Opinion

Hussein, Abdullah v. Taylor Farms TN, Inc., d/b/a Taylor Fresh Foods, Inc.

  • 2023 TN WC 18
Court
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Filed
Mar 20, 2023
Status
Published
On the bench
Kenneth M. Switzer
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

FILED

Mar 20, 2023

07:00 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT NASHVILLE

Abdullah Hussein, ) Docket No. 2021-06-0602

Employee, )

v. )

Taylor Farms TN, Inc., d/b/a Taylor ) State File No. 57595-2020

Fresh Foods, Inc., )

Employer, )

And )

American Zurich Ins. Co., ) Judge Kenneth M. Switzer

Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS

(Decision on the Record)

Abdullah Hussein asked the Court to order Taylor Farms to provide additional

workers’ compensation benefits. He sustained an accepted back injury. Mr. Hussein

alleged he injured his knee and shoulder approximately two months later due to a fall while

under the effects of pain medication for the back injury. Taylor Farms denied that the later

fall relates to work. The Court holds that, on this record, Mr. Hussein did not prove that

the fall relates to his employment, so his requested relief is denied. He may return to Dr.

Elalayli for treatment of his back.

Procedural History

Mr. Hussein filed his petition in June 2021. He requested an expedited hearing in

December 2022, which was set for February 1, 2023. Mr. Hussein requested a continuance

on January 30, citing a need for additional preparation. The Court granted the motion but

cautioned that “[n]o further requests for a continuance will be granted unless the party can

show extraordinary circumstances.” The hearing was reset to March 13 at 1:00 p.m.

On that day, at 12:25 p.m., Mr. Hussein filed a motion asking for a second

continuance to sometime in July due to a family emergency. The motion is dated February

27. Attached to the motion was a handwritten statement from his daughter apologizing,

1

explaining that she thought he had filed the motion earlier, and stating that her father had

already left the country.1

The Court called the case at the scheduled time. Taylor Farms opposed the

continuance.

Mr. Hussein’s case has been pending since June 2021, and this is the second

continuance he requested. The previous order warned that another continuance would only

be granted for “extraordinary circumstances.” Mr. Hussein’s reason, a “family

emergency,” is vague. Moreover, he made himself unavailable before filing the motion

and receiving a ruling. Opposing counsel, the interpreter, and the Court only learned of

the motion just thirty-five minutes before the hearing. Taylor Farms needlessly incurred

the expense of hiring an interpreter.

As the Appeals Board reminded, “[T]rial courts have been charged with controlling

the pace of litigation through the use of supervision and docket management which will

ensure efficient disposition of civil cases.” Smith v. The Newman Grp., LLC, 2015 TN

Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 30, at *9 (Sept. 21, 2015). Therefore, exercising this

discretion, the continuance was denied. Mr. Hussein shall promptly reimburse Taylor

Farms for the interpreter’s expense.

In the interest of advancing the case, the Court proposed entering a decision on the

record under Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.15(1)(e)

(February, 2022). The Court would consider the pre-marked exhibits emailed to the parties

on March 9, 2023, and listed as an appendix to this order. Taylor Farms agreed to that

course of action.

Facts

Mr. Hussein’s affidavit states that on September 1, 2020, he was attempting to fix a

label machine at Taylor Farms when he “twisted” his back. He received authorized care

from Dr. Tarek Elalayli after choosing him from a panel of physicians.

The affidavit further states that on November 2, Mr. Hussein fell at home, injuring

his knee and shoulder. He said he fell from the effects of pain medication.

Dr. Elalayli’s records are scant. He saw Mr. Hussein last on December 2, 2020. Dr.

Elalayli wrote that Mr. Hussein felt “90% improved” after conservative treatment,

including prescription medication. Dr. Elalayli did not record that Mr. Hussein told him

1

Mr. Hussein’s daughter may assist with translating written documentation, but she may not communicate

directly with the Court on his behalf because she is not a licensed Tennessee attorney. See Tenn. Comp. R.

& Regs. 0800-02-21-.04(1) (February, 2022).

2

he fell at home. He noted, “His primary concern is in regards to right knee pain for which

he is seeing Dr. Cook under his private insurance. Currently not working because of his

knee.” Dr. Elalayli placed Mr. Hussein at maximum medical improvement for his back

and returned him to full-duty work. He wrote that Mr. Hussein may return “as needed.”

Dr. Elalayli completed two forms summarizing his treatment and opinions. On a C-

30A Final Medical Report dated December 3, 2020, he assigned a zero-percent impairment

rating. On a C-32 Standard Form Medical Report dated August 3, 2021, he assigned a

seven-percent impairment rating for a lumbar disc herniation.

Dr. Elalayli’s final word came in response to a letter from Taylor Farms’ attorney

in January 2023. He checked the following as correct with no elaboration: “I am of the

opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the medications that Abdullah

Hussein was prescribed for his workers compensation injury dated September 1, 2020 were

more likely than not, NOT the primary cause of his fall at home on November 2, 2020.”

(Emphasis in original).

Mr. Hussein filed records from unauthorized treatment with various providers.

Mr. Hussein saw nurse practitioner Caroline Barr in February 2022, reporting

multiple symptoms, including low back pain from the work injury. He also said he fell at

home and injured his neck and shoulder, both of which were surgically repaired. 2 The

supervising physician, Dr. Brett Parker, later ordered an MRI of the lumbar spine, which

confirmed an impingement and disc protrusion.

In May, Dr. Scott Parker examined Mr. Hussein and reviewed the MRI. He

diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy and discussed conservative treatment options or surgery.

At the last visit in August, Mr. Hussein underwent an epidural steroid injection. Nowhere

within these records did anyone give an opinion on the work-relatedness of any of Mr.

Hussein’s conditions.

Then, in December 2022 and February 2023, Mr. Hussein visited the emergency

room for lumbar radiculopathy. Mr. Hussein provided mostly copies of discharge

instructions, which do not contain a statement regarding whether his back condition is

related to work.

As to the requested relief, Mr. Hussein’s affidavit states that he is “seeking payment

of temporary disability.” A December status order said that he requests medical and

temporary disability benefits. He filed no bills for past unauthorized medical treatment.

2

Mr. Hussein’s petition and the dispute certification notice do not list his neck as an injured body part.

3

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Mr. Hussein, as the employee in a workers’ compensation case, has the burden of

proving all essential elements of his claim for benefits. Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions,

2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *6 (Aug. 18, 2015). In addition, at an

expedited hearing, Mr. Hussein must show he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2022).

Taylor Farms did not dispute that Mr. Hussein suffered an injury arising primarily

out of employment on September 1, 2020, when he injured his low back at work. The

question is whether his later injuries also relate to work.

As the Appeals Board recently explained, the “direct and natural consequences” rule

states that “every natural consequence that flows from the [work-related condition] arises

out of the employment, unless it is the result of an independent intervening cause

attributable to the employee’s intentional conduct.” Braden v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 2022

TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 11, at *8 (Mar. 1, 2022).

Here, the only medical proof on whether Mr. Hussein’s later injuries are the direct

and natural consequence of the original, work-related injury, is Dr. Elalayli’s opinion. He

checked the option in response to counsel’s letter, “within a reasonable degree of medical

certainty that the medications that Abdullah Hussein was prescribed for his workers

compensation injury dated September 1, 2020 were more likely than not, NOT the primary

cause of his fall at home on November 2, 2020.”

This opinion is clear and mirrors the definition of a compensable injury in the

Workers’ Compensation Law. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12). Moreover, Dr.

Elalayli was chosen from a panel, so his causation opinion is rebuttably presumed correct.

Id. at -102(12)(E).

To rebut that opinion, Mr. Hussein stated in his affidavit that prescription

medication from the back injury caused his fall, injuring his knee and shoulder. He also

offered records from unauthorized providers, who document that he still suffers from

lumbar pain. Importantly, though, they do not give any opinion about whether the knee

and shoulder injuries resulted from the effects of his medications for his back injury. Mr.

Hussein believes they are causally related. However, parties “cannot rely solely on their

own medical interpretations of the evidence to successfully support their arguments.” Lurz

v. Int’l Paper Co., 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 8, at *17 (Feb. 14, 2018).

Therefore, Mr. Hussein has not satisfied his burden to show that his alleged injuries

to his knee and shoulder arose primarily out of employment. His request for medical

benefits with respect to these injuries is denied.

4

However, Mr. Hussein remains entitled to treatment with Dr. Elalayli for his low

back. See Limberakis v. Pro-Tech Sec., Inc., 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 53,

at *8-10 (Sept. 12, 2017). (In an accepted claim at the interlocutory stage, even where an

authorized physician has assigned maximum medical improvement, that opinion does not

forever foreclose “the possibility that Employee may need reasonable and necessary

medical treatment causally-related to the work injury at some point in the future.”).

Mr. Hussein’s principal contention is that he is entitled to temporary total disability

benefits. He must prove (1) total disability from working as the result of a compensable

injury; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the inability to work; and (3) the

duration of the period of disability. Woodard v. Freeman Expositions, 2021 TN Wrk.

Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 21, at *6-7 (July 16, 2021).

In this case, the only proof for the back injury regarding Mr. Hussein’s work status

is that on December 2, 2020, Dr. Elalayli, the authorized treating physician, returned Mr.

Hussein to full duty. As previously stated, he has not shown that the knee or shoulder

injuries are work-related. Therefore, Mr. Hussein is not likely to prevail at a hearing on

the merits that he is entitled to additional temporary disability benefits.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:

1. Mr. Hussein’s request for a continuance of the in-person expedited hearing is

denied. Mr. Hussein shall promptly reimburse Taylor Farms for the interpreter’s

expense to appear at the March 13, 2023 hearing.

2. Mr. Hussein’s request for medical benefits for alleged knee and shoulder injuries is

denied at this time, but he remains entitled to return to Dr. Elalayli for his lumbar

back injury.

3. Mr. Hussein’s request for temporary disability benefits is denied at this time.

4. The Court sets a status hearing on July 10, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. Central Time. You

must dial 615-532-9552 or 866-943-0025. Taylor Farms must arrange for a

Kurdish interpreter. If Mr. Hussein does not appear, the Court might dismiss

the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

ENTERED March 20, 2023.

________________________________________

JUDGE KENNETH M. SWITZER

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

5

Appendix

Technical record

1. Petition for Benefit Determination, filed by Employee, June 5, 2021

2. Petition for Benefit Determination, filed by Employer, June 3, 2022

3. Dispute Certification Notice, and Employer’s Additional Information

4. Order Setting Status Hearing

5. Order Resetting Status Hearing

6. Order on Status Hearing

7. Hearing Request

8. Motion for Continuance

9. Order Resetting Expedited Hearing

Exhibits

1. Declaration of Mr. Hussein

2. Form C-32, Choice of Physicians Form

3. Wage Statement

4. Dr. Elalayli medical records

5. Employee’s Medical Records for Expedited Hearing

6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on March 20, 2023.

Name Certified U.S. Email Service sent to:

Mail Mail

Abdullah Hussein, X X X 3811 Sam Boney Dr.

Employee Nashville TN 37211

Ibrahimsuzon00@gmail.com

Peter Rosen, X prosen@vkbarlaw.com

Employer’s Attorney

_______________________________________

Penny Shrum

Clerk, Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov

7

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation

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

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

Docket No.: ________________________

State File No.: ______________________

Date of Injury: _____________________

___________________________________________________________________________

Employee

v.

___________________________________________________________________________

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):

□ Expedited Hearing Order filed on _______________ □ Motion Order filed on ___________________

□ Compensation Order filed on__________________ □ 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 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 I 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.