Opinion

Stocklin, YZ v. Barrett Distribution

  • 2019 TN WC 20
Court
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Filed
Feb 6, 2019
Status
Published
On the bench
Joshua Davis Baker
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 12.5%

The opinion

FILED

Feb 06, 2019

10:20 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT MEMPHIS

YZ STOCKLIN, ) Docket No. 2017-08-1014

Employee, )

v. )

BARRETT DISTRIBUTION, ) State File No. 59533-2015

Employer, )

and )

AMGUARD INSURANCE CO., ) Judge Joshua Davis Baker

Carrier. )

COMPENSATION HEARING ORDER

The Court convened a compensation hearing on January 24, 2019. The main legal

issue is whether Mr. Stocklin is permanently and totally disabled. Considering his

anatomical impairment, physical limitations and pain, work history, testimony and the

local job market, the Court holds Mr. Stocklin is permanently and totally disabled.

History of Claim

Mr. Stocklin, born October 13, 1959, is a fifty-nine-year-old resident of Shelby

County, Tennessee. He graduated high school and has an associate’s degree in criminal

justice. After graduating, he worked for one year as a prison guard. He applied for a

state trooper position but did not get the job. Afterward, Mr. Stocklin worked warehouse

jobs and eventually worked for Barrett Manufacturing. He worked for Barrett for fifteen

years and was promoted to warehouse manager before suffering a severe injury.

On July 17, 2015, Mr. Stocklin arrived at Barrett early and noticed that the

entrance’s large metal gate, weighing approximately 2,500 pounds, was only partially

opened. He stopped his car to open the gate. As he opened it, the gate support collapsed,

and the gate fell on him. Mr. Stocklin suffered near-amputation of his left foot at the

ankle and also injured his back and left knee. He immediately went to the hospital for

surgery.

Barrett accepted the claim, and several physicians treated Mr. Stocklin. Dr.

Francis Camillo diagnosed a low back vertebral fracture and treated him conservatively.

Dr. Edward Perez performed two surgeries to Mr. Stocklin’s left ankle to treat his open

wound and insert hardware to repair his compound fracture. Dr. Frederick Azar

diagnosed a posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) tear and performed arthroscopic surgery

after conservative treatment failed. In total, his injuries collectively resulted in fourteen-

percent whole body impairment.1

Dr. Perez and Dr. Azar both restricted Mr. Stocklin to sedentary work. In addition

to this restriction, Dr. Perez certified that he could not return to his prior occupation due

to the severity of his injury. However, he also stated that Mr. Stocklin “can work in

many other things that do not require the physical amount of work relative to his previous

job.” Dr. Perez placed Mr. Stocklin at maximum medical improvement on April 20,

2017. Mr. Stocklin never returned to Dr. Perez after his release.

Mr. Stocklin testified that the accident continues to cause intense pain requiring

medication. He cannot sit or stand for long periods of time and must switch positions

often to relieve his pain. He only sleeps about four hours per night, and the pain

medication makes him drowsy. Mr. Stocklin described being in a “fog” after taking the

medication, which was testimony his wife echoed. Mr. Stocklin stated that when he

drove his daughter to school—a trip of only seven miles—he sometimes fell asleep in the

car line. For this reason and due to his inability to sit for extended periods, Mr. Stocklin

testified he cannot travel.

Mr. Stocklin missed a significant amount of work due to his injuries and received

temporary disability benefits during his absence. He earned $1,217.57 per week,

resulting in a weekly compensation rate of $730.53.

Two vocational experts, Dr. David Strauser and Mr. David Earl Stewart, evaluated

Mr. Stocklin and reached opposite conclusions. Dr. Strauser determined that Mr.

Stocklin experienced “a complete loss of earning capacity” because of the accident and

could only perform sedentary work. He testified that although Mr. Stocklin has a college

education, solid work history, and managerial experience in a warehouse setting, his

constant pain in conjunction with his inability to walk without a cane and maintain a

seated or standing position for more than a few minutes at a time prohibit him from

finding and maintaining a new job. He also said the constant pain would make it hard for

him to learn the requirements of a new position.

1

Dr. Perez assigned eight-percent impairment, Dr. Azar assigned one percent, and Dr. Camillo assigned

five percent.

2

Mr. Stewart stated that Mr. Stocklin suffered a forty-six percent vocational

disability based on his physical limitations, education and work history. Mr. Stewart did

not factor in Mr. Stocklin’s complaints of pain, non-prescribed use of a cane, and use of

pain medication when reaching his opinion, since he considered these factors too

subjective to incorporate into the analysis.

Despite finding that Mr. Stocklin suffered only a forty-six percent vocational

disability, Mr. Stewart identified only eleven open positions in the greater Memphis area

suitable for Mr. Stocklin. Five of these eleven positions were in the security industry.

Dr. Strauser testified that Mr. Stocklin could not maintain any of the identified jobs.

In addition to the positions Mr. Stewart identified, Barrett also engaged Work

Finders to seek a position for Mr. Stocklin. Work Finders contacted him in the fall of

2018 to discuss an opportunity as a warehouse manager. Mr. Stocklin said that he

received the call without warning and had no idea who Work Finders represented, so he

declined.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Mr. Stocklin must prove all elements of his case by a preponderance of the

evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2018). As the parties agreed, Mr. Stocklin

suffered a compensable accident resulting in permanent impairment and has the right to

future medical treatment for his injuries.

Permanent Disability

The central legal issue is whether he is permanently and totally disabled. The

Court finds that he is.

When an injury “totally incapacitates the employee from working at an occupation

that brings the employee an income, the employee shall be considered totally disabled[.]”

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-207(4)(B). The assessment of permanent total disability is

based on numerous factors, including the employee’s skills and training, education, age,

local job opportunities, and the capacity to work at the kinds of employment available in

the disabled condition. Roberson v. Loretto Casket Co., 722 S.W.2d 380, 384 (Tenn.

1986). Although a rating of anatomical disability by a medical expert is also one of the

relevant factors, “the vocational disability is not restricted to the precise estimate of

anatomical disability made by a medical witness.” Henson v. City of Lawrenceburg, 851

S.W.2d 809, 812 (Tenn. 1993). In addition, the employee’s “own assessment of [his]

physical condition and resulting disability is competent testimony that should be

considered[.]” McIlvain v. Russell Stover Candies, Inc., 996 S.W.2d 179, 183 (Tenn.

3

1999).

In considering these factors, the Court holds that Mr. Stocklin cannot find and

maintain work to provide income because of his constant pain, physical limitations, age,

work history, and the local job market. Mr. Stocklin can neither sit nor stand for more

than a short period of time, and he uses a cane to walk. The Court noticed that

throughout the hearing, Mr. Stocklin repeatedly switched positions and was in obvious

pain. He takes pain medication that makes him drowsy and affects his driving.

While Mr. Stocklin has a college education and extensive work background in

warehouse operations and management, the Court finds neither of these factors assistive

in gaining employment. He has an associate’s degree in criminal justice but worked in

the field for only one year as a prison guard, so he has no managerial experience in

criminal justice. Additionally, his physical limitations, especially his inability to sit or

stand for more than a few minutes, would prevent him from performing law enforcement

or security work. Mr. Stocklin could not chase a suspect or protect others or property

from harm in his physical condition.

These same physical limitations preclude Mr. Stocklin from further work in

warehouse management. While he has extensive experience in this setting, Mr. Stocklin

testified that all of these positions still require physical labor. He said that although he

supervised others, he still performed general warehouse duties such as packaging and

transporting items in the warehouse and driving a forklift when filling in for absent

employees. Because he can no longer do any of those tasks, the Court holds he could not

find and maintain work as a warehouse manager.

The Court also finds that Mr. Stocklin’s age would adversely affect his

employment search. Although he has a solid work history and ability to learn new tasks,

he is now fifty-nine years old and has been out of the workforce for several years. Plus,

as Dr. Strauser stated, his constant pain would inhibit his ability to learn new workplace

skills.

The local job market is also not favorable for Mr. Stocklin, as the proof showed

very few jobs available in his disabled condition. Dr. Strauser did not provide a labor

market analysis after determining Mr. Stocklin could not work. Also, Mr. Stewart could

only identify eleven open positions suitable for Mr. Stocklin. Of those eleven positions,

five involved security work, which the Court finds he could not perform. Additionally,

no proof suggested that Mr. Stocklin could perform the duties of the warehouse

management position suggested through Work Finders.

Finally, Mr. Stocklin believes he can no longer work. The Court found him

credible. His extensive, unblemished work history leads the Court to believe that Mr.

4

Stocklin would work if he could.

For all these reasons, the Court holds that Mr. Stocklin is permanently and totally

disabled. He is, therefore, entitled to weekly benefits from April 21, 2017, the day after

MMI,2 “until [he] is, by age, eligible for full benefits in the Old Age Insurance Benefit

Program under the Social Security Act.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-207(4)(A)(i).

Attorney Fee and Recalculated Award

Before the Court can award an attorney fee in excess of $10,000, Tennessee Code

Annotated section 50-6-226(a)(2)(C) requires specific findings of the factors in

Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5, which include:

(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions

involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly;

(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the

particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer;

(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services;

(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;

(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances;

(6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client;

(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers

performing the services;

(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent;

(9) prior advertisements or statements by the lawyer with respect to the fees

the lawyer charges; and

(10) whether the fee agreement is in writing.

The Court finds this case required significant time and expertise on the part of Mr.

Stocklin’s counsel. A fee of twenty percent is both statutorily-authorized and customary

in cases brought before this Court. Further, the amount is appropriate for successfully

shepherding a complicated case through litigation, including detailed medical proof from

three physicians and vocational experts. All the applicable factors, including the

experience and ability of Mr. Stocklin’s attorney, favor the requested fee.3 Therefore,

under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(4)(A)(ii)(a) and section 50-6-

2

“Permanent disability benefits, whether total or partial, begin accruing on the date that the employee

attains maximum medical improvement.” Smith v. U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co., 14 S.W.3d 739, 745 (Tenn.

2000).

3

Mr. Stocklin’s counsel filed an affidavit concerning her fee after conclusion of the trial. The Court also

considered the affidavit in making the fee decision.

5

207(4)(A)(iii), the Court commutes twenty percent of the first 450 weeks of permanent

total disability benefits, or $65,747.70, for Mr. Stocklin’s attorney fee.

Additionally, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(4)(A)(ii)(c) provides:

After the total amount of the commuted lump sum is determined, the

amount of the weekly disability benefit shall be recalculated to distribute

the total remaining permanent total benefits in equal weekly installments

beginning with the date of entry of the order and terminating on the date the

employee’s disability benefits terminate pursuant to subdivision (4)(A)(i).

Mr. Stocklin will be eligible for full benefits in the Old Age Insurance Benefit

Program on August 13, 2026. The period from April 20, 2017, to August 13, 2026, totals

486.14 weeks, which at the compensation rate of $730.53 totals benefits of $355,159.30.

Reducing that amount by the attorney fee of $65,747.70 yields an adjusted total benefit of

$289,411.60. This amount divided by 486.14 weeks equals an adjusted weekly

compensation rate of $595.33. Barrett shall pay Mr. Stocklin’s disability benefits at this

rate.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Barrett shall pay Mr. Stocklin a lump sum of $44,343.11, which is the amount

permanent disability benefits accrued from April 21, 2017, to February 1,

2019, minus a credit of $12,105.93 for temporary disability overpayment and

advance of permanent disability benefits.

2. Barrett shall continue to make permanent total disability payments to Mr.

Stocklin at the rate of $595.33 per week until he becomes eligible for full

social security retirement benefits on October 13, 2026.

3. Barrett shall provide Mr. Stocklin with future reasonable and necessary

medical treatment for his injuries.

4. The Court further finds Mr. Stocklin’s counsel, Monica Rejaei, is entitled to a

fee of twenty percent, or $65,747.70, of the permanent total disability award.

The Court commutes this portion of the award to a lump sum. Ms. Rejaei may

submit a motion for discretionary costs, unless the parties reach an agreement

on this issue.

5. Barrett Manufacturing shall pay court costs of $150.00 to the Court Clerk.

6

6. Barrett Manufacturing shall prepare and submit to the Court Clerk a Statistical

Data Form (SD2) within ten business days of this order becoming final.

7. Absent an appeal to the Appeals Board, this order shall become final thirty

days after issuance.

ENTERED ON FEBRUARY 6, 2019.

_____________________________________

Judge Joshua Davis Baker

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

7

APPENDIX

Exhibits:

1. Dr. Strauser’s CV

2. Dr. Strauser’s report

3. Dr. Perez’s deposition and attachments

4. Dr. Camillo’s deposition and attachments

5. Dr. Azar’s deposition and attachments

6. Dr. Perez’s physician certification form

7. Medical records filed January 10, 2019

8. Photograph

9. Mr. David Earl Stewart’s report

Technical record:

1. Petition for Benefit Determination

2. Dispute Certification Notice

3. Scheduling Hearing Order

4. Barrett’s Witness and Exhibit List

5. Mr. Stocklin’s Witness List

6. Mr. Stocklin’s Exhibit List

7. Barrett’s Pre-Compensation Hearing Statement

8. Mr. Stocklin’s Pre-Compensation Hearing Statement

9. Barrett’s Brief

10. Mr. Stocklin’s Brief

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent to the following

recipients by the following methods of service on February 6, 2019.

Name Certified First Via Service sent to:

Mail Class Email

Mail

Monica Rejaei, X mrejaei@nstlaw.com

Employee’s Attorney cmcgrath@nstlaw.com

Teri Bernal, X tbernal@chartwelllaw.com

Employer’s Attorney

_____________________________________

Penny Shrum, Clerk

Court of Workers' Compensation Claims

WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov

9

II

I 'I

Compensation Hearing Order Right to Appeal:

If you disagree with this Compensation Hearing Order, you may appeal to the Workers'

Compensation Appeals Board or the Tennessee Supreme Court. To appeal to the Workers'

Compensation Appeals Board, you must:

1. Complete the enclosed form entitled: "Compensation Hearing Notice of Appeal," and file

the form with the Clerk of the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims within thirty

calendar days of the date the compensation hearing order was filed. When filing the

Notice of Appeal, you must serve a copy upon the opposing party (or attorney, if

represented).

2. You must pay, via check, money order, or credit card, a $75.00 filing fee within ten

calendar days after filing of the Notice of Appeal. Payments can be made in-person at

any Bureau office or by U.S. mail, hand-delivery, or other delivery service. In the

alternative, you may file an Affidavit of Indigency (form available on the Bureau's

website or any Bureau office) seeking a waiver ofthe filing fee. You must file the fully-

completed Affidavit of Indigency within ten calendar days of filing the Notice of

Appeal. Failure to timely pay the filing fee or file the Affidavit of lndigency will

result in dismissal of your appeal.

3~ You bear the responsibility of ensuring a complete record on appeal. You may request

from the court clerk the audio recording of the hearing for a $25.00 fee. A licensed court

reporter must prepare a transcript and file it with the court clerk within fifteen calendar

days of the filing the Notice of Appeal. Alternatively, you may file a statement of the

evidence prepared jointly by both parties within fifteen calendar days of the filing of the

Notice of Appeal. The statement of the evidence must convey a complete and accurate

account of the hearing. The Workers' Compensation Judge must approve the statement

of the evidence before -the record is submitted to the Appeals Board. If the Appeals

Board is called upon to review testimony or other proof concerning factual matters, the

absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence can be a significant obstacle to

meaningful appellate review.

4. After the Workers' Compensation Judge approves the record and the court clerk transmits

it to the Appeals Board, a docketing notice will be sent to the parties. The appealing

party has fifteen calendar days after the date of that notice to submit a brief to the

Appeals Board. See the Practices and Procedures of the Workers' Compensation

Appeals Board.

To appeal your case directly to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Compensation Hearing

Order must be final and you must comply with the Tennessee Rules of Appellate

Procedure. If neither party timely files an appeal with the Appeals Board, the trial court's

Order will become final by operation of law thirty calendar days after entry. See Tenn.

Code Ann.§ 50-6-239(c)(7).

For self-represented litigants: Help from an Ombudsman is available at 800-332-2667.

II I.

' I

Tennessee Bureau of Workers' Compensation

220 French Landing Drive, 1-B

Nashville, TN 37243-1002

800-332-2667

AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY

I, , having been duly sworn according to law, make oath that

because of my poverty, I am unable to bear the costs of this appeal and request that the filing fee to appeal be

waived. The following facts support my poverty.

1. Full Name:_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ 2. Address: - - - - - - - -- - - --

3. Telephone Number: - - - - - - - - - 4. Date of Birth: - - - - -- - - -- -

5. Names and Ages of All Dependents:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - Relationship: - - - - - - -- - - -- -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- Relationship: - - - - - -- - - -- - -

- - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - Relationship: - - - -- - -- - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - Relationship: - - - - - - -- - - -- -

6. I am employed by: - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - -

My employer's address is: - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - - -

My employer's phone number is: - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - -

7. My present monthly household income, after federal income and social security taxes are deducted, is:

$ _ _ _ _ _ __

8. I receive or expect to receive money from the following sources:

AFDC $ per month beginning

SSI $ per month beginning

Retirement $ per month beginning

Disability $ per month beginning

Unemployment $ per month beginning

Worker's Camp.$ per month beginning

Other $ per month beginning

LB-1108 (REV 11/15) RDA 11082

9. My expenses are: ! ~ li

I

'

Rent/House Payment $ per month Med icai/Dental $ _ _ ___ per month

Groceries $ per month Telephone $ _ __ _ _ per month

Electricity $ per month School Supplies $ _ _ _ _ _ per month

Water $ per month Clothing $ _ _ _ _ _ per month

Gas $ per month Child Care $ _ _ _ _ _ per month

Transportation $ per month Child Support $ _ _ _ _ _ per month

Car $ per month

Other $ per month (describe:

10. Assets:

Automobile $ _ _ _ __

(FMV) - - - - - - - - - -

Checking/Savings Acct. $ _ _ _ __

House $ _ _ __

(FMV) - - - - - - - - - -

Other $ _ _ _ __ Describe:_ _ _ _ __ _ __ __

11. My debts are:

Amount Owed To Whom

I hereby declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing answers are true, correct, and complete

and that I am financially unable to pay the costs of this appeal.

APPELLANT

Sworn and subscribed before me, a notary public, this

____ dayof _____________________ , 20_ __

NOTARY PUBLIC

My Commission Expires:_ _ _ _ _ _ __

LB-1108 (REV 11/15) RDA 11082

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.