Opinion

Williams, Patrick v. Yates Services

  • 2023 TN WC 48
Court
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Filed
Jul 5, 2023
Status
Published
On the bench
Robert Durham
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 23.6%

The opinion

FILED

Jul 05, 2023

01:50 PM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT MURFREESBORO

PATRICK WILLIAMS, ) Docket No 2019-05-1202

Employee, ) 2019-05-1203

v. )

YATES SERVICES, ) State File No. 57462-2019

Employer, ) 57623-2019

and )

TRAVELERS INDEM. CO., ) Judge Robert Durham

Carrier. )

COMPENSATION ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Court held a hearing on June 12, 2023, and a supplemental hearing on June 27,

on Yates’s Motions for Summary Judgment regarding Mr. Williams’s claims for injuries to

his shoulders and right knee. For the reasons below, the Court grants the motion. Mr.

Williams is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment for his work-related

injury to his right elbow and right leg but is not entitled to any additional medical treatment

or disability benefits for any other alleged injuries from the March 5 or July 30 incidents.

History of Claim

Mr. Williams alleged that on March 5, 2019, a “tug” collided with a piece of

machinery that then struck him in the right elbow, causing him pain in his elbow and

shoulders. He additionally alleged that he was struck again on July 30, 2019, causing an

aggravation of his shoulder injuries as well as right knee pain. In its summary judgment

motion, Yates did not dispute that these incidents occurred as Mr. Yates described. 1 Yates

provided panels, and Mr. Williams chose Dr. John Byrnes.

1

When Mr. Williams asked for video of the July 30 incident, Yates did not provide it but instead asserted

that the area where it happened was not covered by a camera. At the hearing, Mr. Williams disputed this

assertion and said that he needed the video to show the doctors the severity of the accident so he could prove

causation. However, Mr. Williams did not file any discovery requests until March 2023, and when Yates

informed him that the video did not exist, he did not attempt to schedule any depositions to make further

queries or file a motion to continue the summary judgment motion.

1

In support of its motion, Yates submitted two C-32 medical reports from Dr. Byrnes.

For the March 5 injury, Dr. Byrnes said that Mr. Williams suffered an injury to his right

elbow that caused pain and required treatment but did not result in any permanent disability.

However, he did not believe that Mr. Williams’s bilateral shoulder symptoms or need for

treatment were primarily caused by the accident, nor were his shoulder conditions advanced

or made worse by the collision.

Dr. Byrnes made a similar assessment of Mr. Williams’s assertion that he injured his

right knee in the July 30 incident. Specifically, Dr. Byrnes believed that Mr. Williams only

suffered a bruise to his right leg. Dr. Byrnes did not assign an impairment for the bruise or

recommend further treatment for it.

Regarding Mr. Williams’s patella tendon cyst and patella pain, Dr. Byrnes said that

the July 30 accident did not cause the pain or the cyst, nor did it advance or worsen these

preexisting conditions. He also said that the accident was not primarily responsible for any

need to treat the conditions.

Mr. Williams did not submit any depositions, affidavits, or C-32 reports from a

doctor to counter Dr. Byrnes’s opinions. Mr. Williams also did not respond to Yates’s

Statement of Undisputed Facts that reiterated these opinions.

For this motion, Yates stipulated that Mr. Williams is entitled to reasonable and

necessary medical treatment with Dr. Byrnes for the right elbow injury and right leg bruise

that Dr. Byrnes causally related to his work-related falls, but not for his bilateral shoulder

and knee complaints.

Law and Analysis

To prevail on his claim for benefits related to his shoulders and knee, Mr. Williams must

prove his injury or need for treatment arose primarily out of his employment. Tenn. Code Ann.

§ 50-6-102(12)(A) (2022). He must prove that relation to a “reasonable degree of medical

certainty,” which necessarily requires an expert medical opinion. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-

102(12)(C). Yates asserts it is entitled to summary judgment because Dr. Byrne did not

furnish an opinion that Mr. Williams’s accidents caused either an injury to or the need for

treatment of his shoulders and knee.

Summary judgment is only appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment

as a matter of law.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 (2022).

To prevail on its motion, Yates must do one of two things: (1) submit affirmative

evidence that negates an essential element of Mr. Williams’s claims; or (2) demonstrate that

2

Mr. Williams’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of his claim. Tenn.

Code Ann. § 20-16-101. If Yates meets its burden, then Mr. Williams must “demonstrate

the existence of specific facts in the record which could lead a rational trier of fact to find

in [his favor].” Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 265

(Tenn. 2015). The Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Williams

and must also draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. McCann v. Hatchett, 19 S.W.3d

218, 219 (Tenn. 2000).

Based on the undisputed facts, Yates met both elements of summary judgment for

the alleged shoulder and knee injuries. First, as allowed under Tennessee Code Annotated

section 50-6-235(a)(c)(1), Yates submitted written medical reports from Dr. Byrd instead

of a deposition or affidavit. In the reports, Dr. Byrd gave his opinion that Mr. Williams’s

bilateral shoulder and right knee problems were not caused, aggravated, or worsened by his

accidents, and any medical treatment he may require for those conditions were not due to

his work accidents. Thus, Yates submitted affirmative evidence that negated an essential

element of Mr. Williams’s claims: causation.

Second, Mr. Williams did not submit any information that might constitute expert

opinions in the form of a pleading, admission, interrogatory response, affidavit, deposition,

or medical report under section 50-6-235 to dispute Dr. Byrd’s causation opinions. Rule 56

of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the evidence supporting or

defending a summary judgment be in one of those forms. Therefore, Yates has met the

second element of summary judgment by establishing as a matter of law that Mr. Williams

has insufficient evidence to establish an essential element of his claims. Yates is entitled to

summary judgment as to Mr. Williams’s claims for injuries to his shoulders and right knee.

However, as agreed by Yates, Mr. Williams suffered right elbow pain and a bruise

to his right leg due to his accidents, although Dr. Byrd’s opinions established that he did not

suffer any disability from these injuries. Thus, the Court holds that Mr. Williams is entitled

to medical treatment for these injuries if it becomes necessary.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:

1. Yates’s Motions for Summary Judgment are granted, and Mr. Williams’s claims for

disability benefits as well as medical treatment for his shoulders and right knee are

denied. Dr. Byrnes shall remain Mr. Williams’s authorized physician for any

reasonable and necessary treatment for his work-related injuries to his elbow and the

bruise to his right leg.

2. Yates shall pay court costs of $150.00 to the Court Clerk within five business days.

3. Yates shall prepare and submit the SD-2 within ten days of the date of judgment.

3

4. Unless appealed, this order becomes final in thirty days.

ENTERED July 5, 2023.

____________________________________

Robert V. Durham, Judge

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

Name Certified Via Via Service sent to:

Mail Fax Email

Patrick Williams X X 445 Courtnea Lane

Manchester, TN 37355

Patrickwilliams14@gmail.com

John Rucker, III X rrucker@ruckerlaw.com

_____________________________________

Penny Shrum, Clerk

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov

4

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.