Opinion

Harris, Zechariah v. Subway 2014-06-0018

  • 2015 TN WC 114
Court
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Filed
Sep 9, 2015
Status
Published
On the bench
Joshua Davis Baker
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 12.4%

The opinion

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT NASHVILLE

ZECHARIAH HARRIS ) Docket No. 68533-2014

Employee, )

) State File No. 2014-06-0018

v. )

) Date of Injury: July 23, 2014

)

SUBWAY, ) Judge: Joshua Davis Baker

Employer, )

)

and )

)

ZURICH NORTH AMERICA )

Insurance Carrier. )

)

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY DISABILITY AND

MEDICAL BENEFITS

THIS CAUSE came to be heard before the undersigned Workers’ Compensation

Judge on August 19, 2015, upon the Request for Expedited Hearing filed by Zechariah

Harris, the employee, on July 8, 2015, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-

6-239 (2014), to determine if the Employer, Subway, 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. Harris is not entitled to

temporary disability or medical benefits at this time.

ANALYSIS

Issues

1. Whether Subway must provide Mr. Harris past medical benefits and mileage for

his alleged workplace injury.

2. Whether Subway must provide Mr. Harris additional medical care for his alleged

1

injury.

3. Whether Subway must provide Mr. Harris temporary disability benefits for the

alleged injury.

4. Whether Mr. Harris sustained an injury that arose out of and in the course and

scope of his employment for Subway, and, if he did, the date on which he suffered

the injury.

Evidence Submitted

The Court admitted into evidence the exhibits below:

1. Affidavit of Zechariah Harris;

2. Discharge record from Nashville General Hospital at Meharry; and

3. Medical Certificate.

The Court designated the following as the technical record:

 Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) dated August 28, 2014;

 Dispute Certification Notice (DCN) dated December 29, 2014;

 Order on Show Cause Hearing dated May 6, 2015;

 Request for Expedited Hearing dated May 8, 2015;

 Amended Request for Expedited Hearing dated July 8, 2015;

 Subway’s prehearing brief; and

 Subway’s witness and exhibit list.

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 to them as allegations unless established by the evidence.

Mr. Harris provided in-person testimony.

History of Claim

Mr. Harris is thirty-two-year-old resident of Davidson County, Tennessee. Mr.

Harris stated in “the month of July,” there were spiders and ants inside the Subway where

he worked and in the area around the outside of the store. (Ex. 1.) He testified that he

killed many spiders in the store. The store owner, Sam Patel, had the store sprayed for

bugs but the treatment did not solve the bug problem.

2

On or around July 20, 2014, Mr. Patel told Mr. Harris to put on some “Subway

gloves,” go outside and pull weeds growing around the building. Mr. Harris pulled the

weeds and tore the glove in the process. After pulling the weeds, he went back inside the

store to prepare sandwiches for customers. Sometime after pulling the weeds, Mr.

Harris’ hand began to itch.

Mr. Harris returned to work at Subway the following day. During his shift, Mr.

Harris noticed a spider in the store. He did not know if the spider bit him. Soon

thereafter, his right hand began to swell.1 He reported the swelling to Mr. Patel, and Mr.

Patel told him to go to the hospital. He went to the emergency room Nashville General

Hospital at Meharry (Meharry), where he received antibiotics and pain pills.

Mr. Harris returned to work the following day. However, the swelling and pain

increased and Mr. Harris began to feel dizzy. Mr. Harris called Mr. Patel and informed

him that he felt dizzy and needed to go to the hospital. Mr. Patel sent another employee

to operate the store and Mr. Harris returned to Meharry.

On July 22, 2014, Mr. Harris was admitted to Meharry with swelling, pain and

redness in his right hand. He remained at Meharry until July 24, 2014, when the hospital

discharged him with diagnoses of cellulitis and asthma.2 (Ex. 2.) Although the discharge

summary does not mention a spider bite, Mr. Harris testified he told Meharry providers a

spider bit him.

Providers at Meharry prescribed Cipro, ibuprofen and an iron tablet, and instructed

Mr. Harris to follow up with an orthopedic specialist. Id. The record does not indicate

providers at Meharry operated on his hand. Id. The parties did not present any additional

medical records at the hearing.

After his release from the hospital, Mr. Harris asked Mr. Patel about workers’

compensation for his injury. Allegedly, Mr. Patel told Mr. Harris, “I don’t do workers’

comp.” Mr. Patel then instructed Mr. Harris to provide Mr. Patel’s phone number to the

hospital and have the hospital contact him. Mr. Harris told Mr. Patel that the system did

not work that way. Mr. Patel became angry and told Mr. Harris to turn in his keys and

leave the store.

On September 11, 2014, Dr. Katina Stevens completed a “Medical Certificate”

with information concerning Mr. Harris’ condition. (Ex. 3.) The certificate indicated

that she treated Mr. Harris for cellulitis of the right finger, and further indicated that the

condition “necessitated” him “leaving usual work” from July 21 to August 7, 2014. Id.

1

Mr. Harris testified that his hand began “knotting up a little bit with holes all in it.” The Court cannot determine

whether he noticed his condition on July 20 or July 21.

2

Mr. Harris incorrectly testified that he stayed in the hospital for four or five days.

3

Dr. Stevens did not indicate whether Mr. Harris’ last period of work caused his cellulitis

condition. Id.

Mr. Harris filed a PBD on August 28, 2014, seeking temporary disability and

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

the Mediation Specialist filed the DCN on December 29, 2014. When neither party filed

a request for hearing, the Court convened a show cause hearing and issued an order

allowing Mr. Harris additional time to request a hearing. Mr. Harris filed a Request for

Expedited Hearing on May 8, 2015, and an amended Request for Expedited Hearing on

July 8, 2015.

Mr. Harris’ Contentions

Mr. Harris argues that he suffered a compensable injury as a result of spider bite

suffered while either pulling weeds or making sandwiches at Subway. He asks that the

Court order Subway to pay him temporary disability and medical benefits, and reimburse

him mileage costs for travel to medical appointments.

Subway’s Contentions

Subway argues that Mr. Harris failed to carry his burden of proving a compensable

workplace injury. Mr. Harris has not shown a specific set of incidents, identifiable by

time and place of occurrence, which caused the alleged injury. Mr. Harris failed to even

identify the date the incident occurred. Furthermore, Mr. Harris has not provided

adequate medical proof of causation.

Concerning payment of past medical bills and temporary disability benefits, Mr.

Harris failed to present receipts for the medical bill payments or any evidence concerning

the period of time he could not work because of the alleged injury. Subway asks the

Court to deny Mr. Harris’ claim for benefits.

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). An employee need not prove every

element of his or her claim by a preponderance of the evidence in order to obtain relief at

an expedited hearing. McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, No. 2014-06-0063,

2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd.

Mar. 27, 2015). At an expedited hearing, an employee has the burden to come forward

4

with sufficient evidence from which the trial court can determine that the employee is

likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. Id.

Factual Findings

The Court finds that on July 20, 2015, Mr. Harris pulled weeds growing outside

Subway. The Court finds that Mr. Harris pulled the weeds on July 20 based on his

testimony and the Meharry discharge record. The record shows that Meharry admitted

Mr. Harris to the hospital on July 22, 2015. Mr. Harris testified that his hand began

itching the day after he pulled the weeds, July 21, 2015, and that he was admitted to

Meharry the following day, when he became dizzy, and his hand became swollen and

painful. Mr. Patel, the Subway owner, instructed Mr. Harris to pull the weeds.

On July 21, 2015, Mr. Harris’ hand began itching and swelling. That same day,

Mr. Harris saw a spider in the store but does not know if a spider bit him. He also

developed a knot in his hand that had little holes on it. Mr. Harris told Mr. Patel about

the itching and swelling, and Mr. Patel told him to go to the hospital. Mr. Harris went to

Meharry, where providers gave him antiobitics and pain pills before releasing him.

On July 22, 2015, Mr. Harris returned to work at Subway. During his shift, the

swelling and pain in Mr. Harris’ hand intensified. He also became dizzy. Mr. Harris told

Mr. Patel he needed to go to the hospital. He returned to Meharry, where providers

admitted him. Mr. Harris remained there for two days. On July 24, Meharry discharged

Mr. Harris with a diagnosis of cellulitis of the right finger. The medical records do not

indicate the cause of the cellulitis.

After being released from the hospital,l Mr. Harris returned to Subway and

inquired about workers’ compensation coverage. Mr. Patel declined Mr. Harris treatment

under workers’ compensation. Subsequently, Mr. Patel fired Mr. Harris.

Application of Law to Facts

In order for the Court to rule in Mr. Harris’ favor at this Expedited Hearing, Mr.

Harris must set forth a prima facie case of an injury by accident that leads the Court to

finds he is likely to prevail a hearing on the merits. While it is an extremely close issue,

the Court finds that Mr. Harris has failed to carry his burden at this time.

Under the Workers’ Compensation Law, an injury is accidental “only if the injury

is 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

5

injury, considering all causes[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(B) (2014).

The statutory requirements that an injury arise out of and in the course of the

employment are not synonymous “although both elements exist to ensure a work

connection to the injury for which the employee seeks benefits.” Blankenship v. Am.

Ordnance, 164 S.W.3d 350, 354 (Tenn. 2005). An injury occurs in the course of

employment if it takes place while the employee performs a duty he or she is employed to

perform. Fink v. Caudle, 856 S.W.2d 952, 958 (Tenn. 1993). Thus, the “course of

employment” requirement focuses on the time, place, and circumstances of the injury.

Saylor v. Lakeway Trucking, Inc., 181 S.W.3d 314, 318 (Tenn. 2005).

“Arising out of employment” refers to causation. Reeser v. Yellow Freight Sys.,

938 S.W.2d 690, 692 (Tenn. 1997). An injury arises out of employment when there is a

causal connection between the resulting injury and the conditions under which the work

is required to be performed. Fritts v. Safety Nat'l Cas. Corp., 163 S.W.3d 673, 678

(Tenn. 2005). Stated another way, an injury arises out of employment when it “has a

rational, causal connection to the work.” Braden v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 833 S.W.2d

496, 498 (Tenn. 1992). Except in “the most obvious, simple and routine cases,” a

workers’ compensation claimant must establish by expert medical testimony that he or

she is injured and that there exists a causal relationship between the injury and the

claimant's employment activity. Wheetley v. State, No. M2013-01707-WC-R3-WC, 2014

Tenn. LEXIS 476 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel June 25, 2014) (citing Excel Polymers,

LLC v. Broyles, 302 S.W.3d 268, 274 (Tenn. 2009); Cloyd v. Hartco Flooring Co., 274

S.W.3d 638, 643 (Tenn. 2008)).

The proof in this case shows that Mr. Harris pulled weeds outside Subway on July

20, 2015, pursuant to instruction by the owner, Mr. Patel. He tore his glove while pulling

weeds. Mr. Harris did not testify that he suffered a cut or scratch on his hands while

pulling the weeds.

The following day, Mr. Harris developed itching and swelling in his right hand.

He also testified that he noticed a knot with holes in it on his right hand.

Mr. Harris testified that there were many spiders in the store and specifically

testified to seeing one on July 21, 2015. However, he does not know whether a spider in

the store bit him, a spider bit him while he pulled weeds, or if something else happened

when he pulled weeds. He maintains steadfastly, however, that he must have

encountered the mechanism that caused his hand to swell at work, essentially because

there is no other explanation.

Meharry diagnosed him with cellulitis of the right finger after admitting him to the

hospital to treat his swollen hand. Mr. Harris, however, presented none of the medical

records from this hospital visit that would indicate what caused him to develop cellulitis.

6

Although it is not necessary for Mr. Harris to prove medical causation in order to receive

temporary medical benefits, See McCord, No. 2014-06-0063, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App.

Bd. LEXIS 6, at *17-19, the information contained in the records may have helped the

Court to better understand exactly what caused Mr. Harris’ hand to swell, especially in

light of his nonspecific testimony about the injury causing event. Based on the evidence

before it at this time, the Court does not find that Mr. Harris is likely to prevail at a

hearing on the merits.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Mr. Harris’ request for temporary disability and medical benefits is denied at this

time.

2. This matter is set for a Scheduling Hearing on October 13, 2015, at 11:30 a.m.

3. Unless interlocutory appeal of the Expedited Hearing Order is filed,

compliance with this Order must occur no later than seven business days

from the date of entry of this Order as required by Tennessee Code

Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(3) (2014). The Insurer or Self-Insured

Employer must submit confirmation of compliance with this Order to the

Bureau by email to WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov no later than the

seventh business day after entry of this Order. Failure to submit the

necessary confirmation within the period of compliance may result in a

penalty assessment for non-compliance.

4. For questions regarding compliance, please contact the Workers’ Compensation

Compliance Unit via email WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov or by calling (615)

253-1471 or (615) 532-1309.

ENTERED ON THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015.

_____________________________________

Judge Joshua Davis Baker

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

Initial Hearing:

A Scheduling Hearing has been set with Judge Joshua Davis Baker, Court of

Workers’ Compensation Claims. You must call 615-532-9552 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

7

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

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 appealing party shall file such position statement with the Court Clerk

8

within three 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 business days of the filing of the

appellant’s position statement.

9

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 _____

9th day

of September, 2015.

Name Certified First Via Fax Via Email Address

Mail Class Fax Number Email

Mail

Zechariah Harris x zach81harris@gmail.com

Brent Wilkins x bwilkins@wimberlylawson.com

Margaret Noland x mnoland@wimberlylawson.com

_____________________________________

Penny Shrum, Clerk of Court

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov

10

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.