Opinion

Fowler, Landon v. Mueller Industries

  • 2016 TN WC 187
Court
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Filed
Aug 10, 2016
Status
Published
On the bench
Allen Phillips
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 12.5%

The opinion

F~ED

August 10, 2016

TN COURT OF

WORKERS' CO!\IP.E SATION

CLAIMS

Time 7:15AM

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT MEMPHIS

LANDON FOWLER, ) Docket No.: 2016-08-0212

Employee, )

)

v. )

MUELLER INDUSTRIES, ) State File No. 8325-2016

Employer, )

)

and )

SEDGWICK CMS, ) Judge Allen Phillips

Insurance Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING MEDICAL AND TEMPORARY

BENEFITS

This matter came before the undersigned Workers' Compensation Judge on July

14, 2016, upon the Request for Expedited Hearing filed by Landon Fowler pursuant to

Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239 (2015). Mr. Fowler requests medical and

temporary disability benefits for an alleged exposure injury. Mueller asserts that he failed

to established causation of his alleged injury, that he failed to provide proper notice of his

injury, and that he failed to file his claim within the applicable statute of limitations. The

Court finds the dispositive issue is causation and, for the reasons set forth below, holds

Mr. Fowler has not come forward with sufficient evidence of causation for this Court to

determine he would likely succeed at a hearing on the merits. 1 Accordingly, the Court

denies his request for benefits. 2

History of Claim

Mr. Fowler is a sixty-seven-year-old resident of Tipton County, Tennessee, who

1

The notice and statute of limitations issues need not be addressed.

2

The Court has attached a complete listing of the technical record and exhibits admitted at the Expedited Hearing to

this Order as an appendix.

operated the "chroming machine" at Mueller. The chroming machine features a part

known as the "squirrel cage," a structure containing a blower that vents fumes away from

the operator. A malfunction of the squirrel cage forms the basis of Mr. Fowler's case.

Mr. Fowler offered different versions of when the onset of symptoms began. He

alleged by affidavit that: "On or about June 1, 2014/ I began suffering breathing

problems, constant shaking, vertigo, stomach ulcers and stomach polyps due to inhaling

reverse exhaust on a chroming machine at Muller [sic] Industries while performing the

requirements of my job as a polish/chrome operator." (Ex. 4.) At the hearing, he testified

he began having stomach issues in the "middle of spring of last year," referring to 20 15.

(Emphasis added.) Regardless of the date of onset, Mr. Fowler testified he never suffered

any of his alleged health problems prior to the alleged work exposure.

Mr. Fowler testified he continued operating the chroming machine until December

8, 2015, when he began "shaking," having leg cramps, and feeling ''terrible." He reported

these symptoms to his supervisor and sought medical evaluation from Dr. Samuel

Johnson, his personal physician. According to Mr. Fowler, Dr. Johnson diagnosed

"sepsis" in his right leg and breathing difficulties. Dr. Johnson hospitalized Mr. Fowler

for one week but did not provide Mr. Fowler an opinion regarding the cause of his

ailments. Mr. Fowler offered all of Dr. Johnson's notes from July 2014 through March

2016. (Ex. 7.)

Ms. Crystal Buckner, Mueller's Human Resources Manager, testified Mr. Fowler

reported feeling ill on December 8, 2015. She assisted Mr. Fowler with the completion of

a short-term disability (STD) application that listed his health conditions as "CVA,

sepsis, and dehydration." (Ex. 11.) On the medical STD certification, Dr. Johnson marked

that the conditions were not work-related. !d. Mr. Fowler testified he drew STD until "the

end of January 2016," when he returned to work; Ms. Buckner clarified Mr. Fowler

actually drew benefits until he returned to work on February 2. On that date, Mr. Fowler

told Ms. Buckner he related his illnesses to chroming machine exhaust. She reported the

claim to Mueller's workers' compensation carrier, who completed a First Report of

Injury. (Ex. 1.)

Prior to February 2, Ms. Buckner became aware Mr. Fowler suspected possible

exposure. Mr. Fowler's suspicion stemmed from comments he heard while attending a

Christmas party at Mueller in December 2015, and shortly after his release from the

hospital. Namely, Mr. Billy Bishop, a maintenance person at Mueller, told Mr. Fowler

that another employee improperly wired the squirrel cage in July 2014, causing the

blower not to vent air in any direction. Mr. Bishop testified by affidavit he personally

repaired the machine in November 2015. Ms. Buckner admitted Mueller became aware of

3

At the hearing, Mr. Fowler testified the date he noticed symptoms was approximately July 1, 2014, rather than June

I, 2014. This technicality is not dispositive to the outcome.

2

the malfunction when Mr. Bishop brought it to her attention.

Mr. Bishop further testified that the "improper setup caused the chroming machine

to release reverse exhaust into the air." (Ex. 5.) Also, Mr. Bishop stated he "believ[ed]

Mr. Fowler inhaled reverse exhaust from the chroming machine for a long period of

time." !d.

Because of Mr. Fowler's exposure suspicions, Ms. Buckner retained an industrial

hygienist to perform testing of the air quality near the chroming machine. (Ex. 13.)

Nothing in this report caused Ms. Buckner, on behalf of Mueller, to take further action

regarding the chroming machine. Also, Ms. Buckner confirmed Mueller participated in a

voluntary TOSHA program involving routine inspections and, she was aware of no issues

with the chroming machine raised by such inspections. She knew of no other employees

suffering ill effects from any exposure.

Mr. Fowler worked from February 2 until May, when he again began "feeling

bad" and sought further care from Dr. Johnson. He did not elaborate further regarding his

condition but, testified he was admitted to the hospital for overnight observation. He

testified he told Dr. Johnson of his alleged exposures to chrome exhaust and that Dr.

Johnson told him he "didn't know" of any relation between such alleged exposure and his

health conditions. A "Medical Request Form" for STD completed by Dr. Johnson on

June 20 listed the diagnoses as "1) CVA; 2) HTN; 3) GERD and 4) Cardiomyopathy."

(Ex. 9.) Dr. Johnson checked "No" beside the question "Is this condition work-related?"

!d.

Because of his continued problems, Mr. Fowler sought further care from a Dr.

Zaidi, a pulmonologist. 4 He told Dr. Zaidi he suffered from shortness of breath and that

he had been exposed to fumes at work. As of the hearing, he had seen Dr. Zaidi on three

occasions and had undergone a chest x-ray and "some more tests." According to Mr.

Fowler, Dr. Zaidi made no diagnosis but told him that, if he were to stay away from

"chemicals" for six months, that "he should have no problems." On cross-examination,

Mr. Fowler admitted he had no medical record stating his conditions were work-related.

Mr. Fowler requested medical evaluation for his alleged exposure, specifically

requesting a panel of physicians. However, he preferred Dr. Zaidi be designated the

authorized treating physician. Further, he claimed entitlement to temporary total

disability for the period of December 8, 2015, through "January 2016," and for a second

period of"May 2016," onward.

4

Mr. Fowler offered Dr. Zaidi's records, but Mueller objected on grounds the records were not submitted ten days

prior to the Expedited Hearing. Mr. Fowler argued he received the records fewer than ten days previous. The Court

advised Mr. Fowler it would exclude the records pursuant to Tennessee Compilation Rules & Regulations 0800-02-

21-.16(6)(a) and Rule 7.0l(A) of the Practices and Procedures of this Court because the records were not filed

within ten days of the hearing. Mr. Fowler elected to proceed.

3

Mueller argued Mr. Fowler had not shown an exposure to any harmful substance. 5

However, even if he had, Mr. Fowler produced no medical evidence establishing a causal

relationship between his ailments and his employment at Mueller.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Standard Applied

At this Expedited Hearing, Mr. Fowler need not prove every element of his claim

by a preponderance of the evidence in order to obtain relief. 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). Instead, he must come forward

with sufficient evidence from which this Court might determine he is likely to prevail at a

hearing on the merits. !d.; Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (20 15).

Causation

Mr. Fowler must establish an injury by accident arising primarily out of and in the

course and scope of employment that causes disablement or the need for medical

treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2015). The injury must be caused by a

"specific incident or set of incidents identifiable by time and place of occurrence." Tenn.

Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A) (2015).

As our Appeals Board explained in Smiley v. Four Seasons Coach Leasing, Inc.,

Nos. 2016-06-0104 and 2016-06-0105, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App Bd. LEXIS 28 (Tenn.

Workers' Comp. App. Bd. July 15, 2016):

A "set of incidents," by definition, cannot occur instantaneously, but must

occur over some period of time. Thus, to establish a compensable injury by

accident, an employee need not prove a single, sudden event accompanied

by the immediate onset of pain or other symptoms, but can meet his . . .

burden at an expedited hearing by presenting evidence from which the trial

court can determine he ... is likely to prove a compensable set of incidents

over an identifiable period of time.

!d. at 22. Thus, Mr. Fowler might establish a compensable injury if he presents evidence

his conditions arose primarily from exposure to chroming machine exhaust over an

identifiable period. Based upon the evidence presented, the Court holds he has not met

5

Mueller moved for a "directed verdict" at the close of Mr. Fowler's proof. The Court considered the motion as one

for involuntary dismissal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02(2). The Court overruled the motion at

that time and took the matter under advisement. The result within this Order renders a determination on the motion

unnecessary.

4

his burden at this Expedited Hearing stage of the proceedings.

Mr. Fowler has produced no medical evidence that his condition is related to an

alleged exposure to chroming machine exhaust at Mueller. Such failure is fatal to his

claim. The Workers' Compensation Law requires a showing that an injury contributed

more than fifty percent in causing the disablement or need for medical treatment,

considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C) (2015). This showing must

be to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, which means, "in the opinion of the

physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or

possibility." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(D) (2014). Here, Dr. Johnson checked a

box on the STD form stating that the conditions at issue did not arise out of the

employment. A careful review of Dr. Johnson's records reveals largely illegible,

handwritten notes but, from those, the Court can find no mention of any work-relation.

This is confirmed by Mr. Fowler's own testimony that Dr. Johnson did not discuss with

him the cause of his conditions. Further, Mr. Fowler conceded he has no medical record

from any physician that attributes any of his conditions to his alleged work exposures.

In support of his position, Mr. Fowler cites Reeser v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc.,

938 S.W.2d 690, 692 (Tenn. 1997), for the proposition that the ''causation requirement is

satisfied if the injury has a rational, causal connection to the work" and that "any

reasonable doubt in this regard is to be construed in [his] favor." He asserts his case is

"not a novel issue," and medical proof that his injury "could be" related to his work at

Mueller is sufficient when coupled with his lay testimony from which it may be inferred

his work is the cause of his injury. (T.R. 5 at 1.)

In making these arguments, Mr. Fowler relies upon authority inapplicable to

injuries occurring on or after July 1, 2014. Namely, this Court is not to construe the law

remedially in Mr. Fowler's favor but, rather must construe it fairly and impartially,

favoring neither he nor Mueller. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-116 (2015). Further, the

applicable causation standard is the arising primarily definition of injury cited above.

However, the Court notes that, even under the prior standard, medical proof purportedly

linking an injury to the employee's work could "not be speculative or so uncertain

regarding the cause of the injury that attributing it to the plaintiffs employment would be

an arbitrary determination or a mere possibility." Tindall v. Waring Park Ass 'n, 725

S.W.2d 935, 937 (Tenn. 1987). In this case, Mr. Fowler has yet to produce any medical

proof establishing causation.

Given the absence of causation evidence, the Court need not address Mr. Fowler's

claims for medical and temporary benefits.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Mr. Fowler's claim against Mueller for medical and temporary disability benefits is

5

denied at this time.

2. This matter is set for a Status Hearing on October 19, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. Central

Time.

ENTERED this the lOth day of August, 2016.

Judge Allen P allips

Court of Workers' Com pens

Status Hearing:

A Status Hearing has been set with Judge Allen Phillips, Court of Workers'

Compensation Claims. You must call 731-422-5263 or toll-free at 855-543-5038 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

your further participation.

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

6

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.

7

APPENDIX

Exhibits:

1. First Report of Work Injury;

2. Wage Statement;

3. Chrome Operator Job Description;

4. Affidavit of Landon Fowler;

5. Affidavit of Billy Bishop;

6. Affidavit of Crystal Buckner;

7. Medical Records ofDr. Samuel Johnson;

8. Statement of Landon Fowler from Human Resources file;

9. "Medical Request Form" for Short Term Disability Application;

10. Statement ofBilly Bishop from Human Resources file;

11. "Proof of Loss" for Short Term Disability Application;

12. Summary of Short Term Disability payments and salary of Landon Fowler from

December 13, 2015, through February 21, 2016; and

13. "Industrial Hygiene Exposure Assessment Report," dated January 28, 2016.

Technical record:

1. Petition for Benefit Determination;

2. Dispute Certification Notice;

3. Request for Expedited Hearing with attached affidavit of Mr. Fowler;

4. Employer/Carrier Pre-Expedited Hearing Brief; and

5. Position Statement of Mr. Fowler. 6

6

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.

8

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 1oth day

of August, 2016.

Name Certified Via Via Service sent to:

Mail Fax Email

William A. Wooten, Esq.

Employee's Counsel X wawooten(a),gmail.com

Kevin Washburn, Esq.

Employer's Counsel X kwashbum@allensummers.com

, Clerk of Court

orkers' Compensation Claims

WC.Cou rtCierk@tn .gov

9

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.