Opinion

Valerio, Rosalind v. City of Spring Hill, Tennessee

  • 2020 TN WC 81
Court
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Filed
Aug 31, 2020
Status
Published
On the bench
Joshua Davis Baker
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT NASHVILLE

ROSALIND VALERIO, ) Docket No. 2019-06-0971

Employee, )

V. )

CITY OF SPRING HILL, ) State File No. 30370-2018

TENNESSEE, )

Employer, )

And, ) Judge Joshua Davis Baker

PUBLIC ENTITY PARTNERS, )

Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

Ms. Valerio requested additional medical benefits and reinstatement of temporary

partial disability benefits for a left-foot injury. The City of Spring Hill denied these benefits

asserting she needed no further treatment and was released to return to work without

restrictions. After an August 18, 2020 Expedited Hearing, the Court holds Ms. Valerio is

not entitled to additional medical benefits or reinstatement of temporary partial disability

benefits.

Claim History

The City of Spring Hill accepted an injury Ms. Valerio suffered on June 18, 2019,

when she bumped a disassembled couch and pieces of it fell on her left foot. She chose a

provider from a panel and saw a physician assistant that day.

The physician assistant noted a contusion on Ms. Valerio’s left foot, and X-rays

showed no fracture or significant soft-tissue swelling. Ms. Valerio continued to complain

of pain, so she returned a couple of weeks later.

When Ms. Valerio saw the physician assistant again, she underwent more x-rays

with physician assistant noting a “small bone chip.” She wrote, “Initially x-rays at Spring

Hill Imaging without fracture, today one taken here with small bone chip noted at 5"

]

metatarsal, recommend Orthopedic referral for further evaluation and off work until

Orthopedic appointment.”

Eight days later, Ms. Valerio visited orthopedist Dr. Chase Corn, whom she chose

from a panel, and he explained that x-rays showed an “os peroneum” but no fracture or

malalignment. His physical examination of Ms. Valerio’s foot revealed “minimal

swelling” and “no obvious bruising.” He observed a disparity between her subjective

complaints and her foot’s condition and candidly wrote, “Structurally, her foot seems to be

okay. She notes that she is unable to bear weight and in severe pain. I cannot explain this

based on her exam.” So, Dr. Corn ordered an MRI, restricted her work, and gave her an

orthotic boot until he could review the results.

Two days later, the MRI showed nothing wrong with Ms. Valerio’s foot other than

an unrelated ganglion cyst. Dr. Corn concluded that “her imaging studies profoundly

contradict” her pain complaints. He described a “bizarre encounter” in which Ms. Valerio

vehemently insisted a bone was sticking out of her foot. He tried to explain that she did

not need surgery because she had “normal imaging studies.” He concluded, “[T]here is

nothing to be repaired.” Because Ms. Valerio would not accept his conclusion, he

encouraged her to seek a second opinion.

Ultimately, Spring Hill authorized Ms. Valerio to see two orthopedists and a

physiatrist, and all agreed that she had no fracture, abnormality, or foot malalignment. All

noted a small “os peroneum,” described by the physiatrist as a small piece of cartilage

common in about one-fourth of the population.

However, Ms. Valerio appeared at her appointments in an orthotic boot and

complained of severe pain, saying that wearing tennis shoes “[felt] like someone [was]

stabbing her in the side of the foot.” She testified that walking barefoot was very

uncomfortable and that she could only walk without her orthotic boot for very short periods

of time. She also said she still wears her boot everywhere, limps, and deals with pain.

Investigator James Richardson, who filmed Ms. Valerio on three days in September

and October, testified he only saw her limping or using her orthotic boot for doctors’

appointments or at her employer’s office in City Hall. On September 13, he filmed her

walking barefoot in her yard and observed no limping or other signs of discomfort. Later

that day, Ms. Valerio wore the orthotic boot into City Hall but walked easily without it

while shopping in flip flops later that afternoon. On October 16, Mr. Richardson observed

her walking without a limp or the orthotic boot. On October 30, Ms. Valerio wore the

orthotic boot into a doctor’s appointment. Later that afternoon, she went shopping in tennis

shoes, without limping or exhibiting any discomfort.

On October 30, Spring Hill filed a Notice of Change or Termination, terminating

Ms. Valerio’s temporary disability benefits after physiatrist Dr. Jeffrey Hazlewood placed

her at maximum medical improvement without permanent impairment or restrictions.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Ms. Valerio must demonstrate that she is likely to prevail at a final hearing in

proving that she needs additional treatment caused by the work injury and that she earned

less than her average weekly wage due to work restrictions. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-

239(d)(1) (2019).

Given the relief requested and facts presented, the Court must decide two issues: 1)

whether Ms. Valerio’s foot still requires treatment “made reasonably necessary” by her

work accident; and, 2) whether a treating physician imposed restrictions that the City of

Spring Hill cannot accommodate, which would entitle her to reinstatement of temporary

partial disability benefits. The Court finds neither issue in her favor.

First, the Court finds Ms. Valerio is unlikely to prove she needs additional treatment

“made reasonably necessary” by her injury because the only admissible expert medical

proof of causation suggested she suffered a contusion and needs no further treatment. The

opinion that she suffered a more severe injury came from a physician assistant, who is not

an expert qualified to testify about medical causation. Dorsey v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2015

TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 13, at *9 (May 14, 2015). The Court cannot accept a

physician assistant’s opinion over two orthopedists and a physiatrist. Accordingly, the

weight of the medical evidence shows that Ms. Valerio suffered only a contusion and needs

no further treatment.!

Second, the Court finds Ms. Valerio is unlikely to prove entitlement to temporary

partial disability benefits at a final hearing. To recover these benefits, she must prove she

earned less than her average weekly wage due to work restrictions. See Tenn. Code Ann.

§ 50-6-207(2)(A). Since the City of Spring Hill terminated temporary partial disability

benefits on October 30 when Dr. Hazlewood returned Ms. Valerio to work without

restrictions, the Court holds she failed to prove entitlement to temporary partial disability

benefits.

! Also, these physicians’ objective findings and the investigator’s observations suggest that Ms. Valerio

exaggerated both her pain and her capability. In this Court’s view, these objective findings and observations

weaken her assertion that she needs additional medical treatment.

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. The Court denies Ms. Valerio’s requested relief.

2. The Court sets this claim for a scheduling hearing on October 26, 2020, at 9:30_

a.m. Central Time. The parties must call (615) 741-2113 or toll-free at (855) 874-

0474 to participate. Failure to call might result in a determination of the issues

without the party’s participation.

ENTERED August 31, 2020.

C \ * >y—__

=)

JudgeSoshua Davis Baker

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

APPENDIX

Exhibits:

NAW RB WN

Medical Records

Affidavit of Ms. Valerio

First Report of Injury

Wage Statement

Notice of Change of Termination of Benefits

Teksid Complaint and Agreed Order

Investigative Reports and Photographs of Mr. Richardson

Technical Record:

SANNA YWN SE

Petition for Benefit Determination

Dispute Certification Notice

Request for Expedited Hearing

Motion to Continue

Response to Motion to Continue

Order Granting Motion to Continue

Order Setting Status Conference

Motion to Conduct Expedited Hearing by Videoconference

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on August 31, 2020.

Name Certified | Email | Service sent to:

Mail

Rosalind Valerio, X | Rvnemak0O1@gmail.com

Employee

Jennifer Orr, X | Jennifer.orr@farrar-bates.com,

Employer’s Attorney Rebecca.mcfadden@farrar-bates.com

TLrnn x ft (a

Penny Shrum,((ourt Clerk

we.courtclerk@in.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: “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

conceming 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.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation

www.tn.gov/workforce/injuries-at-work/

we.courtclerk@tn.gov | 1-800-332-2667

Docket No.:

State File No.:

Date of Injury:

Employee

Employer

Notice is given that

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

appeals the following order(s) of the Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims to the

Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (check one or more applicable boxes and include the date file-

stamped on the first page of the order(s) being appealed):

D Expedited Hearing Order filed on UO) Motion Order filed on

O Compensation Order filed on 0 Other Order filed on

issued by Judge

Statement of the Issues on Appeal

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

Parties

Appellant(s) (Requesting Party): ['Employer!” Employee

Address: Phone:

Email:

Attorney’s Name: BPR#:

Attorney’s Email: Phone:

Attorney’s Address:

* Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellant *

LB-1099 rev. 01/20 Page 1 of 2 RDA 11082

Employee Name: Docket No.: Date of !nj.:

Appellee(s) (Opposing Party): [| Employer |~ Employee

Appellee’s Address: Phone:

Email:

Attorney’s Name: BPR#:

Attorney’s Email: Phone:

Attorney’s Address:

* Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellee *

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, , certify that | have forwarded a

true and exact copy of this Notice of Appeal by First Class mail, postage prepaid, or in any manner as described

in Tennessee Compilation Rules & Regulations, Chapter 0800-02-21, to all parties and/or their attorneys in this

case on this the day of , 20

[Signature of appellant or attorney for appellant]

LB-1099 rev. 01/20 Page 2 of 2 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.