Opinion

Campbell, Beverly v. Century Mold Co., Inc.

  • 2015 TN WC 183
Court
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Filed
Dec 14, 2015
Status
Published
On the bench
Dale Tipps
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 12.4%

The opinion

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT MURFREESBORO

BEVERLY CAMPBELL ) Docket No.: 2015-05-0342

Employee, )

v. ) State File Number: 40949-2015

CENTURY MOLD CO., INC. )

Employer, ) Judge Dale Tipps

And )

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. )

Insurance Carrier. )

)

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING MEDICAL AND TEMPORARY

DISABLITY BENEFITS

This matter came before the undersigned workers’ compensation judge on

December 9, 2015, on the Request for Expedited Hearing filed by the employee, Beverly

Campbell, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239 (2014). The present

focus of this case is the compensability of Ms. Campbell’s injury and her entitlement to

medical and temporary disability benefits. The central legal issue is whether Ms.

Campbell is likely to establish she suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the

course and scope of her employment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds

Ms. Campbell is not entitled to the requested medical and temporary disability benefits at

this time.

History of Claim

Ms. Campbell is a fifty-four-year-old resident of Bedford County, Tennessee. She

testified she has worked for Century for eighteen years and her job requires a great deal

of reaching and lifting. Several months before May 2015, she began to have problems

with her back and right shoulder. She complained to her supervisors and demonstrated

the motions that were causing her difficulties. Century did not initially file an injury

report, and Ms. Campbell’s condition continued to worsen.

Ms. Campbell began seeing her personal physician, Dr. Joseph Rupard, who

prescribed muscle relaxants and anti-inflammatory medications. She continued to work

1

her regular job. Dr. Rupard treated her for her back problem, as well as symptoms in her

wrists and hands. He assigned light-duty restrictions on May 7, 2015. (Ex. 4.)

When Ms. Campbell provided Century with Dr. Rupard’s restrictions, Century

completed a First Report of Injury and gave her a panel of physicians. (Ex. 6.) Ms.

Campbell selected Dr. Lynette Adams. Id. Ms. Campbell testified that Dr. Adams

referred her to an orthopedic specialist. Century provided an orthopedic panel and Ms.

Campbell selected Dr. James Johnson. (Ex. 6.)

Dr. Johnson saw Ms. Campbell on August 18, 2015, for complaints of back pain,

cervical pain, and bilateral wrist tingling and pain. She reported she had pain for three

months. After examining Ms. Campbell and reviewing her history, Dr. Johnson

diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome, cervical and lumbar spondylosis, and rotator cuff

impingement syndrome. He prescribed Mobic and Skelaxin. (Ex. 3.)

Dr. Johnson’s office note contains the following:

I do believe Beverly has degenerative changes in her back, but I would say

that more likely than not to a degree of medical certainty, greater than 50%

of the patient’s pain is due to pre-existing arthritic conditions and not work

related. In doing chart review, it appears that she has complained of each

of these pains in the past except for carpal tunnel syndrome. The claim that

she has only had pain for three months is a false claim, based on her

previous records from her previous doctors. I would describe this as a pre-

existing degenerative condition of the cervical spine, lumbar spine and the

shoulders. Each of these conditions should respond well to conservative

treatment and should not require injections or surgical intervention in the

short term and likely not in the long term. It appears to be a slowly

progressive, degenerative condition over time.

In terms of her carpal tunnel syndrome, it is possible that it can be caused

by her work because [the] condition has improved without working. I

would disagree with Dr. Greenberg that this would require surgery, because

it is improved with rest. I think it would improve with wrist splinting and

appropriate work restrictions. I would defer to a hand surgeon for a

definitive declaration of the carpal tunnel syndrome as work related, though

it is unlikely that more than 50% of the carpal tunnel syndrome is related to

her work, especially given the past medical history of diabetes.

Determination of maximum medical improvement and impairment rating

are thus not indicated as it is more likely than not that these conditions are

not work related.

2

Id.

Century’s workers’ compensation carrier sent a letter to Dr. Johnson on August

17, 2015, asking “whether Ms. Campbell’s diagnosis and the need for treatment arises

primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment [with] Century Mold

Company, Inc.” Dr. Johnson circled the “no” response and indicated that seventy-five

percent of Ms. Campbell’s condition was the result of pre-existing conditions unrelated to

her employment. Id.

After Ms. Campbell saw Dr. Johnson, Century denied the claim as non-

compensable. (Ex. 6.)

Ms. Campbell filed a Petition for Benefit Determination seeking medical treatment

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

mediation, and the Mediating Specialist filed a Dispute Certification Notice. Ms.

Campbell filed a Request for Expedited Hearing, and this Court heard the matter on

December 9, 2015. At the Expedited Hearing, Ms. Campbell asserted she is entitled to

reimbursement for her medical expenses, continuing medical treatment, and temporary

disability benefits.1 Century countered that Ms. Campbell is not entitled to any workers’

compensation benefits because she failed to present sufficient evidence that her work was

the primary cause of her injuries.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

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). The employee in a workers’

compensation claim has the burden of proof on all essential elements of a claim. Tindall

v. Waring Park Ass’n, 725 S.W.2d 935, 937 (Tenn. 1987);2 Scott v. Integrity Staffing

Solutions, No. 2015-01-0055, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *6 (Tenn.

Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015). At an expedited hearing, an employee need

not prove every element of his or her claim by a preponderance of the evidence, but must

come forward with sufficient evidence from which the trial court can determine that the

employee is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits consistent with Tennessee Code

1

Ms. Campbell was concerned that her claim was denied for lack of notice, and she testified emphatically that she

had repeatedly complained about her symptoms to her superiors. The Court notes that Century did not raise notice

as a defense on the DCN or in the hearing.

2

The Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board allows reliance on precedent from the Tennessee Supreme

Court “unless it is evident that the Supreme Court’s decision or rationale relied on a remedial interpretation of pre-

July 1, 2014 statutes, that it relied on specific statutory language no longer contained in the Workers’ Compensation

Law, and/or that it relied on an analysis that has since been addressed by the general assembly through statutory

amendments.” McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, No. 2014-06-0063, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd.

LEXIS 6, at *13 n.4 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Mar. 27, 2015).

3

Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(1) (2014). McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, No.

2014-06-0063, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *9 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp.

App. Bd. Mar. 27, 2015). This lesser evidentiary standard “does not relieve an employee

of the burden of producing evidence of an injury by accident that arose primarily out of

and in the course and scope of employment at an expedited hearing, but allows some

relief to be granted if that evidence does not rise to the level of a ‘preponderance of the

evidence.’” Buchanan v. Carlex Glass Co., No. 2015-01-0012, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp.

App. Bd. LEXIS 39, at *6 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Sept. 29, 2015).

To be compensable under the workers’ compensation statutes, an injury must arise

primarily out of and occur in the course and scope of the employment. Tenn. Code Ann.

§ 50-6-102(13) (2014). Injury is defined as “an injury by accident . . . arising primarily

out of and in the course and scope of employment, that causes death, disablement or the

need for medical treatment of the employee.” Id. For an injury to be accidental, it must

be “caused by a specific incident, or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the

course and scope of employment, and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence.”

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(A) (2014). “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) (2014).

Ms. Campbell selected Dr. Johnson from a panel of physicians provided by

Century. Therefore, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(13)(E) (2014)

establishes a rebuttable presumption of correctness for his causation opinion. That

opinion is “it is more likely than not that these conditions are not work related.” Dr.

Johnson confirmed that opinion in his response to the August 17, 2015 letter, where he

indicated Ms. Campbell’s diagnosis and the need for treatment did not arise primarily out

of and in the course and scope of her employment with Century.

Ms. Campbell submitted a letter signed by Kristin McBay, Dr. Adams’ nurse

practitioner, that stated: “Ms. Campbell has been seen in this office on two different

occasions 6/3/15 and 9/9/15 both regarding lower back pain, neck pain, and right

extremity pain due to work related injury.” (Ex. 11.) Century objected to the admission

of the letter into evidence on the grounds that it was hearsay, it was not previously

disclosed, and a nurse practitioner was not competent to give a medical opinion of

causation. The Court finds that, to the extent Ms. McBay’s letter may contain a causation

opinion, it is inadmissible, as she is not a physician qualified to give such an opinion.

Even if the Court were to find Ms. McBay’s opinion constituted competent medical

evidence of causation, it would be insufficient to overcome the presumption of

correctness of Dr. Johnson’s opinion because it merely states Ms. Campbell’s injuries are

“work related.” This does not constitute an opinion that Ms. Campbell’ work was the

primary cause of her injuries.

4

Ms. Campbell offered no other medical proof addressing causation. Therefore, as

a matter of law, she has not come forward with sufficient evidence from which this Court

may conclude she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. Her request for medical

and temporary disability benefits is denied at this time.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Ms. Campbell’s claim against Century Mold Company, Inc., and its workers’

compensation carrier for the requested medical and temporary disability benefits is

denied.

2. This matter is set for an Initial (Scheduling) Hearing on February 17, 2016, at 9:00

a.m.

ENTERED this the 14th day of December, 2015.

_____________________________________

Judge Dale Tipps

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

Initial (Scheduling) Hearing:

An Initial (Scheduling) Hearing has been set with Judge Dale Tipps, Court of

Workers’ Compensation Claims. You must call 615-741-2112 or toll free at 855-

874-0473 to participate.

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 business days of the

date the Workers’ Compensation Judge entered the Expedited Hearing Order.

5

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

4. The appealing party is responsible for payment of a filing fee in the amount of

$75.00. Within ten calendar days after the filing of a notice of appeal, payment

must be received by check, money order, or credit card payment. Payments can be

made in person at any Bureau office or by United States mail, hand-delivery, or

other delivery service. In the alternative, the appealing party may file an Affidavit

of Indigency, on a form prescribed by the Bureau, seeking a waiver of the filing

fee. The Affidavit of Indigency may be filed contemporaneously with the Notice

of Appeal or must be filed within ten calendar days thereafter. The Appeals Board

will consider the Affidavit of Indigency and issue an Order granting or denying

the request for a waiver of the filing fee as soon thereafter as is

practicable. Failure to timely pay the filing fee or file the Affidavit of

Indigency in accordance with this section shall result in dismissal of the

appeal.

5. 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 calendar days of the filing of the Expedited

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

the evidence within ten calendar days of the filing of the Expedited Hearing

Notice of Appeal. The statement of the evidence must convey a complete and

accurate account of what transpired in the Court of Workers’ Compensation

Claims and must be approved by the workers’ compensation judge before the

record is submitted to the Clerk of the Appeals Board.

6. If the appellant elects to file a position statement in support of the interlocutory

appeal, the appellant shall file such position statement with the Court Clerk within

five business days of the expiration of the time to file a transcript or statement of

the evidence, specifying the issues presented for review and including any

argument in support thereof. A party opposing the appeal shall file a response, if

any, with the Court Clerk within five business days of the filing of the appellant’s

position statement. All position statements pertaining to an appeal of an

interlocutory order should include: (1) a statement summarizing the facts of the

case from the evidence admitted during the expedited hearing; (2) a statement

summarizing the disposition of the case as a result of the expedited hearing; (3) a

statement of the issue(s) presented for review; and (4) an argument, citing

appropriate statutes, case law, or other authority.

6

APPENDIX

Exhibits:

1. Affidavit of Beverly Campbell

2. Records from Elite Sports Medicine

3. Certified records from Elite Sports Medicine

4. Return to work notes (Identification Only)

5. Nerve conduction study

6. Bureau forms

7. Letter from Renee Appenauer (Identification Only)

8. Written statement of Lynnette Shellhouse

9. Accident investigation report

10. Letter from Excellus (Identification Only)

11. Letter from Kristin McBay (Identification Only)

Technical record:3

1. Petition for Benefit Determination

2. Dispute Certification Notice

3. Request for Expedited Hearing

3

The Court did not consider attachments to Technical Record filings unless admitted into evidence during the

Expedited Hearing. The Court considered factual statements in these filings or any attachments to them as

allegations unless established by the evidence.

7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

Denying Medical and Temporary Disability Benefits was sent to the following recipients

by the following methods of service on this the _____

14th day of December, 2015.

Name Certified Via Via Service sent to:

Mail Fax Email

Beverly Campbell X 208 Fairway Green Dr.

Shelbyville, TN 37160

Emil Storey, Jr., Esq. X cstoreyj@travelers.com

_____________________________________

Penny Shrum, Clerk of Court

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov

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.