Opinion

Hemingway, James v. Nissan

  • 2016 TN WC 19
Court
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Filed
Jan 28, 2016
Status
Published
On the bench
Dale Tipps
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT MURFREESBORO

JAMES HEMINGWAY ) Docket No.: 2015-05-0138

Employee, )

v. ) State File No.: 84810-2014

)

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. ) Judge Dale Tipps

Employer, )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING REQUESTED BENEFITS

This matter came before the undersigned workers’ compensation judge on January

20, 2016, on the Request for Expedited Hearing filed by the employee, James

Hemingway, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239 (2015). The

present focus of this case is the compensability of Mr. Hemingway’s right wrist and hand

condition and his entitlement to medical and temporary disability benefits. The central

legal issue is whether the evidence is sufficient for the Court to determine that Mr.

Hemingway is likely to establish at a hearing on the merits he suffered an injury arising

primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. For the reasons set forth

below, the Court finds Mr. Hemingway is not entitled to the requested benefits at this

time.1

History of Claim

Mr. Hemingway is a fifty-five-year-old resident of Rutherford County, Tennessee.

He has worked on the production lines at Nissan for twenty-two years. He testified he

uses tools on the line that require him to perform squeezing or triggering motions

approximately 19,000 times per workday. He began having problems with his right wrist

and hand, which he reported to Nissan on October 26, 2014. Nissan provided Mr.

Hemingway with a panel of physicians, and he selected Dr. Gilbert Woodall as his

authorized treating physician (ATP). (Ex. 7.)

Mr. Hemingway saw Karen Christian, RN in Dr. Woodall’s office on October 26,

2014, for right wrist pain. After examining Mr. Hemingway and discussing the physical

1

A complete listing of the technical record and exhibits admitted at the Expedited Hearing is attached to this Order

as an appendix.

1

requirements of his job, RN Christian assessed “activity intolerance with right hand pain

and swelling.” She provided Advil to Mr. Hemingway and returned him to finish his

shift with no use of the right arm. (Ex. 11.) Mr. Hemingway returned the next day and

saw Dr. Woodall, who noted: “Right wrist sprain – could be work related. Possibly gout

– which would not be work related. Awaiting to see response to medication before

causation can be clearly stated.” Dr. Woodall prescribed a Medrol dosepak and

continued Mr. Hemingway’s restrictions. Id.

When Mr. Heminway returned to Dr. Woodall on November 3, 2014, Dr. Woodall

noted minimal swelling and tenderness mid dorsum, along with some pain-limited range

of motion. He diagnosed: “Acute arthritis episode likely gout and unlikely primarily

work-related.” Id.

Dissatisfied with Dr. Woodall’s diagnoses, Mr. Hemingway sought treatment with

his own physician, Dr. Kerri Woodberry, who ordered diagnostic tests. Dr. John Witt

performed nerve conduction and EMG studies on February 10, 2015. He concluded the

findings were consistent with moderate bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. (Ex. 2.)

Mr. Hemingway returned to Dr. Woodall on February 19, 2015, with complaints

of right hand pain and numbness, but no tenderness or swelling. Dr. Woodall noted Mr.

Hemingway had seen his primary care physician and a neurologist for diagnostic tests

and a carpal tunnel injection. After reviewing copies of Mr. Hemingway’s records,

including his MRI and nerve conduction study results, Dr. Woodall stated:

Primary diagnosis is arthritis of right wrist – causing pain, swelling and

median neuropathy. The arthritis is likely old trauma with subsequent

propensity for osteoarthritis – primarily idiopathic and degenerative in

causation and not primarily work related. The carpal tunnel syndrome is

primarily related to the significant osteoarthritis a known high risk factor

and not the paint shop work activities which have historically and [by]

observation been low risk in force posture and repetition at Nissan.

(Ex. 11.)

Mr. Hemingway testified that his symptoms have improved after Nissan provided

modified duty. However, he still has pain and problems with his right wrist and hand.

After Nissan denied his claim, he filed a Petition for Benefit Determination 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. Mr.

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

January 20, 2016.

At the Expedited Hearing, Mr. Hemingway asserted his condition is compensable

2

because any connection between his work and his symptoms is sufficient to meet the

“primarily arising out of” requirement. He further contended the Court should disregard

Dr. Woodall’s diagnoses because they are incorrect.

Nissan countered that, as the ATP, Dr. Woodall’s causation opinion is statutorily

presumed to be correct, and Mr. Hemingway submitted no medical evidence sufficient to

overcome that presumption. As a result, the medical proof establishes that Mr.

Hemingway’s work was not the primary cause of his right wrist and hand condition.

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 (2015). In general, an employee bears the

burden of proof on all prima facie elements of his or her workers’ compensation

claim. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6); see also Buchanan v. Carlex Glass Co., No.

2015-01-0012, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 39, at *5 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp.

App. Bd. Sept. 29, 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 Annotated

section 50-6-239(d)(1) (2015). 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, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 39, at *6.

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(14) (2015). 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(14)(A) (2015). “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(14)(B) (2015).

Mr. Hemingway selected Dr. Woodall from a panel of physicians provided by

3

Nissan. Therefore, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(E) (2015)

establishes a rebuttable presumption of correctness for Dr. Woodall’s causation opinion

that Mr. Hemingway’s condition is not work related.

Mr. Hemingway objected to Dr. Woodall’s causation analysis, arguing his

diagnoses and conclusions were simply incorrect. Mr. Hemingway suggested during the

hearing that Dr. Woodall ignored his carpal tunnel syndrome diagnosis. In fact, Dr.

Woodall’s February 19, 2015 note clearly shows he reviewed the electrodiagnostic

studies and specifically addressed the cause of Mr. Hemingway’s carpal tunnel

syndrome.

Mr. Hemingway attempted to introduce Dr. Woodberry’s February 18, 2015 office

note into evidence. Nissan objected on the grounds that the document was incomplete –

it was only the second page of a two-page record. The Court notes that, even if it

admitted Dr. Woodberry’s partial record into evidence, it is void of any causation

opinion, much less any opinion relating Mr. Hemingway’s carpal tunnel condition

primarily to his work. The Court cannot substitute its medical opinion, or that of Mr.

Hemingway, for the professional opinion of Dr. Woodall. Absent a contrary medical

opinion, Mr. Hemingway cannot rebut the presumption of correctness afforded Dr.

Woodall’s opinion by the statute. Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, No. 2015-01-0055,

2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *8 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Aug.

8, 2015).

Therefore, as a matter of law, Mr. Hemingway has not come forward with

sufficient evidence from which this Court may conclude he is likely to prevail at a

hearing on the merits. The Court must deny his requests for medical and temporary

disability benefits at this time.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Mr. Hemingway’s claim against Nissan and its workers’ compensation carrier for

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

2. This matter is set for an Initial (Scheduling) Hearing on March 23, 2016, at 9:30

a.m.

ENTERED this the 28th day of January, 2016.

_____________________________________

Judge Dale Tipps

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

4

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.

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

5

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 James Hemingway

2. February 10, 2015 Record from Middle Tennessee Imaging

3. Nissan Treating Physician Reports

4. First Report of Injury

5. Employee/Manager Medical Statement

6. Wage Statement

7. Panel of Physicians

8. Notice of Denial

9. November 6, 2014 letter from Kristine Olmsted

10. March 6, 2015 letter from Kristine Olmsted

11. Records from Dr. Woodall

12. Signed March 2, 2015 note from Dr. Woodall

13. Partial record from Dr. Woodberry (Identification Only)

Technical record:2

1. Petition for Benefit Determination

2. Dispute Certification Notice

3. Request for Expedited Hearing

2

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 Requested Benefits was sent to the following recipients by the following

methods of service on this the 28th day of January, 2016.

Name Certified Via Via Service sent to:

Mail Fax Email

James Hemingway X 8008 Omaha Ct.

Smyrna, TN 37167

Thomas Tucker, Esq. X tomtucker@bellsouth.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.