Opinion

Russell, Jr., William v. Futuristic, Inc.

  • 2017 TN WC App. 7
Court
Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
Filed
Jan 24, 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

William Russell, Jr. ) Docket No. 2016-02-0299

)

v. ) State File No. 94942-2015

)

Futuristic, Inc., et al. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )

Compensation Claims, )

Brian K. Addington, Judge )

Affirmed and Remanded - Filed January 24, 2017

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee contends the trial court erred in denying his

request for benefits for a hernia that he alleges resulted from heavy lifting he performed

in the course and scope of his work for the employer. The employer denied the claim,

asserting the employee had not presented evidence sufficient to establish that he suffered

a compensable hernia or that he provided proper notice of his alleged work injury. At the

employee’s request and without objection from the employer, the trial court rendered a

decision on the record without convening an evidentiary hearing. It determined the

employee had presented insufficient proof to establish he will likely succeed on the

merits of his claim at trial and denied the employee’s request for temporary disability and

medical benefits. The employee has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s decision and

remand the case for further proceedings as 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.

William E. Phillips, Rogersville, Tennessee, for the employee-appellant, William M.

Russell, Jr.

Fredrick R. Baker, Cookeville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, Futuristic, Inc.

1

Memorandum Opinion1

William Russell, Jr. (“Employee”), a sixty-eight-year-old resident of Hawkins

County, Tennessee, filed a petition for benefit determination alleging he suffered a hernia

arising primarily out of and occurring in the course and scope of his employment with

Futuristic, Inc. (“Employer”). He asserted that on an unspecified date in August 2015,

while working as a “cutter” in the sewing department, he lifted a roll of fabric and felt a

stinging and burning sensation. He continued his work without reporting the occurrence

to Employer. His employment ended approximately two months later when Employer

ceased operations on October 15, 2015.

On two separate occasions in September 2015, Employee presented to HealthStar

Physicians with complaints of urinary frequency and low back pain. At both visits, the

attending medical provider detected no palpable masses or tenderness on abdominal

examination. Employee was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection. Because lab results

revealed blood in his urine, Employee was referred to urologist Dr. Phillip Serbin for

evaluation. On November 13, 2015, Dr. Serbin noted multiple urethral strictures and

recommended further imaging. He also noted that, on examination, Employee had a right

inguinal hernia, and he referred Employee to a general surgeon for evaluation.

Employee first saw Dr. Shane Edwards for his inguinal hernia on February 10,

2016. The records of that visit indicate Employee reported having lifted heavy material

at work in August, 2015 and feeling a burning and stinging sensation, but he denied

noticing a visible bulge. Dr. Edwards noted he could not ascertain the exact nature of

Employee’s inguinal hernia. He recommended surgical repair.

Employee first reported the hernia to Employer on November 20, 2015,

approximately one week after seeing Dr. Serbin and three months prior to his visit with

Dr. Edwards. He acknowledged that he could not pinpoint a particular day in August on

which he had been injured, but he maintained that the hernia was, nonetheless, work-

related. Employer denied the claim, asserting Employee failed to give timely notice of

his injury and failed to establish he had suffered a compensable injury. Following

unsuccessful efforts to resolve Employee’s claim through mediation, Employee requested

an expedited hearing and a determination based on a review of the file without an

evidentiary hearing. After reviewing relevant medical records, Employee’s affidavit, and

other exhibits, the trial court issued an order finding that Employee had not presented

sufficient proof to establish he will likely prevail at a hearing on the merits of his claim.

In making this determination, the trial court concluded Employee did not come forward

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

with sufficient evidence of a compensable hernia and did not establish proper notice of

his claim. Employee has appealed.

It is well settled that although an employee bears the burden of proof on all

essential elements of his or her claim, at an expedited hearing, the employee need only

come forward with sufficient proof from which a trial court can determine he or she will

likely prevail at trial. See, e.g., Buchanan v. Carlex Glass Co., No. 2015-01-0012, 2015

TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 39, at *6 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Sept. 29,

2015). Here, the trial court concluded that Employee had presented insufficient evidence

to meet that lesser standard. We agree. Employee presented no proof that the hernia

occurred as a result of his work activities or that it appeared “suddenly” or “immediately”

following a work accident. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-212 (2016). In fact, no mention

of a possible work-related explanation for his injury appears in the medical records until

February 2016, some six months after the injury allegedly occurred. Employee missed

no work as a result of the injury and reported no work accident until November 20, 2015,

over one month after Employer had ceased operations. In short, aside from Employee’s

assertion that the injury occurred at work, there is simply no evidence to establish he

suffered a compensable injury as required by Tennessee Code Annotated sections 50-6-

102(14) and 50-6-212.

Because Employee failed to present sufficient evidence to establish he will likely

prevail at a hearing on the merits of his claim, any issue concerning whether he provided

timely notice of his alleged injury is pretermitted.

Finally, we note that Employee filed a supplemental affidavit contemporaneously

with his notice of appeal. Employer filed a motion to exclude the supplemental affidavit,

arguing it should not be admitted or considered on appeal because it contained factual

assertions not presented to or considered by the trial court. As we have previously

observed, “[e]valuating a trial court’s decision on appeal necessarily entails taking into

account information the trial court had before it at the time the issues were decided by the

court, as opposed to the potentially open-ended universe of information parties may seek

to present on appeal following an adverse decision.” Hadzic v. Averitt Express, No.

2014-02-0064, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 14, at *13 n.4 (Tenn. Workers’

Comp. App. Bd. May 18, 2015). Thus, “we will not consider on appeal testimony,

exhibits, or other materials that were not properly admitted into evidence at the hearing

before the trial judge.” Id. Therefore, Employer’s motion to exclude Employee’s

supplemental affidavit is granted.

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the evidence does not preponderate against

the trial court’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision and remand

the case for any further proceedings that may be necessary.

3

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

William Russell, Jr. ) Docket No. 2016-02-0299

)

v. ) State File No. 94942-2015

)

Futuristic, 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 24th day of January, 2017.

Name Certified First Class Via Fax Via Email Address

Mail Mail Fax Number Email

William E. Phillips X wep@phillipsandhale.com

Frederick R. Baker X fbaker@wimberlylawson.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

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.