Opinion

Comfort, Rachel v. Access Dental Lab

  • 2023 TN WC 43
Court
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Filed
Jun 5, 2023
Status
Published
On the bench
Kenneth M. Switzer
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 23.4%

The opinion

FILED

Jun 05, 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

Rachel Comfort, ) Docket No. 2022-06-2242

Employee, )

v. )

Access Dental Lab, ) State File No. 801209-2022

Employer, )

And )

Federal Ins. Co., ) Judge Kenneth M. Switzer

Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS

The Court held an expedited hearing on June 1, 2023, regarding Rachel Comfort’s

entitlement to medical and temporary disability benefits. Access Dental Lab denied the

claim, challenging whether the injury occurred at work and the alleged date of injury. For

the reasons below, the Court finds that Ms. Comfort did not prove a specific incident caused

her injury, that she suffers from a cumulative trauma condition, or the date of injury. The

Court holds that she is not entitled to benefits.

Claim History

Ms. Comfort worked “on the line” for Access Dental Lab. She said her duties

included pushing and pulling boxes and carts. Ms. Comfort testified that, after four months

on the job, her left shoulder “was not really working. It always had a burning sensation.”

The burning sensation spread to her back and neck from continuous heavy lifting, pushing,

and pulling. She told her supervisors and asked to see a doctor, but they did nothing in

response.

So, Ms. Comfort sought treatment twice on her own at the emergency room. She

later saw a primary care doctor, orthopedic specialist, and physical therapist. The only

admissible medical record she offered into evidence was a December 2022 “final report”

of thoracic spine x-rays.

1

She alleged in her petition for benefit determination that she injured her underarms

on February 20, 2022. Ms. Comfort, whose primary language is not English, wrote she

was “pushing boxes to another place several time[s.] The boxes felt but i pick up. the

boxes put the top of another boxes[.] My left shoulder hurt[.]”1 Ms. Comfort also filed an

earlier petition, alleging she injured her left shoulder on February 15, 2022, from “carrying

dental arches” and “carrying heavy boxes.”2 Ms. Comfort testified that she did not

complete the initial petition but “maybe a friend” did for her. The friend, whom she

declined to identify, mistakenly wrote the date of injury as February 15, 2022. Ms. Comfort

signed both petitions below a certification that they are “true and accurate to the best of my

knowledge, information, and belief.”

Heike Brooks, a claims examiner, testified regarding the processing of Ms.

Comfort’s claim. She stated that another examiner in her office initially handled the claim

and took a recorded statement from Ms. Comfort. Access Dental introduced a transcript

of the statement. In it, Ms. Comfort said she became injured on “the 15th.” Ms. Comfort

also stated she was pushing a stack of totes when some of them fell and hit her left shoulder

and neck.

Ms. Comfort could not recall speaking with the claims examiner. She said she was

in pain and on medication, and she suffers from memory loss. She stated several times,

“My brain does not function.” Ms. Comfort denied telling anyone that the date of injury

was February 15 or that a stack of bins hit her on her left shoulder. Access Dental Lab

introduced the transcript of the recorded statement into evidence, and the Court admitted it

over Ms. Comfort’s objection to its content.

Keith Smith, Access Dental Lab’s director of maintenance and safety, also testified

about investigating the claim. He stated he requested surveillance video from the security

department, and security found three videos. After viewing them, Mr. Smith sent them to

the carrier. Afterward, the claim was denied. The denial form states, “There was no

accident or injury arising out of or in the course and scope of employment.”

Access Dental introduced the three videos. Ms. Comfort said she had never seen

them. Mr. Smith authenticated them, and they were allowed into evidence over Ms.

Comfort’s objection. Ms. Comfort said they were “made up” and refused to watch them,

so the Court viewed the videos in chambers.

1

Ms. Comfort’s English proficiency is unclear. She agreed on cross-examination that she worked as an

interpreter for the Afghan army many years ago, interpreting English to Farsi. She communicated at work

in English, sometimes with the help of coworkers. Further, she gave a recorded statement to a claims

examiner in English.

2

The previous case was dismissed without prejudice to its refiling.

2

All three videos depicted the same incident but from different camera angles, and

they are date-stamped “2-15-22.” They showed Ms. Comfort pushing a tall stack of six

empty totes. The top two totes fell to the floor to her right but did not strike her. A few

seconds later, Ms. Comfort placed two totes that did not fall on top of one of the fallen

totes. She moved the two bottom totes in line with other stacked totes. Then, she placed

all the totes back in the stack and walked away, in no apparent distress.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Ms. Comfort, as the employee in a workers’ compensation case, has the burden of

proving all essential elements of her claim. Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, 2015 TN

Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *6 (Aug. 18, 2015). To obtain the requested benefits

at an expedited hearing, Ms. Comfort must show that she is likely to prevail at a hearing

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

Ms. Comfort must show that she suffered an “injury” as that term is defined in the

Workers’ Compensation Law. Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(12) states that

an “injury” is either by “accident” or a “cumulative trauma condition” arising “primarily

out of and in the course and scope of employment.” Further, an injury is accidental only if

it is caused by a “specific incident or set of incidents . . . identifiable by time and place of

occurrence[.]” Id. at -102(12)(A).

Here, the pleadings suggest that Ms. Comfort alleged an injury by accident. In this

lawsuit, she wrote on the petition (paraphrasing slightly) that she was repeatedly pushing

boxes when some fell. She picked them up and arranged them on top of the other boxes,

and her left shoulder hurt. In the previous case, she wrote on the petition that she was

carrying heavy boxes. Then, at the hearing, Ms. Comfort testified that, after four months

on the job, her left shoulder “was not really working,” and she felt a “burning sensation”

from continuous lifting, pushing, and pulling. Notably, Ms. Comfort did not testify about

a stack of totes falling on her in her declaration or at the hearing.

As a result, the Court cannot tell whether Ms. Comfort is arguing that she suffered

an injury by accident or a cumulative trauma condition. The Tennessee Supreme Court

has instructed that it is not the role of the trial courts “to construct a litigant’s case or

arguments” for her. Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301

S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010).

Under either theory of the case, Ms. Comfort has not satisfied her burden of proof.

That proof was almost exclusively her testimony, which was not credible. She was unable

to recall giving the recorded statement and repeatedly said that her “brain does not

function.” Further, Ms. Comfort said she had never seen the videos, refused to watch them,

and then claimed, sight unseen, that they were “made up.” She interrupted witnesses,

3

counsel, the interpreter, and the Court, and her overall demeanor was agitated, hesitant,

defensive, and argumentative. See Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 694-695 (Tenn. 2014).

Turning to the video evidence, they do not show the totes striking Ms. Comfort

forcefully or even touching her body. The totes fall next to her right side, not her left. She

appears to calmly retrieve the fallen totes and returns them to the stack.

As to when the alleged accident occurred, her petition states February 20. However,

the videos are date-stamped February 15, 2020, which is the same date she alleged in her

first petition and in her recorded statement. Ms. Comfort’s claim that an unidentified friend

mistakenly wrote the wrong date is unpersuasive, as she is the one who certified it to be

true and correct when she signed the pleading.

The Court cannot find that Ms. Comfort has shown a specific incident identifiable

by time that caused her alleged injuries. Nor has Ms. Comfort shown a cumulative trauma

injury from four months of continuous lifting, pushing, and pulling. She offered no proof

that a doctor related her condition to work, and her alleged injury is complicated. As the

Appeals Board held, “Except in the most obvious, simple and routine cases, the claimant

in a workers’ compensation action must establish by expert medical evidence the causal

relationship . . . between the claimant’s injury (and disability) and the employment

activity.” Albright v. Hercules HVAC Pads, Inc., 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS

66, at *13 (Dec. 20, 2018).

Therefore, the Court holds that Ms. Comfort is unlikely to prevail at a hearing on

the merits that she is entitled to benefits.

IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Ms. Comfort’s requested relief is denied at this time.

2. This case is set for a status hearing on August 7, 2023, at 10:45 a.m. Central Time.

You must call 615-532-9552 or at 866-943-0025 to participate. Access Dental Lab

must arrange for a court-certified or -registered interpreter.

ENTERED June 5, 2023.

________________________________________

JUDGE KENNETH M. SWITZER

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

4

Appendix

Technical record:

1. Petition for Benefit Determination, May 18, 2022, and Order of Dismissal Without

Prejudice

2. Petition for Benefit Determination, November 29, 2022

3. Dispute Certification Notice, and Additional Information from Employee and

Employer

4. Order Setting Status Hearing

5. Hearing Request

6. Objection to Expedited Hearing on the Record

7. Order on Status Hearing

8. Motion to Continue Expedited Hearing

9. Order Continuing Expedited Hearing

10. Order Resetting Expedited Hearing

11. Employer’s Pre-Expedited Hearing Brief (No attachments)

12. Motion of Witnesses Via Telephone

13. Order Denying Motion for Telephone Appearance

14. Motion of Witnesses Regarding Testimony of Heike Brooks and Keith Smith

15. Order on Motion for Witnesses to Appear by Phone

Evidence:

1. Declaration of Ms. Comfort

2. Affidavit of Heike Brooks

3. Affidavit of Kevin Smith

4. Wage statement

5. Notice of Denial and cover letter

6. Medical records (Identification only)3

7. X-ray, thoracic spine, report signed by Dr. Alex Hall

8. Choice of Physicians form

9. Three videos

10. Transcript of recorded statement of Rachel Comfort, March 21, 2022

11. Previous workers’ compensation claims records (Identification only)4

3

Ms. Comfort offered copies of: unsigned work excuses; a bank statement; emergency room discharge

instructions, a letter conveying mammogram results; primary care physician records signed by a physician

assistant; and appointment notices. The Court did not admit them into evidence because they are not

relevant, nor are they signed by a medical doctor. Tenn. R. Evid. 402; Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-

21-.16(2)(b) (February, 2022) (Medical records are self-authenticating and admissible when signed by a

physician).

4

The records lacked a certification, and no witness authenticated them, so the Court did not admit them

into evidence.

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on June 5, 2023.

Name Certified U.S. Email Service sent to:

Mail Mail

Rachel Comfort, X rachelcomfort@icloud.com

Employee lalia9994@aol.com

James Tucker, X jtucker@manierherod.com

Employer’s Attorney pbarron@manierherod.com

dstevens@manierherod.com

lohman@manierherod.com

_______________________________________

Penny Shrum

Clerk, Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov

6

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.