Tennessee Case Law Summaries                                                                                        

Weeks of November 30th and December 7th, 2015

BY:  Allen Callison

Expedited Appeals Board Orders

Cedric Jones v. Crencor Leasing and Sales

Docket: 2015-06-0332

Judge: Tim Conner

Appeal from: Josh Baker

Claimant’s Counsel: Kim Thompson

Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: Michael Haynie

 

Briefly: Appeals Board reversed Trial Court’s award of temporary disability benefits, concluding that the Employer was capable of accommodating the light duty restrictions but for the fact that the Claimant was terminated for misconduct.

Summary: After a compensable workplace accident, the Claimant was returned to work with light duty restrictions before being terminated for misreporting time on his timecard.  The Claimant filed a request for indemnity benefits and the Trial Court ordered benefits, stating that while it agreed that the termination for misconduct was a legitimate termination, it found that the Employer could not have accommodated them despite testimony to the contrary.  The Employer appealed the decision to the Appeals Board, which agreed that the termination was for a workplace-related misconduct.  Further, the Appeals Board found that the Employer presented unrefuted evidence that it could have accommodated the restrictions but for the fact that the Claimant was terminated for misconduct. 

 

Mario Mace v. Express Services, Inc.

Docket: 2015-06-0059

Judge: Marshall Davidson

Appeal from: Ken Switzer

Claimant’s Counsel: William Hicky

Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: Greg Fuller

 

Briefly: Appeals Board affirmed denial of TTD benefits after Claimant was terminated for using profane language in the Employer’s lobby and storming out of the office.  .  .  

Summary: The Appeals Board was asked by Claimant on appeal whether the actions identified in the Trial Court’s order constituted misconduct pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Appeals Board noted that the appeal disputed the reason why the Claimant was terminated, but the Claimant’s own testimony included an admission that he has used profane language in the workplace and that the language was in violation of a workplace policy.  Therefore, the denial of benefits was affirmed.

 

James McAffery v. Cardinal Logistics

Docket: 2015-08-0218

Judge: David Hensley

Appeal from: Judge Luttrell

Claimant’s Counsel: Jimmy Blount

Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: Prairie Arnold

Briefly: The Appeals Board affirmed an award of benefits after the Claimant, a truck driver, sneezed while operating a tractor-trailer, resulting in the vehicle’s overturning.  The Employer asserted several defenses, including idiopathic condition, act of God, and the imported risk doctrine.  The Appeals Board affirmed the Trial Court’s conclusions that those defenses were not applicable to this case.

Summary: The Appeals Board considered each of the Employer’s arguments in turn.  With respect to the idiopathic injury defense, the Appeals Board stated that even if an idiopathic condition causes the fainting or collapse, the injury can still be compensable “if an employment hazard causes or exacerbates the injury.”  In this case, the fact that the Claimant was driving a truck when he sneezed necessarily caused or exacerbated his injuries, which he did.  The Appeals Board found that the Act of God defense was inapplicable to this case because there was no force of nature that could not have been avoided.  Further, with respect to the Imported Risk Doctrine, the Appeals Board found that it, too, was inapplicable based on the particular facts of the case and the lack of supporting case law in Tennessee discussing the Imported Risk Doctrine and how it would be applicable to this scenario. 

Jared Shannon v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Docket: 2015-06-0052

Judge: Tim Conner

Appeal from: Ken Switzer

Claimant’s Counsel: Julie Reasonover

Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: David Hooper

Briefly: The Appeals Board affirmed the Trial Court’s denial of benefits, stating that the medical records initially reported that the shoulder problems stemmed from an accident about two months prior to the on-the-job event and did not primarily arise out of the employment. 

Summary:  The singular issue on appeal was whether the Claimant was entitled to a panel of physicians from the Employer to determine causation.  In support of its argument, the Claimant argued that it met the criteria for obtaining a panel of physicians: 1) that he sustained an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment and (2) that he provided proper notice of the accident to the Employer.  The Appeals Board disagreed, stating that requisite burden of proof at the expedited hearing level is to produce “sufficient evidence from which the trial court could conclude that Employee is likely to prove his medical condition … arose primarily from the work accident.”  In this case, the Claimant failed to make a sufficient showing of such evidence.

Expedited Hearing Orders

Diana Cartee v. Schwan’s Food Service, Inc.

Docket: 2015-06-0414

Judge: Ken Switzer

Claimant’s Counsel: Pro se

Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: Greg Fuller

Briefly:   Claimant was walking down a flight of steps when her knee “made a horrific sound.”  She did not fall to the ground, but was helped to her car.  The Trial Court agreed with Employer that this constituted an idiopathic injury that did not arise primarily out of the employment.  

Summary: Claimant testified at a deposition and at the hearing that she was walking down steps when her knee twisted.  However, she did not fall.  She sought medical care at TOA with Dr. Anderson, who testified via affidavit that this was not an idiopathic injury because her injury was known to have been caused by twisting her knee.  The Trial Court disagreed, stating that the facts of the case were similar to a line of Supreme Court cases stating that an injury sustained merely by one’s knee going out while climbing or descending stairs is idiopathic unless there is some additional factor such as a puddle of water.

Melissa Duck v. Cox Oil Co.

Docket: 2015-07-0089

Judge: Allen Phillips

Claimant’s Counsel: Charles Holliday

Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: Colleen Horn

 

Briefly: The Trial Court awarded medical benefits to the Claimant after she voluntarily quit her job and, on the way out of the building, slipped and fell, sustaining injuries to her back and head.  The sole issue for the court was whether the injury occurred in the course and scope of her employment.  The Trial Court said that it did and awarded benefits.        

Summary: The Claimant arrived for work, clocked in, and then told her Employer that she was quitting.  On her way out of the building, she slipped in a puddle of water.  The fall was witnessed by coworkers and was not disputed.  The sole issue is whether the Claimant, having voluntarily quit, had exited the scope of her employment when she was leaving the building.  In short, the Trial Court was asked whether the coming and going rule continued to apply to a “former” employee exiting the Employer’s premises following a termination or resignation.  The Trial Court found that it did, citing Larsen’s treatise and several cases from other jurisdictions addressing this same issue. 

Benjamin Fouse v. City of Murfreesboro

Docket: 2015-05-0294

Judge: Dale Tipps

Claimant’s Counsel: Pro se

Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: Richard Rucker

Briefly: In what is perhaps the first “occupational disease” case under the new law, the Trial Court awarded medical and indemnity benefits to an Employee who  provided medical evidence that his histoplasmosis arose out of a workplace exposure on a particular date. 

Summary: The Claimant was cleaning a storage shed that contained large amounts of bird droppings, decaying organic matter, and commercial fertilizer, resulting in his inhalation of those substances.  A couple of days later, he began feeling ill and sought medical treatment. Two treating providers testified via affidavit that the circumstances of the employment, combined with the nature of his presentation and condition several days later made it “very likely” and “no doubt” that the condition arose out of the employment.

Jose Gonzalez v. The Troxel Co.

Docket: 2015-08-0050

Judge: Jim Umsted

Claimant’s Counsel: Pro se

Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: Ryan Sarr

Briefly: The Trial Court denied benefits, finding that the Claimant failed to provide notice of an at-work injury within 30 days and failed to present any evidence that he sustained a workplace injury.  

Summary: The Claimant reported to his supervisor on September 8, 2015, that he was not feeling well, prompting the supervisor to recommend that he see a doctor.  The Claimant returned to work and continued working for another 50 days before reporting an on-the-job injury.  The medical records submitted as evidence documented an inguinal hernia and back pain, but there was no testimony or evidence suggesting how those conditions were related to a workplace incident. 

Sara Grumm v. Buffalo Wild Wings

Docket: 2015-18-6647

Judge: Lisa Knott

Claimant’s Counsel: Pro se

Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: James Thompson

Briefly: The Trial Court awarded medical and indemnity benefits, stating that the Claimant had presented sufficient evidence that her knee condition primarily arose out of her employment, as well as evidence showing that her knee injury rendered her disabled for a period of time.

Summary: The Claimant slipped and fell on ice at her place of employment, reporting to the ER the following day complaining of knee pain.  Ultimately, a couple of weeks later, a panel of physicians was provided and the Claimant began treating with an authorized provider.  The ATP took the Claimant off work for a period of approximately a month, but TTD benefits were not commenced.  The issue at trial was entitlement to ongoing medical benefits and TTD benefits.  The Trial Court found that medical benefits were warranted because the ATP stated that he did “believe that this is work-related.”  Further, the Trial Court found that the medical records indicated that the Claimant was totally off work for a period of approximately a month, thereby entitling her to TTD benefits. 

Taquisha Hilliard v. Federal Express

Docket: 2015-08-0136

Judge: Jim Umstead

Claimant’s Counsel: Pro se

Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: Jonathan May

Briefly: The Trial Court found that the Claimant had failed to provide adequate notice of a compensable injury and that her injuries likely did not arise primarily out of her employment.  Therefore, benefits were denied. 

Summary:  The Claimant began treating on her own in August 2014, stating that she had injured her knee on a stairway while working.  However, the records reported not specific injury.  Approximately five months later, she reported an injury to her Employer and she was offered a panel.  The physician at Concentra stated that there was insufficient evidence to show that the complaints were related to her employment.  The Trial Court, therefore, denied benefits.

Justin Kennedy v. Paladin Attachments

Docket: 5015-01-0296

Judge: Robert Durham

Claimant’s Counsel: Matthew Coleman

Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: LeeAnn Murray

Briefly: The parties presented arguments for an “on the record” determination as to whether the Claimant was entitled to indemnity benefits following his termination by his Employer.  Based on the records provided, the Trial Court found that the Claimant was terminated for misconduct, thereby denying TTD or TPD benefits. 

Summary: The Claimant sustained a compensable injury to his right wrist for which he received medical benefits and continued to work in a light duty capacity.  However, approximately three weeks later, he was terminated when he showed up late for work and missed a mandatory team meeting.  Additionally, the Employer provided documentation that the Claimant had accumulated a sufficient number of “points” that justified a termination under the workplace rules.  The Claimant argued that this was mere pretext, but the Court stated that no additional evidence was presented to contradict the Employer’s testimony and evidence. 

Kyle Johnson v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Docket: 2015-01-0148

Judge: Audrey Headrick

Claimant’s Counsel: Josh Ward

Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: David Riley

Briefly: The Trial Court denied an award of medical and indemnity benefits, stating that the circumstances of the injury indicate that the compensability of the claim turns on the Claimant’s credibility.  However, as the Trial Court pointed out, the Claimant was not consistent in his testimony and did not appear credible.  

Summary: The Claimant alleged the he sustained a low back injury while loading a large box of tools into his work vehicle.  The accident was not immediately reported and there were a number of circumstances that caused the Employer to question whether the injury happened as alleged.  Further, the Claimant stated that he had no recollection of his activities in the four days prior to the date of injury and the initial medical record following the date of injury stated that the injury happened on a Sunday that he was not working.  Additionally, evidence was submitted that the Claimant was terminated after he was found to have used the company credit card for personal expenditures unrelated to his employment.  The Trial Court noted that because the accident allegedly occurred at home, the case generally boiled down to one of credibility.  However, based on the totality of the evidence, including the Trial Court’s in-person review of his demeanor while testifying, the Trial Court found that the Claimant was not a credible witness.  Therefore, benefits for this at-work injury were denied. 

Allen Callison | Attorney