FILED 

October26, 2017 

1N COURT OF 

WORKERS' COMPE.NSATIO N 

CLAIMS 

Time· 12:42 PM 

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION 

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS 

AT KINGSPORT 

JEFFREY BRIGHT, 

Employee, 

v. 

HUF NORTH AMERICA, 

Employer, 

And 

TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. 

Carrier. 

) Docket No. 2015-02-0462 

) 

) 

) State File No. 62185-2015 

) 

) 

) Judge Brian K. Addington 

) 

) 

COMPENSATION HEARING ORDER 

This matter came before the undersigned Workers' Compensation Judge on 

October 25, 2017, for a Compensation Hearing. The central legal issues are whether Mr. 

Bright suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his 

employment, and if, so, to which benefits he is entitled. For the reasons set forth below, 

the Court holds Mr. Bright suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the course 

and scope of his employment and that he is entitled to future medical and permanent 

partial disability benefits. 

History of Claim 

Mr. Bright worked for HUF North America as a material handler. Before 

working for HUF, Mr. Bright seriously injured his back in an automobile accident in 

1989. On December 3, 2014, he injured his back shoveling plastic material at HUF. He 

reported the injury, and HUF accepted the claim. HUF initially provided emergency 

medical treatment and general care before Mr. Bright chose Dr. Richard Duncan from a 

panel of physicians. 

Dr. Duncan initially examined Mr. Bright on April 28, 2015. Dr. Duncan 

reviewed a CT scan and MRI and determined that Mr. Bright was not a surgical 

candidate. He placed Mr. Bright on light duty work. On June 2, Dr. Duncan determined 

Mr. Bright suffered an injury that arose primarily from his work. He further determined 

1 
that Mr. Bright reached maximum medical improvement and assigned an impairment 

rating of three percent to the body as a whole. Later, Dr. Duncan reviewed Mr. Bright's 

functional capacity examination results and determined Mr. Bright could work at a 

medium strength level. 

Mr. Bright disputed Dr. Duncan's determination that he was not a surgical 

candidate because he believed a physician could do something to help his pain. He felt 

this way because the providers misdiagnosed his 1989 injury and he suffered pain until 

they made the correct diagnosis. Dr. Duncan noted Mr. Bright's concerns on June 28 and 

recommended a second opinion. 

HUF disputed whether Dr. Duncan made a second-opinion recommendation, and 

the parties took his deposition for clarification. After the deposition, HUF provided Mr. 

Bright a panel of physicians from which he chose Dr. David Wiles. 

Dr. Wiles examined Mr. Bright on May 15, 2017, and agreed Mr. Bright was not a 

surgical candidate. Dr. Wiles referred Mr. Bright to pain management, but in a letter 

dated July 31 he noted Mr. Bright's need for pain management did not arise primarily 

from Mr. Bright's December 3, 2014 injury. 

Mr. Bright's average weekly wage was $532.01, which provided him a 

compensation rate of$354.67. Mr. Bright resigned his position with HUF on February 1, 

2016, which fell after June 14, 2015, the time period Dr. Duncan's three-percent rating 

covered. 1 

The parties stipulated to all the relevant facts in this case; however, Mr. Bright 

requested the Court to provide him a physician who could determine the source of his 

pain. HUF conceded that Mr. Bright was entitled to permanent partial disability benefits, 

but argued it provided Mr. Bright reasonable and necessary medical treatment per the 

Worker's Compensation Law. 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

Mr. Bright must prove all the essential elements of his claim by a preponderance 

of the evidence. Scott v. Integrity Stt?ffing Solutions, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. 

LEXIS 24, at *6 (Aug. 18, 20 15). 

The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Bright suffered a 

compensable back injury on December 3, 2014, based on Dr. Duncan's opinion. Further, 

he is entitled to continued medical treatment with Dr. Duncan under Tennessee Code 

Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(l) (2016). The Court accredits Mr. Bright's testimony 

1 This time period is called the "original award." Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-207(3)(A) (2016). 

2 
that he continues to suffer pain and his dissatisfaction with Dr. Duncan, but until Dr. 

Duncan refuses to treat Mr. Bright, he shall remain the authorized treating physician. 

Baker v. Electrolux, et al., 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS __ ,slip op. 5 (Oct. 

20, 2017). 

As to permanent disability benefits, Dr. Duncan assigned a three-percent 

impairment, which equates to an original award of thirteen and a half weeks of permanent 

partial disability benefits or $4,788.05. (450 weeks x 3% x $354.67) Tenn. Code Ann.§ 

50-6-207(3)(A). Mr. Bright's original award of benefits ended on June 14, 2015, at 

which time he remained employed at HUF at the same or greater pay. Thus, Mr. Bright 

is not entitled to a resulting award of permanent partial disability benefits. Tenn. Code 

Ann. § 50-6-207(3)(B). 

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows: 

1. HUF shall continue to provide Mr. Bright with medical treatment made reasonably 

necessary by the December 3, 2014 injury under Tennessee Code Annotated 

section 50-6-204(a)(l). Dr. Richard Duncan is designated the authorized treating 

physician. 

2. HUF shall pay Mr. Bright permanent partial disability benefits for a three-percent 

impairment rating to the body as a whole in the amount of $4,788.05. Mr. Bright 

is not entitled to a resulting award of permanent benefits. 

3. Mr. Santore, Mr. Bright's attorney, is entitled to an attorney fee of twenty percent 

of Mr. Bright's total award, or $957.61, plus expenses, to be paid from Mr. 

Bright's total award. 

4. Costs of $150.00 are assessed against HUF under Tennessee Compilation Rules 

and Regulations 0800-02-21-.07 (20 16), to be paid within five days of this Order 

becoming final. 

5. HUF shall prepare and file a statistical data form within ten business days of the 

date of this Order under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-244. 

6. Absent an appeal of this order by either party, the order shall become final thirty 

days after issuance. 

This the 26th day of October, 2017. 

3 
Is/ Brian K. Addington 

Brian K. Addington 

Workers' Compensation Judge 

APPENDIX 

Technical Record 

1. Petition for Benefit Determination 

2. Dispute Certification Notice 

3. Request for Initial Hearing 

4. Initial Hearing Order 

5. Agreed Order to Alter Initial Hearing Order 

6. Order for Continuance of Trial Date 

7. Amended Scheduling Hearing Order 

8. Employee's Pre-Hearing Statement 

9. Employer's Pre-Hearing Statement 

Exhibits 

1. Medical Records-Dr. David Wiles 

2. Medical Records-Dr. David Duncan 

3. Medical Records-Benchmark Physical Therapy-FCE 

4. Agreed Stipulations 

5. Physician Panel 

6. Physician Panel 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Compensation Hearing Order 

was sent to the following recipients by the following methods of service on this the th 

day of October, 2017. 

Name Certified Via Via Service Sent To: 

Mail Fax Email 

Francis Santore, Esq. X franksantore@comcast.net 

Employee's Attorney 

Jennifer Schmidt, Esq. X jcschmid@travelers.com 

Employer's Attorney 

4