Expedited Hearing Orders

Mario Mace v. Express Services, Inc.

Docket: 2015-06-0059

Judge: Ken Switzer

Claimant’s Counsel: William Hicky

Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: Gregory Fuller

Briefly: Claimant requested TTD benefits following his termination from his employer.  He argued, first, that his restrictions were not appropriately accommodated and, second, that his termination was pretextual.  The Court found in favor of the Employer on both issues and denied TTD benefits. 

Summary: The Claimant sustained a shoulder injury that, at times, resulted in work restrictions of no use of the left arm.  The Employer testified that it always attempts to accommodate restrictions and had the Claimant sorting documents and performing cleaning duties.  He was instructed not to use his left arm and to call for help if he was unable to perform a task.  One of the tasks was sorting paperwork which required him to use his left hand.  Another task was to pick up trash from the parking lot, which the Claimant argued was intended to humiliate him and force him to quit.  One day, the Claimant reentered the building after cleaning the parking lot and failed to put a long-sleeved shirt over his cut-off t-shirt, thereby violating the office dress code.  He was immediately written  up for the dress code violation, and began muttering that “this is unf—ing believable.”  The very next day he was terminated for misconduct.  The Court found that the Employer’s reason for terminating the employee was not pretextual and that it had demonstrated the ability to provide work within his restrictions.  Therefore, the Claimant was not entitled to indemnity benefits.  

Darrell Manuel v. A-1 Workforce, Inc.

Docket: 2015-02-0108

Judge: Brian Addington

Claimant’s Counsel: Pro se

Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: Eric Harrison

Briefly: Claimant alleged that exposure to diesel fumes precipitated chest pains, resulting in angina and the need for a cardiac catheterization.  The Employer obtained a records review from a physician who opined that exposure to diesel fumes would be unlikely to cause a cardiac syndrome.  The trial court denied benefits, stating that there was no evidence of causation in any medical record.    

Summary: The Claimant was a pack-a-day smoker who testified that the facility at which he was working had diesel boom trucks working in his area.  Although the diesel smell was noxious, he was instructed not to open a door to ventilate his area.  A couple of days later while again working around the diesel fumes, the Claimant became nauseous and had an elevated heart rate.  He was taken to the emergency room where the records reflect he told the treating physician that the chest pains began one day prior (when he was not working around diesel fumes).  Tests were performed and a cardiologist performed a heart catheterization, which was normal. Eventually, he was diagnosed with hypertension and atypical chest pain.  Employer’s IME physician reviewed the records and concluded that there was no causal relationship between Mr. Manuel’s exposure to diesel exhaust fumes and his subsequent cardiac treatment.  The Trial Court denied medical and indemnity benefits, stating that the medical records contradicted the Claimant’s testimony in several respects and provided no evidence of causation. 

James McCaffery v. Cardinal Logistics

Docket: 2015-02-0226

Judge: Amber Luttrell

Claimant’s Counsel: Jimmy Blount

Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: Prairie Arnold

Briefly: Claimant sought medical and indemnity benefits after he was involved in a one-vehicle accident after sneezing.  Claim was denied as idiopathic or as an act of God.  The trial court, however, found that the injury was compensable under the heightened risk rule such that even if the sneeze was idiopathic, the resulting MVA was a heightened risk for which the Employer would be responsible.  

Summary: Claimant was driving an 18 wheeler when he sneezed, causing him to lose control over the tractor trailer.  The tractor trailer flipped and the Claimant sustained injuries.  The claim was denied and a PBD ensued.  The Employer denied the claim, arguing that the injury did not arise out of the employment, that the accident was an act of God, or that the imported risk theory rejected compensability based on the facts.  The trial court, however, rejected each defense, stating that that were was no evidence that the sneeze itself caused the accident or the injuries.  Instead, the Court maintained that the Claimant’s driving a truck and losing control of the truck was what caused the accident and injuries. As such, the act of God defense and the imported risk doctrine were not applicable to this claim.  Medical and indemnity benefits were ordered. 

Brandon Sullins v. Total HVAC

Docket: 2015-06-0581

Judge: Josh Baker

Claimant’s Counsel: Pro se

Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: Devin Williams

Briefly: Claimant alleged that he sustained chemical burns while installing a sink.  However, he was unable to present any evidence that he was exposed to chemical burns while in the course of his employment.  Therefore, the court denied benefits based on the lack of evidence supporting an exposure that resulted in the burns.  

Summary: The Claimant, a plumber, was installing a sink at a fast food restaurant.  The installation took several hours, and during the process, water from the sink spilled onto the floor.  The Claimant was lying on his back installing the sink, thereby coming into contact with the water on the floor.  The Claimant began experiencing a tingling and burning sensation in his arms and upper back, for which he sought medical treatment the following day.  The medical records reveal a sunburn from several weeks prior, but when the burns failed to heal, the Claimant underwent skin grafts at Vanderbilt Univ. Med. Ctr.  At the hearing the Claimant presented lay witness testimony that the burns appeared shortly after the installation project.  However, he did not present any evidence that he was exposed to anything other than water and, perhaps, soap.  Because the Claimant could not present any evidence whatsoever that he was exposed to a chemical that could have caused the burns, the trial court found that the Claimant was not entitled to medical or indemnity benefits.