1

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT MURFREESBORO

DEBORAH BRATCHER

, ) Docket No. 201 9

- 05

- 0373

Employee, )

v. ) ) YATES SERVICES, LLC

, ) State File No. 21633

- 2018

Employer, )

A nd ) )

TRAVELERS INDEM. CO., ) Judge Dale Tipps

Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING REQUESTED BENEFITS

This case came before the Court on August 22, 2019

, for an Expedited Hearing on whether M s. Bratcher is entitled to additional medical or temporary disability benefits

. To receive these benefits

, Ms. Bratcher must be likely to establish at a hearing on the

merits that h er time off work and her need for additional medical treatment a r ose primarily out of an d in the course and scope of her employment

. For the reason s below,

the Court holds M s. Bratcher failed to meet t his burden and is not entitled to the requested benefits at this time

.

History of Claim

Ms. Bratcher suffered a work injury on March 19, 2018

. Yates accepted the injury and provided treatment for her neck and shoulder pain

. Her first authorized provider

, Premise Health, ordered shoulder and neck MRIs. It then treated Ms. Bratcher with anti

inflammatory medication and physical therapy before referring her to an orthopedi st

.

Yates provided a n orthopedic panel, and M s. Bratcher selected Dr. Timothy Steinagle . He first saw her on June 6 for complaints of right

- shoulder pain . He noted the

cervical MRI was normal , but the shoulder MRI showed mild tendinosis of the rotator cuff with no evidence of a tear. Dr. Steinagle saw no evidence of nerve root impingement and diagnosed rotator cuff strain. He adminis tered an injection, referred 

### FILED Aug 27, 2019 10:30 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS2

Ms. Bratcher to physical therapy, and assigned light

- duty restrictions.

Ms. Bratcher returned to Dr. Steinagle on July 19 and reported no improvement. He noted full range of motion and good strength and concluded, “Mild rotator cuff tendinosis seen on MRI with no evidence of underlying tear or surgical pathology. Has completed an adequate amount of treatment for work related RC tendonitis. Continued subjection complaint of shoulder pain and dysfunction not substa ntiated by objective physical findings. ” He also noted preexisting arthritis of the AC joint. 1 Dr. Steinagle concluded that he had nothing further to offer Ms. Bratcher and released her . He added, “She may follow up with her personal physi cian for evaluation and treatment of preexisting AC arthritis.”

Ms. Bratcher sought treatment on her own from other providers and introduced several partial medical records at the hearing. 2 One of these is a February 5, 2019 return

to

- work form signed by Dr. Jonathan Head , which noted , “Patient’s shoulder and chest pain is probably work related.” In Ms. Bratcher’s FMLA forms, Dr. Head also checked “yes” to the question, “Is the disability work related?” She further introduced a March 11 MRI report from Nashville General Hospital that states, “Question tiny avulsion of the supraspinatus tendon footprint and small labral tear.”

Ms. Bratcher te stified that she returned to work after Dr. Steinagle released her but eventually request ed FMLA leave because of her continuing neck and shoulder problems.

Yates terminated her employment after the leave expired. She requested that the Court order Yates to provide additional medical treatment and temporary disability benefits.

Yates contended that it accepted Ms. Bratcher’s claim and provided all benefits to

which she is entitled. It argued she failed to prove she is likely to establ ish that her need for any additional treatment arose primarily out of an d in the course and scope of her employment. For these reasons, it asked the Court to deny her request.

Findings of F act and Conclusions of Law

Ms. Bratcher must provide sufficient evidence from which this Court might determine she is likely to prevail at a hear ing on the merits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50

- 6

- 239(d)(1) (2018); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing , 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7

- 8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015). To prove a compensable injury, Ms. Bratcher must show that her alleged injury arose pri marily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. To do so, she must show, “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty

that it contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need

1 Dr. Steinagle a lso assessed noncompliance because he understood that Ms. Bratcher failed to attend her therapy sessions. Ms. Bratcher denied this . She testified convincingly that she requested the rescheduling of the fourth week of therapy and eventually completed it.

2 The Court summarize s only the relevant medical records

.3

for medical treatment, considerin g all causes.” “Shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” means that, in the opinion of the treating physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes as opposed to speculation or possibility. See Tenn. Code Ann. §

50

- 6

- 102(14).

Yate s does not dispute that an injury occurred. The q uestion, therefore, is whether

Ms. Bratcher appears likely to prove at a hearing on the merits that her work injury

p rimarily cause d her current symptoms or need for treatment . T he Court cannot find at

this time that she is likely to meet this burden.

The Court accepted several medical records into evidence

. Yates relied on Dr. Steinagle’s conclusions that : 1) Ms. Bratcher has completed an adequate amount of

treatment for her work

- related tendonit is ; 2) the objective physical findings do not

support her continued complaints ; and 3) she suffers from preexisting AC joint arthritis

. Because Ms. Bratcher selected Dr. Steinagle from a panel of physicians, his opinion is presumed correct. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50

- 6

- 102(14)(E). Thus, the question is whether Ms. Bratcher submitted sufficient information to overcome this presumpt ion.

To make this determination, the Court turns to the records of Dr. Head, the only other physician to comment on the cause of Ms. Bratcher’s condition. He stated that her shoulder and chest pain “is probably work related,” and he indicated on the FMLA form that her disability was work

- related. However, whether an injury is related to an employee’s work is no longer the legal standard for determining compensability. Rather, as noted above, the current statute requires proof that the injury arose prim arily out of and in the course and scope of employment. Th us, th e fact that Dr. Head felt Ms. Bratcher’s condition was related to her work is insufficient, without more, to overcome the presumption of Dr. Steinagle’s opinion.

Ms. Bratcher appeared sincere in her belief that her work activities caused her current condition. However, the Court must abide by the causation requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law and cannot i nfer from the mere existence of her condition

that it a rose primarily out of her employment. Because M s. B ratcher failed to present any evidence th at her current need for treatment arose primarily out of her work injury

, the Court cannot find at this time that she appears likely to prevail on a claim for

add itional medical benefits.

Similarly, the Court must deny Ms. Bratcher’s request for temporary disability

benefits at this time because she has not yet demonstrated that the medical restrictions

that led to her termination arose primarily out of the work injury.4

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Ms. Bratcher’s claims against Yates and its workers’ compensation carrier for the requested medical and temporary disability benefits are denied at this time.

2. This matter is set for a Scheduling Hearing on October 17, 2019 , at 9:00 a. m. You must call toll-free at 855-874-0473 to participate. Failure to call m ight result in a determination of the issues without your further participation. All conferences are set using Central Tim e.

ENTERED August 27, 2019.

_____________________________________ Judge Dale Tipps

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

APPENDIX

Exhibits : 1. Affidavit of Deborah Bratcher

2. Records from Nashville General Hospital

3. Work note from Dr. Jonathan Head

4. Records from Dr. Timothy Steinagle

5. Wage Statement

6. Records from FNP Deborah Smith

7. Appointment reminders from Dr. Philip Elizondo

8. March 19, 2018 Form C -42

9. June 1, 2019 Form C

- 42

10. FMLA correspondence between Deborah Bratcher and Laurel Black

11. Disability Accommodation Request Form

12. Medical Release Forms

13. FMLA forms

Technical record:

1. Petition for Benefit Determination

2. Dispute Certification Notice

3. Request for Expedited Hearing

4. Employer’s Position Statement5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the Expedited Hearing Order was sent as indicated on August 27 , 2019

.

Name Certified

Mail Email Service sent to:

Deborah Bratcher X Genuinelyhonest803@gmail.com John R. Rucker III, Esq. Employer Attorney X john@johnlewisattorney.com

_____________________________________ Penny Shrum, Clerk of Court Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov