1 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSAT I ON APPEALS BOARD

T r e ’ B i o n L i n d s a y ) D ocket No

. 2 0 2 1

- 0 6

- 1 6 2 0

)

v. ) S tate File N o

. 9 3 9 7 0

- 2 0 2 1

)

S t a t e I n d u s t r i e s

, L L C

, e t a l

. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Worke rs’ )

Compensation Claims )

J o s h u a D

. B a k e r

, Judge )

A f f

i r m e d and C e r t i f i e d a s F i n a l

T h i s ap p e a l f o l l o w s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s g r a n t o f t h e e m p l o y e r ’ s m o t i o n f o r s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t i n w h i c h t h e e m p l o y e r a s s e r t e d t h e e m p l o y e e c o u l d n o t e s t a b l i s h h i s a l l e g e d

b a c k i n j u r y a r o s e p r i m a r i l y o u t o f a n d i n t h e c o u r s e a n d s c o p e o f h i s e m p l o y m e n t

. Specifically

, t h e e m p l o y e r p r o v i d e d t w o e x p e r t m e d i c a l o p i n i o n s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e

e m p l o y e e ’ s a l l e g e d i n j u r y w a s n o t m o r e t h a n f i f

t y p e r c e n t r e l a t e d t o t h e employment

. T h e e m p l o y e e f i l e d a l a t e r e s p o n s e t o t h e m o t i o n

, b u t h e d i d n o t p r o v i d e a n y m e d i c a l

d o c u m e n t a t i o n o f a n i n j u r y o r a n y e x p e r t m e d i c a l opinion t h a t t h e i n j u ry w a s p r i m a r i l y

related t o t h e r e p o r t e d i n c i d e n t o r h i s employment

. T h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e

e m p l o y e r p r e s e n t e d a f f

i r m a t i v e e v i d e n c e negating a n e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f t h e e m p l o y e e ’ s

c l a i m a n d t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e f a i l e d t o s h o w t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a n y g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l

f

a c t f o r t r i a l

. The e m p l o y e e has appe aled. Having carefully reviewed the record, we

a f f

i r m the trial c our t’s deci sion and c e r t i f y i t a s f i n a l

.

J u d g e Meredith B

. W e a v e r del ivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which

Presiding Judge Timothy W. Conner and Judge Pele I. Godkin joined.

T r e ’ B i o n L i n d s a y

, C l a r k s v i l l e

, Tennessee, e m p l o y e e

- appellant, p r o s e

L e e A n n e M u r r a y a n d T a y l o r P r u i t t

, N a s h v i l l e , Tennessee, for the e m p l o y e r

- ap p e l l e e

, S t a t e I n d u s t r i e s

, L L C 

### FILED

Jan 19, 2023

07:20 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

APPEALS BOARD2 Memorandum Opinion 1

W h i l e i n t h e c o u r s e a n d s c o p e o f h i s e m p l o y m e n t a s a l i n e h a n g e r w i t h S t a t e

I n d u s t r i e s

, L L C ( “ E m p l o y e r ” ) 2

, T r e ’ B i o n L i n d s a y ( “ E m p l o y e e ” ) r e p o r t e d p a i n i n h i s

b a c k a f t e r l i f t i n g o b j e c t s o n D e c e m b e r 8

, 2 0 2 1

. 3 E m p l o y e e r e p o r t e d t h e i n c i d e n t t o h i s

s u p e r v i s o r a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y r e p o r t e d h i s c o n d i t i o n wo rsening a w e e k l a t e r

. H e w a s

p r o v i d e d a p a n e l o f o r t h o p e d i c s p e c i a l i s t s f r o m w h i c h h e c h o s e D r

. R y a n S n o w d e n

. D r

. S n o w d e n s a w E m p l o y e e o n M a r c h 1 4

, 2 0 2 2

, a n d h e l a t e r c o m p l e t e d a n d s i g n e d a F o r m

C

- 3 2 S t a n d a r d F o r m M e d i c a l R e p o r t ( “ C

- 3 2 ” ) s t a t i n g t h e e m p l o y m e n t d i d n o t c a u s e

E m p l o y e e ’ s d i s a b l e m e n t o r a g g r a v a t e h i s p r e

- e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n

. D r

. S n o w d e n f u r t h e r

s t a t e d t h a t

, u p o n h i s r e v i e w o f t h e “ i m a g i n g s tu d i e s a n d m e d i c a l r e c o r d s

, i t i s ap p a r e n t

[ E m p l o y e e ’ s ] employment d i d n o t c o n t r i b u t e m o r e t h a n 5 0 % i n c a u s i n g h i s m e d i c a l

c o n d i t i o n o r t h e n e e d f o r m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t

. ” D r

. S n o w d e n p l a c e d E m p l o y e e a t

m a x i m u m m e d i c a l i m p r o v e m e n t o n M a r c h 1 4

, 2 0 2 2

, a n d a l s o s t a t e d h e c o u l d h a v e b e e n

w o r k i n g w i t h r e s t r i c t i o n s a s o f D e c e m b e r 8

, 2 0 2 1

.

T h e r e a f t e r

, E m p l o y e e s o u g h t m e d i c a l c a r e o n h i s o w n a n d o b t a i n e d a n e v a l u a t i o n

w i t h n e u r o s u r g e o n D r

. S c o t t S t a n d a r d

, w h o d i a g n o s e d h i m w i t h d e g e n e r a t i v e d i s c d i s e a s e

u n r e l a t e d t o h i s e m p l o y m e n t

. D r

. S t a n d a r d a l s o c o m p l e t e d a n d s i g n e d a C

- 3 2 i n w h i c h h e

o p i n e d t h a t t h e w o r k i n j u r y w a s n o t t h e c a u s e o f E m p l o y e e ’ s d i s a b i l i t y o r n e e d f o r

m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t a n d d i d n o t a g g r a v a t e h i s p r e

- e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n

. D r

. S t a n d a r d a l s o

s t a t e d t h a t E m p l o y e e h a d b e e n “ t a k e n o f f w o r k f o r h i s n o n

- w o r k

- r e l a t e d d e g e n e r a t i v e

c o n d i t i o n

. ”

B o t h medical r e p o r t s w e r e p r o p e r l y f i l e d w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h

T e n n e s s e e C o d e A n n o t a t e d s e c t i o n 5 0

- 6

- 2 3 5

, a n d E m p l o y e e t i m e l y o b j e c t e d t o t h e o n e

D r

. S n o w d e n h a d c o m p l e t e d

. H o w e v e r

, E m p l o y e e d i d n o t d e p o s e D r

. S n o w d e n o r o f f

e r

a n y other medical p r o o f a d d r e s s i n g t h e i s s u e o f medical c a u s a t i o n

. 4 A s s u c h

, E m p l o y e r

f

i l e d a m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i n w h i c h i t a r g u e d E m p l o y e e c o u l d n o t p r o v e h i s

a l l e g e d i n j u ry a r o s e p r i m a r i l y o u t o f t h e e m p l o y m e n t

. E m p l o y e e f i l e d a r e s p o n s e o n e d a y

1 “The a ppea l s b oa rd may, in an effort t o secure a j ust and spe edy det ermination of matters on appeal a nd

with the concurrence of all judges, decide an appeal by an abbreviated order or by memorandum opinion,

whichever the a ppeals b oard deems appropr iate, in case s tha t are no t legally and/or fac tually novel or

complex .” Ten n. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800

- 02

- 22

- .0 3(1 ) (2 020)

.

2 Employer is also referred to as “ AO Smith ” through out the record interchangeab ly

.

3 Emp loyer ’ s brief on appeal states the report ed injury wa s on Septemb e r 8, 2021, but this appears to be a

typogra phical err or as the remainder of the record consiste ntly identifies De c ember 8 as the date of injury

.

4 In accordance with Tennessee Code Annotat ed section 50

- 6

- 2 35 ( c) (2) , a party who ob jects to the f i l i n g

of a F o rm C

- 32 m ust depose tha t physician “ within a reasona ble time or the objection shall be deemed to

be waived. ”3 p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g f o r t h e m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t a t t a c h i n g n o n

- c ertified m e d i c a l

r e c o r d s a n d a r g u i n g t h a t h e h a d n o p r e

- e x i s t i n g b a c k c o n d i t i o n

. 5

T h e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d E m p l o y er ’ s mo t io n

, d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e u n r e f u t e d m e d i c a l

e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d b y E m p l o y e r n e g a t e d a n e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f E m pl o y e e ’ s cl ai m

,

n a me l y t h a t E m p l o y e e ’ s a l l e g e d i n j u ry a r o s e p r i m a r i l y o u t o f t h e e m p l o y m e n t

. F u r t h e r

,

t h e c o u r t f o u n d t h a t E m p l o y e e d i d n o t o f f

e r e v i d e n c e o f a n y d i s p u t e d m a t e r i a l f a c t s

. E m p l o y e e h as appealed

.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has explai ned the requiremen ts for a m ov ant to

pr evail on a mo tion for summary jud gment:

[W] hen the moving party does not bear the burden of proof at trial, the

moving party may satisfy its burden of production either (1) by

affirmatively negating an essential elem ent of the nonmovi ng part y ’ s c laim

or ( 2) by demonst rating t hat the nonm oving party ’ s evidence at the

summary judgment st age is insufficient to establish the nonmoving party ’ s

claim or defense. We reiterate that a moving party seeking summary

judgment by attacking the nonm oving p a rt y ’ s evidenc e must do mor e than

m ake a conclu sory assertion that summary judgment is appropria te on this

basis. Rather, Tennessee Rule 5 6 .0 3 requires the moving p arty to support

its motion with “a separate concise statement of mate rial facts as to which

the moving party contends there is no genuine issue for trial.” Te nn. R.

Civ. P. 56.03 . “ Each fact is to be set f orth in a separate, numbered

paragraph and supported by a specific citation to the record.” Id.

Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC , 477 S.W.3d 235, 2 6 4

- 6 5 (Tenn. 20 15)

.

Employe e is sel f

- represente d in th i s appeal, as he w as in the trial cour t

. H e d i d n o t

identify a s p e c i f i c i s s u e i n h i s N o t i c e o f A p p e a l b u t i n s t e a d r e l i e d o n a p r e v i o u s l y

s u b m i t t e d b r i e f i n w hi c h h e a r g u e d t h a t t h e C

- 3 2 s s u b m i t t e d b y E m p l o y e r w e r e n o t

s u b m i t t e d p r o p e r l y

. H e a s s e r t e d t h a t h e w a n t e d “ l o s t w a g e s ” a n d c o n t i n u e d m e d i c a l

b e n e f i t s “ i f n e e d e d

. ”

Par ties w ho de cide to rep r ese nt themselves ar e enti tled to fair and equal t reatment

by the courts. Whi tak er v. Whirlpool C or

p.

, 32 S

. W .3 d 2 22, 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000 ).

However

, a s expl ained b y the Cour t o f A p p e a l s

,

5 Purs uant to Tenn. Comp. R. and Regs. 0800

- 02

- 21

- .18(1)(d), re sponses to motio ns for summary

judgment must be filed “ no late r than f ive ( 5) bu si n e ss days before the motion he aring. ” Moreo ver, “ [ i ] f

no opp os ition is filed, the dispositi ve motion will be considere d unopposed. ” Id.4 c ourts m us t al so be mindful of t he boun dary b et wee n fairness t o a pr o se

litig ant and u nfairness to the pro se litigant’s adversary. Thus, th e courts

must not e xcu s e pr o se litigants from comply ing with the same su b stantive

and p r ocedural rules th at repres ented p ar ti es are expected to

o bse rve

. . . . P ro se litigant s sh oul d not be p erm i tted to shift the burden of

t he litigation to the courts or to their adversar ie s.

Hess m e r v. Hessmer , 138 S.W.3d 901 , 903

- 04 (Tenn. C t. App. 2003) ( citations omitted ).

T w o p h y s i c i a n s o p i n e d t h a t E m p l o y e e ’ s a l l e g e d injury d i d n o t a r i s e p r i m a r i l y o u t

o f h i s e m p l o y m e n t

. B o t h p h y s i c i a n s s i g n e d a n d d a t e d t h e F o r m C

- 3 2 s

, a n d E m p l o y e r

p r o p e r l y s u b m i t t e d t h e m t o t h e c o u r t w i t h n o t i c e t o E m p l o y e e

. E m p l o y e e d i d n o t d e p o s e

e i t h e r d o c t o r

, n o r d i d h e p r o p e r l y s ub m i t h i s o w n m e d i c a l p r o o f o f a n i n j u r y p r i m a r i l y

a r i s i n g o u t o f a n d i n t h e c o u r s e a n d s c o p e o f h i s e m p l o y m e n t

. W h i l e h e d i d r e s p o n d t o

t h e m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t

, h i s r e s p o n s e w a s n o t t i m e l y

, a n d i t d i d n o t r a i s e a n y

g e n u i n e i s s u e s o f d i s p u t e d m a t e r i a l f a c t

. T h u s

, w e c o n c l u d e t h a t E m p l o y e r ’ s m e d i c a l

p r o o f w a s s u f f

i c i e n t t o n e g a t e a n e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f E m p l o y e e ’ s c l a i m

, n a m e l y t h a t h i s

a l l e g e d i n j u r y a r o s e p r i m a r i l y o u t o f h i s e m p l o y m e n t

. T h e b u r d e n t h e n s h i f t e d t o

E m p l o y e e t o e s t a b l i s h that t h e r e w e r e d i s p u t e d i s s u e s o f m a t e r i a l f a c t r e m a i n i n g

. E m p l o y e e f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y r e s p o n d t o E m p l o y e r ’ s m o t i o n a n d f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t a n y

e v i d e n c e t h a t w o u l d e s t a b l i s h a n y i s s u e s o f m a t e r i a l f a c t

.

T h u s

, f or the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court ’ s o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e

m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t and c e r t i f y i t a s f i n a l

. C o s t s o n a p p e a l h a v e b e e n w a i v e d

.TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSAT ION APPEALS BOARD

Tre ’Bion Lindsay ) Docket No. 2021-06-1620

)

v. ) State File No. 93970-2021

)

State Industries, LLC, et al. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )

Compensation Claims )

Joshua D. Baker, Judge )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Appea ls Board’s decision in the referenced

case was sent to th e following recipients by the following methods of service on this the 19th day

of January , 2023.

Name Certified

Mail First Class

Mail Via

Fax Via

Email Se nt to:

Tre ’ Bion Lindsay X kingspalad in@yahoo.com

Lee A nne Murray X leeamurray@feeneymurray.com

trp@feeneymurray.com

Joshua D. Baker

, Judge X Via Electronic Mail

Kenneth M. Switzer

, Chief Judge X Via Electronic Mail

Penny Shrum, Clerk, Court of

Workers’ Compensation Claims X penny.patterson

- shrum@tn.gov

Olivia Yearwood

Clerk, Workers’ Compensation Appe als Board

220 French Landing Dr., Ste. 1-B

Nashville, TN 37243

Telephone: 615-253-1606

Electronic Mail: WCAppeals .Clerk@tn.gov