Opinion

Lee, Dana v. Journeypure Holdings,Inc.

  • 2021 TN WC 171
Court
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Filed
Apr 8, 2021
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 MURFREESBORO

DANA LEE, ) Docket No.: 2020-05-1027

Employee, )

V. )

JOURNEYPURE HOLDINGS, INC., ) State File No.: 56826-2020

Employer, )

And )

ACCIDENT FUND GEN. INS. CO., ) Judge Dale Tipps

Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER GRANTING BENEFITS

Ms. Lee’s request for medical and temporary disability benefits came before the

Court on March 30, 2021, for an Expedited Hearing. The central legal issue is whether

Ms. Lee is likely to show at a hearing on the merits that her presence at the scene of a

violent assault meets the requirement of an injury arising primarily out of and in the course

and scope of her employment. For the reasons below, the Court cannot find she 1s likely

to prove this but holds Ms. Lee is entitled to a panel of physicians.

History of Claim

Ms. Lee worked as a licensed practical nurse for JourneyPure, a medical detox

center. As she checked in medicine from the pharmacy on July 31, 2020, a patient became

belligerent and assaulted another nurse in a nearby treatment room. Ms. Lee did not

witness the incident but heard raised voices and other loud noises. She called for assistance

from people working in a different area and then dialed 9-1-1.

While she stayed on the phone with 9-1-1, Ms. Lee could hear her colleagues loudly

trying to subdue the patient, as the altercation moved to a different part of the unit. She

could see the nurse sitting on the floor crying and holding a cloth to her bloody face.! Ms.

Lee locked herself in a treatment room because she feared she might be assaulted.

' JourneyPure introduced testimony that questioned whether Ms. Lee actually saw the blood on her

coworker’s face. The Court finds this minor discrepancy does not affect Ms. Lee’s credibility or diminish

the significance of the event.

Ms. Lee was upset after the incident and told her supervisor she needed to go home.

She pulled her car over and stopped a few times on the way home because she was so

shaken.

Before the incident, Ms. Lee had seen a psychologist, Dr. Deborah Driggs, for

treatment of mild anxiety. She testified that she returned to Dr. Driggs after the work

incident because she began suffering from severe anxiety, sleep disturbance, and

fearfulness. Ms. Lee was so affected that she was unable to return to work for several

months after the incident.

Ms. Lee also asked her employer for help and began an application for short-term

disability. Ms. Lee didn’t file the disability application because she felt her condition was

work-related and should be filed as a workers’ compensation claim. JourneyPure filed a

C-23 form denying Ms. Lee’s workers’ compensation claim.

Ms. Lee testified that she continues to suffer from severe anxiety that has affected

her relationships and quality of life. She seeks a panel of physicians and temporary

disability benefits.

JourneyPure contended that Ms. Lee is not entitled to benefits because the

workplace incident does not meet the definition of a compensable mental injury. Even if

it did, JourneyPure maintained that Ms. Lee failed to prove medical causation.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Ms. Lee must provide 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)(1)

(2020); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS

6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015).

Mental Injury

A mental injury is defined as “a loss of mental faculties or a mental or behavioral

disorder.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(17). To be compensable, a mental injury must

arise “primarily out of a compensable physical injury or an identifiable work-related event

resulting in a sudden or unusual mental stimulus.” /d. Ms. Lee did not sustain a physical

injury, so the Court must determine whether she is likely to prove the July 31 event meets

the second set of criteria.

Case law focusing on this second category makes clear that (1) the injury must stem

from an identifiable stressful, work-related event producing a sudden mental stimulus, and

(2) the event must be unusual compared to the ordinary stress of the worker’s job. Edwards

2

v. Fred’s Pharmacy, 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 9, at 7 (Feb. 14, 2018).

Regarding the first requirement, the Court finds Ms. Lee presented sufficient proof

to establish an identifiable stressful, work-related event producing a sudden mental

stimulus. She testified that a patient violently assaulted her coworker in a treatment room

on the same ward where she was working. It took some time for several people to subdue

the patient, and the incident was serious enough that Ms. Lee felt it necessary to call 9-1-

1. These basic facts are uncontroverted. Also undisputed is Ms. Lee’s testimony that

she was startled, frightened, and shocked by the event. Her tearful recounting of the

incident was both credible and convincing.

The next question, then, is whether the incident was unusual compared to the

ordinary stress of Ms. Lee’s job. JourneyPure argued that the incident did not rise to the

level of “extraordinary and unusual in comparison to the stress ordinarily experienced by

an employee in the same type of duty.” JourneyPure suggested that events like this are

common enough in detox centers that this incident cannot meet the “sudden or unusual

mental stimulus” requirement.

However, JourneyPure submitted no evidence on this issue. Thus, the only proof

before the Court regarding whether this melee was a normal part of an LPN’s experience

in a detox center is Ms. Lee’s testimony that she had never experienced and did not expect

incidents of this nature in her work. Based on this unrefuted testimony, the Court must

conclude that this was an unusual event for this type of workplace and Ms. Lee is likely to

prove a compensable incident at trial.

Causation

Having found a likelihood of proving compensability, the Court turns to

medical causation. Ms. Lee must show, “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty

that [her alleged work injury] 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)(C). “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. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(D).

The Court cannot find at this tme that Ms. Lee is likely to meet this burden, as she

did not offer any medical opinions addressing causation. Without a medical opinion on

this issue, the Court cannot find at this time that she is likely to prove “to a reasonable

degree of medical certainty” that her work “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in

causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.”

Ms. Lee argued that medical proof is unnecessary in this case because she suffered

an obvious injury. See Cloyd v. Hartco Flooring Co., 274 S$.W.3d 638, 643 (Tenn. 2008)

3

(medical evidence is not required to establish a causal relationship, “in the most obvious,

simple and routine cases”). The Court disagrees. Unlike a broken bone, determining the

cause of a psychiatric or psychological condition is not a simple and routine process.

Further, judges are not well-suited to make independent medical determinations without

expert medical testimony supporting such a determination. Lurz v. Int’l Paper Co., 2018

TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 8, at *16-18 (Feb. 14, 2018).

The lack of a causation opinion, however, does not end the inquiry. Tennessee Code

Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(i) requires that, “in any case when the employee has

suffered an injury and expressed a need for medical care, the employer shall designate a

group of three (3) or more independent reputable physicians . . . from which the injured

employee shall select one (1) to be the treating physician.” Further, at an expedited hearing,

if an employee presents sufficient evidence that a work event resulted in injury, this may

support an order compelling an employer to provide a panel. See Lewis v. Molly Maid,

2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 19, at *8-9 (Apr. 20, 2016). Thus, the question is

whether Ms. Lee provided sufficient evidence to satisfy her burden at this interlocutory

stage that she is entitled to a panel of physicians.

As noted above, Ms. Lee has shown that she experienced an identifiable stressful,

work-related event producing a sudden mental stimulus, and that the incident was unusual

when compared to the ordinary stress of her job. Therefore, the Court holds she provided

sufficient evidence to satisfy her burden at this interlocutory stage that she is entitled to a

panel of physicians. Journey Pure shall provide a panel from which Ms. Lee may choose

an authorized physician for evaluation and, if appropriate, treatment of her alleged injuries

under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(1)(A).

Temporary Disability Benefits

Ms. Lee also seeks temporary disability benefits. An injured worker is eligible for

temporary total disability benefits if: (1) she became disabled from working due to a

compensable injury; (2) there is a causal connection between the injury and the inability to

work; and (3) she established the duration of the disability. Jones v. Crencor Leasing and

Sales, TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 48, at *7 (Dec. 11, 2015). As noted above, Ms.

Lee cannot at this time prove a causal connection between her work and her injury because

she lacks a medical opinion. Therefore, the Court cannot find at this time that she is likely

to prevail on a claim for temporary disability benefits at a hearing on the merits.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. JourneyPure shall provide Ms. Lee with a panel of physicians and medical treatment

made reasonably necessary by her July 31, 2020 injury.

2. Ms. Lee’s request for temporary disability benefits is denied at this time.

4

3. This case is set for a Status Hearing on June 23, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. The parties must

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

determination of the issues without the parties’ participation. All conferences are

set using Central Time.

4. 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

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

Insurer or Self-Insured Employer must submit confirmation of compliance with this

Order to the Bureau by email to WCCompliance.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 might result in a penalty assessment

for non-compliance. For questions regarding compliance, please contact the

Workers’ Compensation Compliance Unit via email at

WCCompliance.Program @tn. gov.

ENTERED April 8, 2021.

- ~~

(VFL 2D

Judge Dale Tipps

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

APPENDIX

Exhibits:

1. Dana Lee’s affidavit

2. First Report of Injury

3. Wage Statement

4. C-23 Notice of Denial

5. Letters from Deborah Driggs, PhD. (Identification Only)

6. Dr. Driggs’s curriculum vitae

7. Dr. Drigg’s treatment file (Identification Only)

Technical record:

wWRwWNS

Petition for Benefit Determination

Dispute Certification Notice

Request for Expedited Hearing

JourneyPure’s Exhibit List

JouneyPure’s Witness List

JourneyPure’s Expedited Hearing Brief

Ms. Lee’s Witness List

Ms. Lee’s Exhibit List

Ms. Lee’s Expedited Hearing Brief

OPN N

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

8, 2021.

Name Certified Via Service sent to:

Mail Email

Benjamin Newman, x bnewman @ galligannewmanlaw.com

Employee’s attorney

Gordon Aulgur, xX Gordon.aulgur@ accidentfund.com

Employee’s attorney

/

yf eis ef ur

Penny Shryiya, 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: “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/

wce.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):

0 Expedited Hearing Order filed on O Motion Order filed on

0 Compensation Order filed on C1 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): fo 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 lof 2 RDA 11082

Employee Name: Docket No.: Date of Inj.:

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.