Opinion

Owens, Sheila vs. Sitters, Etc.

  • 2018 TN WC 23
Court
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Filed
Mar 12, 2018
Status
Published
On the bench
Audrey Headrick
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT CHATTANOOGA

Sheila Owens, ) Docket No. 2017-01-0401

Employee, )

v. )

Sitters, Etc., ) State File No. 44323-2015

Employer, )

And )

Bridgefield Casualty Ins. Co., ) Judge Audrey Headrick

Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

(DECISION ON THE RECORD)

This matter came before the Court on Sheila Owens' Request for Expedited

Hearing filed November 7, 2017. 1 Sitters, Etc. did not request an evidentiary hearing.

The Court issued a docketing notice on February 9, 2018, listing the documents for

consideration. The central legal issue is whether Ms. Owens is likely to establish at a

hearing on the merits that she is entitled to medical treatment for her cervical condition.

This Court finds it needs no additional information to determine this issue and holds Ms.

Owens is entitled to the requested benefit at this time.

History of Claim

Ms. Owens, a nursing assistant for Sitters, injured her left shoulder and back on

June 9, 2015, when she caught a falling client. She received authorized treatment at

Parkridge Hospital and Physicians Care. Following conservative treatment, Physicians

Care referred Ms. Owens to see Dr. Rickey Hutcheson, an orthopedic surgeon, for her

back. Ms. Owens disclosed to Dr. Hutcheson that she was in pain management due to

prior cervical surgeries. Dr. Hutcheson testified he did not examine Ms. Owens' neck,

1

The Order on Show Cause Hearing and Order Granting Employer's Motion for Extension of Time

discuss the circumstances surrounding the delays in moving the Request for Expedited Hearing forward.

1

and she made no complaints regarding her neck. Sitters, Etc. only authorized Dr.

Hutcheson to treat her back.

For Ms. Owens' shoulder, she selected Dr. Robert Mastey from a panel of

orthopedic surgeons. The records reflected that Dr. Mastey's former partner, Dr. Craig

Humphreys, performed Ms. Owens' prior cervical surgeries. Dr. Mastey indicated he

frequently discussed Ms. Owens' neck pain with her due to the interplay between the

neck and the shoulder. Since Dr. Mastey believed most of her pain stemmed from her

cervical condition, he only provided conservative treatment of her left shoulder rotator

cuff tear.

While treating with Dr. Mastey, Ms. Owens simultaneously sought unauthorized

treatment with Dr. Richard Pearce, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon who took over

Dr. Humphreys' practice. The records stated that Ms. Owens saw Dr. Pearce upon

referral by her primary care physician. Dr. Pearce received authorization to treat Ms.

Owens from the carrier for her prior, work-related cervical injury.

Dr. Pearce's office ordered diagnostic testing due to Ms. Owens's neck pain,

including radiculopathy into both upper extremities with numbness and tingling. Based

on the test results, Dr. Pearce determined that a C3-4 spinal cord compression caused her

symptoms and recommended an anterior cervical discectomy, decompression, and fusion.

Dr. Pearce indicated that Ms. Owens might develop permanent neurologic problems if the

cord compression continued or worsened. Further, Dr. Pearce answered "yes" when

asked if the need for surgery was "[c]aused by the old condition being aggravated by the

new [June 9, 2015] injury." (Ex. 10.)

Dr. Pearce related the cause of Ms. Owens' current cervical condition to the work

injury. He testified that, "Based on the history that she gave to me as far as onset of

symptoms and the anatomic findings at C3-4 being obviously a level not previously

operated on, I would relate it as to [the June 9] event." (Ex. 7.) Dr. Pearce compared Ms.

Owens' diagnostic testing from 20 12 to 20 16, and stated, "The amount of cord

compression and the size of that disc herniation [at C3-4] was obviously much worse."

!d. He also discussed the timing of the anatomic change, admitting, "And at what point

that [change] occurred between the last MRI of 20 12 versus 20 16 I cannot say except,

based on her history, that she started having symptoms, and now we have a new MRI

which shows a definite anatomic change." !d. Dr. Pearce acknowledged Ms. Owens'

April27, 2012 cervical MRI report referenced a "[m]otor vehkle accident" in the history

section. 2 Even after reviewing the 2012 MRl, Dr. Pearce rejterated that Ms. Owens' June

9, 2015 injury proximally caused her condition at C3-4.

2

Ms. Owens testified she sustained whiplash due to the motor vehicle accident in 2012 .

2

Dr. Mastey, the authorized physician for Ms. Owens' shoulder, offered no opinion

as to the cause of Ms. Owens' cervical complaints. Instead, Dr. Mastey deferred to Dr.

Pearce, whom he believed was in the best position to address causation. After reviewing

Dr. Pearce's causation opinion, Dr. Mastey again deferred to him and stated he had "no

reason to disagree with Dr. Pearce." (Ex. 6.) Dr. Mastey also confirmed that Ms. Owens

had not returned to his clinic for cervical treatment since she last treated with Dr.

Humphreys, his former partner, approximately eight to ten years ago.

After Ms. Owens notified Sitters about her cervical condition, it sent her to Dr. Jay

Jolley, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for an independent medical evaluation

(IME). He acknowledged that on June 9, 2015, "there could've been some aggravation

of the pre-existing degeneration." (Ex. 8.) Dr. Jolley initially determined that Ms.

Owens' "overwhelming degeneration and arthritis at [C3-4] [caused] her significant pain

and [was] more responsible [for the recommended surgery] than the incident." ld. He

explained that, "her degeneration at C3-4 [was] not injury related." Jd. However, Dr.

Jolley later agreed with Dr. Pearce's causation opinion. 3 ld.

Ms. Owens asked the Court to order Sitters to authorize Dr. Pearce to perform the

recommended cervical surgery. She contended that Dr. Mastey deferred to Dr. Pearce's

opinion regarding causation and surgery, and Dr. Jolley agreed with Dr. Pearce's opinion.

Sitters countered that Dr. Pearce based his opinions on false and/or incomplete

information, making it unreliable. It also contended that Dr. Pearce's testimony failed to

rebut the presumption of correctness afforded the opinions of Drs. Mastey and

Hutcheson, who concluded Ms. Owens did not sustain a work-related cervical injury.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

General Legal Principles

Ms. Owens need not prove every element of her claim by a preponderance of the

evidence to obtain relief at an expedited hearing. Instead, she must come forward with

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

hearing on the merits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(l) (2017); McCord v.

Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9

(Mar. 27, 20 15). Applying these principles to the facts of this case, the Court finds that

Ms. Owens is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits.

3

Dr. Pearce marked "yes" when asked ifthe surgery he recommended was "[c]aused by the old condition

being aggravated by the new [June 9, 20 15] injury."

3

Ms. Owens requested that the Court order Sitters order additional medical

treatment with her own physician, Dr. Pearce. To grant her request, Ms. Owens must

show, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the work incident "contributed

more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical

treatment, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). Likewise, an

aggravation of a pre-existing condition is compensable only if "it can be shown to a

reasonable degree of medical certainty that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in

the course and scope of employment." !d. A physician is not required "to use particular

words or phrases included in the statutory definition of 'injury' to establish the requisite

medical proof to succeed at trial." Panzarella v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2017 TN Wrk.

Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 30, at *14 (May 15, 2017). However, sufficient proof is

necessary "from which the trial court can conclude that the statutory requirements of an

injury ... are satisfied." !d. Further, as the treating physicians, the presumption of

correctness on the issue of causation attaches to Drs. Hutcheson and Mastey. Engler v.

Able Moving Co., No. W2016-02125-SC-R3-WC, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 713, at *11-14

(Tenn. Workers' Comp. Panel Oct. 30, 2017).

Here, Ms. Owens' authorized treating physicians did not render an opinion on

causation of her cervical condition. Dr. Mastey, who treated Ms. Owens' shoulder, had

no opinion regarding causation of her cervical condition and deferred the issue of

causation to Dr. Pearce. Likewise, Dr. Hutcheson, who treated Ms. Owens' back,

expressed no opinion on this issue. However, Dr. Pearce, who recommended surgery at

C3-4, testified that the June 9, 2015 injury aggravated Ms. Owens' pre-existing cervical

condition necessitating surgery. Dr. Jolley, who performed Sitters' IME, agreed with Dr.

Pearce's opinion. Therefore, the Court holds that Ms. Owens provided sufficient

evidence of her entitlement to medical benefits for her cervical condition and satisfied her

burden at this interlocutory stage. Her request for relief is granted.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Sitters or its workers' compensation carrier shall provide Ms. Owens with a panel

of orthopedic surgeons for treatment, including surgery, of the June 9, 2015

cervical injury. Ms. Owens or the providers shall furnish bills for the charges

incurred for compensable care to Sitters or its carrier, who shall timely pay the

charges.

2. This matter is set for a Status Hearing on May 10, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., Eastern

Time. The parties must call 423-634-0164 or toll-free at 855-383-0001 to

participate. Failure to call may result in a determination of the issues without the

parties' participation.

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

4

of this Order as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(3)

(2017). The Insurer or Self-Insured Employer must submit confinnation of

compliance with this Order to the Bureau by email to

WCComgliance.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.

ENTERED March 12, 2018.

Compensation Claims

5

APPENDIX

Exhibits:

1. First Report

2. Panel

3. Wage Statement

4. Deposition of Sheila D. Owens

5. Deposition of Rickey Hutcheson, D.O.

6. Deposition of Robert Daniel Mastey, M.D.

7. Deposition of Richard G. Pearce, M.D.

8. Deposition of Jay E. Jolley, M.D.

9. Billing statements:

a. Parkridge Medical Center;

b. SE Tennessee Emergency Physicians, PLLC;

c. Chattanooga Ear, Nose & Throat; and,

d. Diagnostic Center

10. Medical Records of Sheila Owens

Technical record:

1. Petition for Benefit Determination

2. Dispute Certification Notice

3. Motion for Medical Treatment

4. Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition of Sheila D. Owens

5. Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Medical Treatment

6. Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition of

Sheila Owens

7. Order Denying Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition

8. Notice of Deposition (Sheila Owens)

9. Show Cause Order

10. Request for Expedited Hearing

11.Employer's Response to Show Cause Order

12. Employee's Reply to Employer's Response to Show Cause Order

13. Order on Show Cause Hearing

14. Employer's Motion for Attorney Fees

15. Employer's Motion for Extension of Time

16. Notice of Deposition (Dr. Jolley)

17. Notice to Take the Deposition of Dr. Richard G. Pearce

18. Order Denying Employer's Motion for Attorney Fee

19. Order Granting Employer's Motion for Extension of Time

20.Employer's Response to Employee's Request for Expedited Hearing

2l.Notice ofFiling (Deposition ofDr. Hutcheson)

22. Notice of Filing (Deposition of Dr. Mastey)

23. Notice of Filing (Deposition of Ms. Owens)

6

24. Notice of Filing (Deposition of Dr. Pearce)

25. Notice of Filing (Deposition of Dr. Jolley)

26. Docketing Notice for On-The-Record Determination

27. Joint Notice of Filing Medical Records of Sheila Owens

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 March 12,2018.

Name Certified Fax Email Service sent to:

Mail

Ronald J. Berke, X r01mie@berkeattys .com

Employee Attorney margo@berk eattvs.com

Charles E. Pierce, X ~i erce@mij s . com

Employer Attorney

PE~CLERK ~Lf>'V

wc.courtclerk@tn. gov

7

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.