Meier, Giovanna v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., et al.

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Giovanna Meier ) Docket No. 2015-02-0179

)

v. ) State File No. 42423-2015

)

Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., et al. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )

Compensation Claims, )

Brian K. Addington, Judge )

Affirmed and Remanded - Filed July 27, 2016

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee alleges suffering an injury to her back while

moving bags of concrete in the course and scope of her employment. The employer

denied the claim as not being work-related. Following an expedited hearing, the trial

court ruled that the employee presented insufficient evidence she was likely to succeed at

a trial on the merits in establishing an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and

scope of her employment. The employee has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s

decision and remand the case.

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

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

George Todd East, Kingsport, Tennessee, for the employee-appellant, Giovanna Meier

Jess Maples, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, Lowe’s Home Centers,

Inc.

Memorandum Opinion1

Giovanna Meier (“Employee”) alleges that she suffered an injury to her back on

April 27, 2015, when she transferred bags of concrete from one cart to another while

1

“The Appeals Board may, in an effort to secure a just and speedy determination of matters on appeal and

with the concurrence of all judges, decide an appeal by an abbreviated order or by memorandum opinion,

whichever the Appeals Board deems appropriate, in cases that are not legally and/or factually novel or

complex.” Appeals Bd. Prac. & Proc. § 1.3.

1

working for Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. (“Employer”).2 She described a twisting motion,

followed by a pop in her knee. Employee offered conflicting information regarding

whether she felt immediate pain but, in any event, she did not seek medical treatment that

day. According to the trial court’s order, Employee testified she and her husband were

on their way to the emergency room to have her injury evaluated the next day when she

asked her husband to stop at a store for a loaf of bread. She testified that when she bent

over to retrieve the bread from a shelf, she felt intense pain. She proceeded to the

emergency room and was evaluated.

Employer denied the claim as not arising out of the employment, and Employee

filed a petition for benefit determination. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court

determined there was insufficient medical proof to establish a causal link between the

employment and the purported injury. The trial court noted that Employee initially

reported a knee injury and later claimed a back injury. The court denied relief and

Employee appealed.

Testimony was presented to the trial court at the expedited hearing, and the court

relied on that testimony in deciding the case. However, we have been provided with no

record of this testimony. 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 must presume that the trial court’s rulings

were supported by sufficient evidence. Vulcan Materials Co. v. Watson, No. M2003-

00975-WC-R3-CV, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 451, at *7 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel May 19,

2004) (“In the absence of an adequate record on appeal, this Court must presume the trial

court’s rulings were supported by sufficient evidence.”); 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.”). Furthermore, there is a statutory

presumption “that the findings and conclusions of the workers’ compensation judge are

correct, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-

6-239(c)(7) (2015).

In accordance with these principles, we cannot conclude that the evidence

preponderates against the trial court’s decision. Nor does the trial court’s decision violate

any of the standards set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-217(a)(3)

(2015). Accordingly, the trial court’s decision is affirmed, and the case is remanded for

any further proceedings that may be necessary.

2

The parties have not submitted a transcript of the proceedings in the trial court or a statement of the

evidence presented at the expedited hearing. Thus, we have gleaned the facts from the documents and

exhibits filed in the trial court, including the trial court’s June 17, 2016 expedited hearing order.

2

3

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Giovanna Meier ) Docket No. 2015-02-0179

)

v. )

) State File No. 42423-2015

Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., et al. )

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 27th day of July, 2016.

Name Certified First Class Via Fax Via Email Address

Mail Mail Fax Number Email

George Todd East X jennifer@toddeast.com

Jess Maples X jess.maples@leitnerfirm.com

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