Opinion

Beene, Marshall v. Metro Services, Inc.

  • 2017 TN WC App. 1
Court
Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
Filed
Jan 12, 2017
Status
Published
On the bench
Marshall L. Davidson III, David F. Hensley, Timothy W. Conner
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Marshall Beene ) Docket No. 2016-01-0264

)

v. )

) State File No. 66494-2014

Metro Services, Inc., et al. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )

Compensation Claims )

Thomas Wyatt, Judge )

Affirmed and Remanded – Filed January 12, 2017

In this interlocutory appeal, the employer asserts the trial court erred in awarding

temporary partial disability benefits after an authorized treating physician had opined the

employee reached maximum medical improvement for his work-related injury.

Following an expedited hearing, the trial court determined the authorized treating

physician had later revised his opinion regarding maximum medical improvement,

thereby supporting an order for additional temporary disability benefits. The employer

has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s determination and remand the case for any

further proceedings that may be necessary.

Judge Timothy W. Conner delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which Presiding

Judge Marshall L. Davidson, III, and Judge David F. Hensley joined.

Gordon C. Aulgur, Lansing, Michigan, for the employer-appellant, Metro Services, Inc.

R. Lew Belvin, III, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the employee-appellee, Marshall Beene

1

Memorandum Opinion1

Marshall Beene (“Employee”) worked for Metro Services, Inc. (“Employer”), as a

ductwork installer. On August 21, 2014, he fell approximately six to eight feet from a

ladder onto a slotted metal floor. He complained of immediate pain and symptoms in his

right upper extremity. The accident was accepted as compensable and, following

emergent care, Employee was treated by Dr. Brandon Cincere, who Employer authorized.

Over the course of the following months, disputes arose regarding the extent and

nature of Employee’s work-related injuries. Employee alleged that he suffered injuries to

his right arm and right shoulder. He further alleged that a pre-existing, degenerative

condition in his neck was aggravated by the fall. Several months after the accident, he

was diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome in his right upper extremity.

Employer authorized some treatment, but denied other aspects of Employee’s claim. In

June 2015, Employee underwent right shoulder surgery, which he reported improved his

shoulder symptoms somewhat. However, he continued to complain of pain in his right

elbow, shoulder, and neck.

On October 29, 2015, Employee returned to Dr. Cincere for post-surgical follow-

up. Dr. Cincere noted that the physical therapy he had ordered had not been approved by

the insurer. A referral for pain management also had not been approved. Employee

complained of radiating pain from his neck into his shoulder and down his right arm. Dr.

Cincere commented that the “carrier [is] making it difficult to care for patient, interfering

with my treatment, I have nothing left to offer the patient.” He reiterated his requests for

referrals to Dr. Gregory Ball for pain management and to Dr. Todd Bonvallet for a

cervical spine evaluation.

Employer sought a medical records review with Dr. Thomas Koenig, an

orthopedic surgeon. In his November 14, 2015 report, Dr. Koenig opined that the August

21, 2014 fall caused right elbow lacerations, a partial tear of the right triceps, medial and

lateral epicondylitis in the right elbow, traumatic cubital tunnel syndrome, and a possible

small closed avulsion fracture of the lateral epicondyle. He also concluded that the fall

may have caused complex regional pain syndrome in the right upper extremity and a right

rotator cuff tear. He did not believe the degenerative changes in Employee’s cervical

spine were causally related to the work accident. He felt additional treatment was

warranted in the form of two or three stellate ganglion blocks, and he opined that “[t]he

patient is likely to reach maximum medical improvement 2 to 3 weeks after the second or

third repeat stellate sympathetic ganglion block.”

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.

2

Employer did not authorize any additional treatment in response to Dr. Koenig’s

report or Dr. Cincere’s recommendations. On February 9, 2016, Dr. Cincere completed a

Final Medical Report (Form C-30A) indicating that Employee had reached maximum

medical improvement on January 19, 2016. Employer continued paying temporary

disability benefits until March 3, 2016, at which time it terminated those benefits.

On July 14, 2016, Dr. Cincere responded to a written inquiry from Employee’s

attorney concerning various disputed medical issues in the case. He opined that

Employee’s work accident caused a right shoulder rotator cuff tear, right elbow tendinitis,

right cubital tunnel syndrome, and complex regional pain syndrome of the right upper

extremity. He recommended additional treatment with Dr. Ball and opined that

Employee should engage in no lifting, reaching, or repetitive use of the right upper

extremity pending additional treatment. He concluded that Employee was not at

maximum medical improvement until such treatment was completed. However, he

agreed with Dr. Koenig that Employee’s cervical spine condition did not primarily arise

from the work accident, though he commented that the chronic cervical spine problems

were “likely aggravated” by the work injury.

Employee returned to Dr. Ball on July 21, 2016, more than one year after his

previous authorized visit. Dr. Ball again diagnosed complex regional pain syndrome in

the right upper extremity and right shoulder pain. He prescribed additional stellate

ganglion blocks and “aggressive physical therapy for the shoulder and elbow.”

During the expedited hearing, Employer argued that no additional temporary

disability benefits were owed following Dr. Cincere’s completion of Form C-30A, which

placed Employee at maximum medical improvement as of January 19, 2016. It further

argued that the additional medical treatment recommended by Dr. Cincere and Dr. Ball

was related to the cervical spine condition, which did not arise primarily from the work

accident. The trial court rejected both arguments, concluding instead that Dr. Cincere

had, in effect, retracted his earlier statement regarding maximum medical improvement in

response to the written inquiry from Employee’s attorney and had recommended further

treatment for the shoulder and elbow injuries. Consequently, the trial court ordered the

payment of temporary disability benefits from the date they were terminated to the

present, as well as additional medical treatment. Employer appealed the award of

additional temporary benefits but did not appeal the award of additional medical benefits.

On appeal, Employer makes essentially the same arguments it made to the trial

court. Specifically, Employer argues that “[t]here was no evidence introduced at the

[h]earing to establish the ATP had revised or modified the MMI date for the compensable

right shoulder injury.” It also asserted that Dr. Cincere’s responses to the written inquiry

from Employee’s counsel pertained to “additional medical and MMI for the cervical

spine.” We disagree. Dr. Cincere’s July 14, 2016 response to the written inquiry clearly

indicates he believed additional treatment was warranted for the right shoulder and arm.

3

He further indicated that Employee should work with temporary restrictions until such

treatment was completed and that Employee was not at maximum medical improvement

pending the additional treatment. He also reiterated his opinion that the “work comp

carrier significantly limited my treatment of this [patient].” These opinions supported the

trial court’s award of additional temporary disability benefits in light of the authorized

physician’s revised opinion concerning maximum medical improvement for the shoulder

and arm conditions. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case for any

further proceedings that may be necessary.

4

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Marshall Beene ) Docket No. 2016-01-0264

)

v. ) State File No. 66494-2014

)

Metro Services, 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 12th day of January, 2017.

Name Certified First Class Via Fax Via Email Address

Mail Mail Fax Number Email

R. Lew Belvin, III X lew.belvin@mcmahanlawfirm.com

Gordon C. Aulgur X gordon.aulgur@accidentfund.com

Thomas Wyatt, Judge X Via Electronic Mail

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

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.