Opinion

Hunter, Dale v. Doug's Automotive

  • 2019 TN WC 178
Court
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Filed
Dec 12, 2019
Status
Published
On the bench
Dale Tipps
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT MEMPHIS

DALE HUNTER, )

Employee, ) Docket No. 2017-08-1268

)

V. )

) State File No. 88488-2017

DOUG’S AUTOMOTIVE, )

Employer. )

) Judge Dale Tipps

)

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

GRANTING BENEFITS

(DECISION ON THE RECORD)

This case came before the Court on December 6, 2019, for an Expedited Hearing

on the record without an in-person hearing. The central legal issue is whether Mr. Hunter

is likely to establish at a hearing on the merits that his need for the requested epidural

steroid injections arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment.

For the reasons below, the Court holds Mr. Hunter is entitled to the requested benefits.

History of Claim

This is Mr. Hunter’s third Expedited Hearing. Following the first hearing, the

Court was unable to find that Mr. Hunter was likely to prove medical causation at a

hearing on the merits but issued an order for a panel of physicians.’ Doug’s Automotive

provided a panel, from which Mr. Hunter selected Dr. Sam Murrell.

Mr. Hunter treated with Dr. Murrell but filed a Motion to Compel Medical

" The Court summarized the full history of Mr. Hunter’s injury and medical treatment in its prior order

and finds it unnecessary to repeat that summary here.

1

Treatment on June 4, 2019, claiming that Dr. Murrell recommended an epidural injection

that Doug’s Automotive refused to authorize. Because Mr. Hunter provided no medical

records or other information regarding the treatment or its relationship to his work injury,

the Court found it could not order Doug’s Automotive to authorize it.

Mr. Hunter then filed another Motion for Medical Treatment on July 26, this time

with an accompanying letter from Dr. Murrell recommending an epidural steroid

injection. The Court determined that the motion was actually a request to decide his

interlocutory claim for medical benefits on the record without an evidentiary hearing.

The Court deemed the request for a decision on the record appropriate and issued a

Docketing Notice.

Doug’s Automotive filed a Response and an Objection to Dr. Murrell’s letter, and

the Court issued a second Expedited Hearing Order on August 23. In that order, the

Court denied the request because Dr. Murrell’s letter did not address whether Mr.

Hunter’s diagnosis or the need for the epidural injection arose primarily out of and in the

course and scope of his employment.

Mr. Hunter filed the current Expedited Hearing request on November 1, and the

Court issued a Docketing Notice. Doug’s Automotive filed no objection or response to

the hearing request or docketing notice but instead filed a Motion to Dismiss.”

The only new proof offered by either party is Dr. Murrell’s October 7, 2019 letter.

It states:

Dale Hunter has been under my care with complaints of low back

pain and leg pain. He was first seen by me on September 7, 2018

complaining of pain following an injury on 10/16/2017. While an MRI

scan revealed degenerative changes of the lumbar spine at multiple levels, it

also revealed a more focal right L5 foraminal disc protrusion which was felt

to be the cause of his right sided leg symptoms. He was seen by me on

January 28, 2019, and offered an epidural steroid injection. He ultimately

requested to be released to full duties, but then later returned indicating that

he wished to proceed with further treatment. At that time, an epidural

steroid injection was again recommended, and he continues under my care

* The Motion to Dismiss is replete with problems. First, it is predicated in large part on allegations that

Mr. Hunter has failed to comply with requests for “medical records for the incident in question and his

previous medical records.” However, no motion to compel was ever filed, nor is there any proof that Mr.

Hunter actually possesses the records sought. Similarly, Doug’s Automotive contends Mr. Hunter failed

to respond to written discovery, but it filed no motion to compel or any certification required by Rule

0800-02-21-.17(5). Because Doug’s Automotive also failed to comply with the dispositive motion

requirements of Rule 0800-02-21-.18(1), the Court will not consider dismissal at this time. However, it

will consider some of the arguments made by Doug’s Automotive as a response to the docketing notice.

2

awaiting the completion of the epidural steroid injection. Apparently, there

has been some confusion as to whether the recommendation for treatment

was the result of his underlying degenerative changes or the right L5-S1

foraminal disc protrusion. It is my opinion that in the absence of previous

MRI showing a pre-existing right L5 foraminal disc protrusion, that disc is

most likely the result of his work injury of 10/16/2017. The treatment most

recently recommended, an epidural steroid injection, is recommended to

treat that L5-S1 disc protrusion and is felt to be related to his work injury of

10/16/2017.

Mr. Hunter requests an order compelling the injection recommended by Dr.

Murrell based on this new evidence.

Doug’s Automotive contends it is not responsible for additional medical treatment

because Dr. Murrell has already found Mr. Hunter to be at maximum medical

improvement (MMI). It also appears to suggest that Dr. Murrell’s opinion is insufficient

because he said the disc protrusion is “most likely” the result of the work injury.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Mr. Hunter must provide sufficient evidence from which this Court might

determine he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-

239(d)(1) (2019); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App.

Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015). To do this, he must show that his alleged

injuries arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. This

includes the requirement that he must show, “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty

that [the incident] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the .. .

disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” “Shown to a

reasonable degree of medical certainty” means that, in the opinion of the treating

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

possibility. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

Dr. Murrell’s October 7 letter is the only medical opinion addressing causation.

He stated that the right L5 foraminal-disc protrusion “is most likely the result of his work

injury of 10/16/2017” and that the epidural steroid injection is recommended to treat that

condition.

Doug’s Automotive appears to object to this opinion because it does not

specifically track the wording of section 5-6-102(14). The Court notes, however, that “a

physician may render an opinion that meets the legal standard espoused in section 50-6-

102(14) without couching the opinion in a rigid recitation of the statutory definition.”

Panzarella vy. Amazon.com, Inc., 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 30, at *14-15

(May 15, 2017). Dr. Murrell stated that the disc protrusion was “most likely the result”

3

of Mr. Hunter’s work injury. Although this statement does not include the phrase,

“greater than fifty-percent,” it constitutes “sufficient proof from which the trial court can

conclude that the statutory requirements of an injury as defined in section 50-6-102(14)

are satisfied.” Id.

Doug’s Automotive objects to providing additional treatment because Dr. Murrell

already placed Mr. Hunter at MMI. This argument overlooks the fact that medical

treatment does not terminate at MMI. Unless a court terminates an employee’s

entitlement to medical benefits, or approves a settlkement in which the parties reach a

compromise on the issue of future medical benefits, an injured worker remains entitled to

reasonable and necessary medical treatment causally-related to the work injury in

accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated sections 50-6-204(a)(1)(A) and 50-6-

102(14)(C). Limberakis vy. Pro-Tech Sec., Inc., 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS

53, at *5-6 (Sept. 12, 2017).

For these reasons, Mr. Hunter appears likely to prevail at trial in establishing that

his work injury contributed more than fifty percent in causing his need for the requested

medical treatment.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Doug’s Automotive shall continue to provide Mr. Hunter with medical treatment

made reasonably necessary by his October 16, 2017 injury, including any

recommended epidural steroid injections.

1. This case is set for a Status Hearing on January 16, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. Please call

toll-free at 855-874-0473 to participate. Failure to call or appear might result in a

determination of the issues without your further participation. All conferences are

set using Central Time.

ENTERED December 12, 2019.

Judge Dale Tipps

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

Exhibits:

Dr. Murrell’s July 16, 2019 letter

Dr. Murrell’s October 7, 2019 letter

9

PINAMEWN ES

Affidavit of Dale Hunter

APPENDIX

Records from Concentra Medical Centers

Records from Whole Health Chiropractic

Records from The Family Medicine Group

Wage Statement

Expedited Request for Investigation Report

Collective medical bills

10. January 9, 2018 letter offering transitional work

11. Candace Marshall’s notes

12. Screenshot of January 17, 2018 text messages

Technical record:

Motion for Medical Treatment

Response to Motion to Have Employer Pay Medical Expenses

Response to Admission of the Purported Letter of Dr. Murrell

Petition for Benefit Determination

AMR WNS

Dispute Certification Notice

July 3, 2018 Expedited Hearing Order

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the Expedited Hearing Order was sent as indicated on

December 12, 2019.

Name Certified | Fax | Via Service sent to:

Mail Email

Dale Hunter xX Dale. hunter29 @ yahoo.com

James Jones, Jr., xX attorneyjamesjones @ gmail.com

Employer’s Attorney

/)

Z

| /

7 Fine Mt Uum—

Penny Shrvim, Clerk of Court

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

WC.CourtClerk @ th.gov

Expedited Hearing Order Right to Appeal:

If you disagree with this Expedited Hearing Order, you may appeal to the Workers’

Compensation Appeals Board. To appeal an expedited hearing order, you must:

1. Complete the enclosed form entitled: “Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal,” and file the

form with the Clerk of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims within seven

business days of the date the expedited hearing order was filed. When filing the Notice

of Appeal, you must serve a copy upon all parties.

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 of the 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 Indigency will

result in dismissal of the 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. If a transcript of

the proceedings is to be filed, a licensed court reporter must prepare the transcript and file

it with the court clerk within ten business days of the filing the Notice of

Appeal. Alternatively, you may file a statement of the evidence prepared jointly by both

parties within ten business 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 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. If you wish to file a position statement, you must file it with the court clerk within ten

business days after the deadline to file a transcript or statement of the evidence. The

party opposing the appeal may file a response with the court clerk within ten business

days after you file your position statement. All position statements 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.

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

LB-1099

EXPEDITED HEARING NOTICE OF APPEAL

Tennessee Division of Workers’ Compensation

www. tn.gov/labor-wid/weomp.shtml

wce.courtclerk@tn.gov

1-800-332-2667

Docket #:

State File #/YR:

Employee

Vv.

Employer

Notice

Notice is given that

[List name(s) of all appealing party(ies) on separate sheet if necessary]

appeals the order(s) of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims at

to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals

Board. [List the date(s) the order(s) was filed in the court clerk’s office]

Judge

Statement of the Issues

Provide a short and plain statement of the issues on appeal or basis for relief on appeal:

Additional Information

Type of Case [Check the most appropriate item]

L] Temporary disability benefits

L] Medical benefits for current injury

LC Medical benefits under prior order issued by the Court

List of Parties

Appellant (Requesting Party): At Hearing: LJEmployer LJEmployee

Address:

Party’s Phone: Email:

Attorney's Name: BPR#:

Attorney’s Address: Phone:

Attorney's City, State & Zip code:

Attorney’s Email:

* Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellant *

rev. 10/18 Page 1 of 2 RDA 11082

Employee Name: SF#: DOI:

Appellee(s)

Appellee (Opposing Party): At Hearing: L]JEmployer LJEmployee

Appellee’s Address:

Appellee’s Phone: Email:

Attorney’s Name: BPR#:

Attorney’s Address: Phone:

Attorney’s City, State & Zip code:

Attorney’s Email:

* Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellee *

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I,

Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal by First Class, United States Mail, postage prepaid, to all parties

and/or their attorneys in this case in accordance with Rule 0800-02-22.01(2) of the Tennessee Rules

of Board of Workers’ Compensation Appeals on this the day of , 20

, certify that | have forwarded a true and exact copy of this

[Signature of appellant or attorney for appellant]

LB-1099 rev. 10/18 Page 2 of 2 RDA 11082

Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation

220 French Landing Drive, I-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, | 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 Ail Dependents:

Relationship:

Relationship:

Relationship:

Relationship:

6. lam 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. | receive or expect to receive money from the following sources:

AFDC $ per month beginning

ssl $ per month beginning

Retirement $ per month beginning

Disability $ per month beginning

Unemployment $ per month beginning

Worker's Comp.$ per month beginning

Other $ per month beginning

LB-1108 (REV 11/15) RDA 11082

9. My expenses are:

Rent/House Payment $ permonth Medical/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

| 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

day of , 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.