Seiferth, Stephen v. Ingles Markets, Inc.

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Robin Moore ) Docket No. 2015-02-0193

) State File No. 47827-2015

v. )

)

Ingles Markets, Inc. )

)

and )

)

Stephen Seiferth ) Docket No. 2015-02-0183

) State File No. 46930-2015

v. )

)

Ingles Markets, Inc. )

)

Appeals from the Court of Workers’ )

Compensation Claims )

Brian K. Addington, Judge )

Affirmed and Remanded — Filed November 4, 2015

In these consolidated interlocutory appeals, the employees alleged respiratory injuries as

a result of repeated exposure to pesticide sprayed in their work areas. 1 The employer

provided an initial evaluation at an emergency room but did not provide a panel of

physicians in either case. The employer subsequently denied the claims and any further

workers’ compensation benefits. Following expedited hearings, the trial court

determined that the employees were entitled to a panel of physicians. Temporary

disability benefits were denied. The employer has appealed. We affirm and remand the

cases for any further proceedings that may be necessary.

1

These companion cases are factually and legally similar and, therefore, we have consolidated them for

purposes of appeal. See generally Tenn. R. App. P. 16(b) (“When separate appeals involving a common

question of law or common facts are pending before the appellate court, the appeals may be consolidated

by order of the appellate court on its own motion or on motion of a party.”).

1

Judge Marshall L. Davidson, III, delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board, in which

Judge David F. Hensley and Judge Timothy W. Conner joined.

Judith A. DePrisco, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellant, Ingles Markets,

Inc.

Robin Moore, Bluff City, Tennessee, employee-appellee, pro se

Stephen Seiferth, Johnson City, Tennessee, employee-appellee, pro se

Factual and Procedural Background

Robin Moore and Stephen Seiferth (collectively “Employees”) worked in the dairy

department at Ingles Markets, Inc. (“Employer”). 2 They alleged that Employer installed

pesticide sprayers in their work areas that sprayed “fly spray” in fifteen-minute intervals,

resulting in their being exposed to airborne chemicals while at work. Employees claimed

that they suffered a variety of respiratory and neurological problems as a result of the

exposure, and they filed separate petitions to compel Employer to provide medical

treatment, payment of past medical expenses, and temporary disability benefits.

After an expedited hearing was held in each case, the trial court ordered Employer

to provide a panel of physicians to each Employee. The trial court denied temporary

disability benefits in each case. Employer has appealed.

Analysis

In each notice of appeal, Employer contends that Employee failed to establish

causation and that the “testimony indicated no further medical treatment is necessary:

date of injury remains disputed.” However, we have been provided with no record of any

testimony presented during the expedited hearings. Moreover, no statement of the

evidence has been filed. Thus, the totality of the evidence introduced in the trial court is

unknown, and we decline to speculate as to the nature and extent of the proof presented

to the trial court. Instead, consistent with established Tennessee law, we presume that the

trial court’s rulings were supported by sufficient evidence. See Leek v. Powell, 884

S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (“In the absence of a transcript or a statement of

the evidence, we must conclusively presume that every fact admissible under the

pleadings was found or should have been found favorably to the appellee.”).

2

Because transcripts of the hearings were not provided by the appellant in these cases, we have gleaned

the facts from the pleadings and the trial court’s expedited hearing orders.

2

In addition, although Employer states in each notice of appeal that the “date of

injury remains disputed,” there is no indication in either of the trial court’s orders that this

issue was raised or decided at the expedited hearings and, without a transcript, we decline

to speculate one way or the other. Further, Employer has not filed a brief or position

statement explaining or otherwise developing this issue. As stated by the Tennessee

Supreme Court, “[i]t is not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or

construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her, and where a party fails to develop

an argument in support of his or her contention or merely constructs a skeletal argument,

the issue is waived.” Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tenn.,

301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010). Consistent with this settled principle, we decline to

address the issue.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s decision in each case is affirmed. The

cases are remanded for any further proceedings that may be necessary.

3

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Robin Moore ) Docket No. 2015-02-0193

) State File No. 47827-2015

v. )

)

Ingles Markets, Inc. )

)

and )

)

Stephen Seiferth ) Docket No. 2015-02-0183

) State File No. 46930-2015

v. )

)

Ingles Markets, Inc. )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Appeals Board’s decision in the

referenced case was sent to the following recipients by the following methods of service

on this the 4th day of November, 2015.

Name Certified First Class Via Fax Via Email Address

Mail Mail Fax Number Email

Robin Moore X robinm10s@gmail.com

Stephen Seiferth X sts2384@hotmail.com

Judith DePrisco X judith@bcnattorneys.us

Brian K. Addington, X Via Electronic Mail

Judge

Kenneth M. Switzer, X Via Electronic Mail

Chief Judge

Penny Shrum, Clerk, X Penny.Patterson-Shrum@tn.gov

Court of Workers’

Compensation Claims

Matthew Salyer

Clerk, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board

220 French Landing Dr., Ste. 1-B

Nashville, TN 37243

Telephone: 615-253-1606

Electronic Mail: Matthew.Salyer@tn.gov