's PBD states, with regard to how the

injury occurred: "Employee was knocked unconscious. He has no memory of the

accident. Believed to have been injured by hydraulic dock level[er]."

Mr. Blasingim testified that he "was hurt while doing my job at [Robert Orr]

Sysco," and that he became injured "while doing the P.M.s on the levelers at Sysco."

According to Mr. Blasingim, Rite Hite has a video from the date of injury, which he did

not introduce into evidence 1• Mr. Blasingim said that the video, which his service

manager, Mark Metz, watched, shows him inside the building at the dock area where he

worked. He wore his hard hat at the time. He then exited the dock area and went out of

the camera's view for approximately two minutes. When Mr. Blasingim returned within

view of the camera, he was not wearing the hard hat. Mr. Blasingim testified, "I was

1

According to Rite Hite's Counsel, the videos she viewed either showed "absolutely nothing" relative to the case, or

she was unable to view them.

2

walking circles, bleeding, looking up at the ceiling- just doing random things."

Mr. Blasingim was transported by ambulance to Vanderbilt University Medical

Center (Ex. 1, p. 2). Dr. Bradley Dennis' assessment provides, "This is a 41-year-old

white male status post blunt trauma to the head with traumatic brain injury, subdural

hematoma and skull fracture as well as acute respiratory failure requiring mechanical

ventilation (Ex. 1, p. 5)." Mr. Blasingim was admitted to the trauma ICU (Ex. 1, p. 13),

and discharged from the hospital on August 6, 2014 (Ex. 1, pp. 15-18). He received

follow-up outpatient care until September 12, 2015. Rite Hite denied the claim on

September 11, 2014 (Ex. 1, p. 30).

On cross-examination, Mr. Blasingim said Mr. Metz was not present on the date of

the injury, but went to the jobsite on August 5, 2014, to investigate. Mr. Blasingim

acknowledged that in 2001 or 2002, he was in a "very bad" car accident, where his

vehicle was hit head-on, resulting in him being comatose and hospitalized for several

weeks. He agreed that his injuries from the car accident were primarily to his head, and

that his physicians inserted a plate in his head as well as pins and screws in his jaw.

Recovery from the car accident kept him off from work for approximately three months.

Mr. Blasingim conceded he experienced occasional dizzy spells, or "positional

dizziness," after the 2001 or 2001 accident and before the August 4, 2014 injury, but said

that the dizziness had subsided before the workplace accident. He agreed he had tinnitus

before the August 4, 2014 accident as well. Mr. Blasingim additionally acknowledged

that he was involved in a previous ATV accident, but said that it injured his knee and not

his head. Although the medical records state that he suffered two previous concussions

(Ex. 1, p. 19), Mr. Blasingim testified that information is incorrect. He agreed that he has

no specific memory of the accident occurring.

Mr. Blasingim filed a PBD on February 9, 2015, seeking medical and temporary

disability benefits. The parties did not resolve the disputed issues through mediation and

the Mediating Specialist filed a Dispute Certification Notice on March 23, 2015, which

was amended to include additional issues on that same date. On March 23, 2015, Mr.

Blasingim filed a Request for Expedited Hearing.

Mr. Blasingim's Contentions

Mr. Blasingim contends that there is no other way in which he could have received

the injuries he sustained, other than one or two ways that he could have become injured

while doing his job, considering the circumstances surrounding the August 4, 2014

accident at work. The insurance carrier has found a "loophole" to deny coverage because

he cannot remember what happened and supposedly no one else witnessed the accident.

3

Rite Hite's Contentions

Mr. Blasingim did not satisfy his burden to show that he suffered a work-related

injury because he cannot specify the incident or series of incidents that resulted in his

injuries, nor has he offered sufficient medical proof of causation.

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., March 27, 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); cf McCall v. Nat'l Health Care

Corp., 100 S.W.3d 209, 214 (Tenn. 2003).

Factual Findings

Although Mr. Blasingim suffered injuries on August 4, 2014, he provided no proof

that his injuries resulted from a danger or hazard peculiar to his work, or that a risk

inherent in the nature of his caused the injuries.

Application ofLaw to Facts

Mr. Blasingim did not sustain an injury arising primarily out of and in the

course and scope of his employment with Rite Hite.

Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(13) (2014) defines "injury" and

"personal injury" to mean an injury by accident "arising primarily out of and in the

course and scope of employment .... " Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13). An injury

"arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment" only if it has been

shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than

fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-

6-102(13)(B).

4

The Tennessee Supreme Court has consistently held that to qualify as a

compensable workers' compensation claim, an injury must both "arise out of' and occur

"in the course of' employment:

The phrase "in the course of' refers to time, place, and

circumstances, and "arising out of' refers to cause or origin.

"[A]n injury by accident to an employee is in the course of

employment if it occurred while he was performing a duty he

was employed to do; and it is an injury arising out of

employment if caused by a hazard incident to such

employment." Generally, an injury arises out of and is in the

course and scope of employment if it has a rational

connection to the work and occurs while the employee is

engaged in the duties of his employment.

Cloyd v. Hartco Flooring Co., 274 S.W.3d 638, 643 (Tenn. 2008) (quoting Orman v.

Williams Sonoma, Inc., 803 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tenn. 1991)). It is well established that

the mere presence in the workplace at the time an injury occurs will not result in the

injury being considered as arising out of the employment. Instead, the injury must result

from a danger or hazard peculiar to the work or be caused by a risk inherent in the nature

of the work. Thornton v. RCA Serv. Co., 221 S.W.2d 954, 955 (Tenn. 1949).

In this case, Mr. Blasingim testified that he sustained an injury while working and

"while doing the P.M.s on the levelers at Sysco," but he has no memory of how he

became injured. Mr. Blasingim offered no proof regarding the circumstances of the

injury, which Cloyd requires. He was similarly unable to identify with any specificity a

danger or hazard peculiar to his workplace or a risk inherent in the nature of his work, as

per Thornton. He contends that there are two ways the accident could have happened, but

did not give the details or offer proof of either mode of injury. Mr. Blasingim testified

that a videotape exists that provides some detail of the events of that day, but he did not

introduce that video into evidence. Further, he did not offer any eyewitness testimony

regarding how he became injured, or the testimony of Mr. Metz, who allegedly viewed

the videotape. In sum, although Mr. Blasingim was a credible witness, the totality of his

proof was insufficient at this time to permit this Court to grant the relief he seeks.

Because Mr. Blasingim failed to satisfy his burden to show that his injury is work-

related, he is ineligible for medical or temporary disability benefits under the Workers'

Compensation Law. Based upon the evidence before the Court at this time, it is unlikely

that Mr. Blasingim would prevail at a hearing on the merits. Therefore, the Court must

deny his requests at this time.

5

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Mr. Blasingim's claim against Rite Hite and its workers' compensation carrier for

the requested medical and temporary disability benefits is denied at this time.

2. This matter is set for Initial Hearing on July 13, 2015, at 9:00a.m.

ENTERED this the 27th day of May, 2015.

enneth M. Switzer, Chief g

Court of Workers' Compensation Claims

Initial Hearing:

An Initial Hearing has been set with Chief Judge Kenneth M. Switzer, Court of

Workers' Compensation Claims. You must call615-532-9552 or toll free at 866-

943-0025 to participate in the Initial Hearing.

Please Note: You must call in on the scheduled date/time to

participate. Failure to call in may result in a determination of the issues without

your further participation. All conferences are set using Central Time (CT).

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 Workers' Compensation Judge entered the Expedited Hearing Order.

3. Serve a copy of the Expedited Hearing Notice ofAppeal 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 of the hearing for the

purpose of having a transcript prepared by a licensed court reporter and filing it

with the Court Clerk within ten ( 10) calendar days of the filing of the Expedited

Hearing Notice of Appeal. Alternatively, the parties may file a statement of the

6

evidence within ten ( 10) calendar days of the filing of the Expedited Hearing

Notice of Appeal. The Judge must approve the statement of the evidence before

the Clerk of Court shall submit the record to the Clerk of the Appeals Board.

5. If the appellant elects to file a position statement in support 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 of the 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 27th day

of May, 2015.

Name Certified First Via Fax Via Email Address

Mail Class Fax Number Email

Mail

Eric Blasingim, X X volbuider@:rahoo.com; Clock Creek

Employee Road, Cornersville, TN 37047

Lee Anne Murray, X leeamurray@feene:rmurra:r.com

Employer's attorney

enny Sh urn, Clerk of Court

Court of Workers' Compensation Claims

WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov

7

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.