TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT NASHVILLE

NAOMI PATTON

, )

Employee, ) Docket No. 2019

- 06

- 0796 )

v. ) ) State File No. 29170

- 2019

LAKESHORE HEARTLAND

,

Employer

,

PREMIER GROUP INSURANCE COMPANY,

Carrier. ) ) ) ) ) ) Judge Joshua D. Baker

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS

T he Court convened an October 10, 2019 expedited hearing to consider whether Ms. Patton is likely to prove t he compensability of two alleged injuries to her left hand

and arm

. As Ms. Patton failed to file her claim within the statute of limitations for her March 23, 2018 injury

, and because she did not show she is likely to prove her June 3, 2018 injury is work

- related, the Court denies her requested relief.

Claim History

On her April 18, 2019 Petition for Benefit Determination, Ms . Patton alleged two

work injuries to her left

- upper extremity that arose from handling patients : one on Mar ch

23 , 2018 and another on June 3

, 2018

. She described each incident in detail . According to the adjuster’s signed declaration, Lakeshore never paid workers’ compensation

benefits for either alleged injur y due to Ms. Patton’s history of carpal tunnel syndrome

.

Ms. Patton’ s medical records reference prior carpal tunnel surgeries and also note
she complained of continuing carpal tunnel symptoms both before and after each alleged

work incident

. The records show that a t least two years earlier before her alleged work injuries

, doctor s diagnosed Ms. Patton with repeat bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome based 

### FILED Oct 23, 2019 01:58 PM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS2

on complaints of “pain and numbness that comes down into the arms with her left arm being worse than her right.” Th e records from a 2017 visit with her personal physician, Dr. James Rubrigh t, state that she told him about her prior carpal tunnel release surgeries and complained of bilateral hand pain, mainly in her left hand. After the March 23

incident , she complain ed to Dr. Rubright of increased hand pain but again acknowledged

that “ she did have pain in both of her hands and wrist before this injury.”

At the hearing, Lakeshore contended Ms. Patton did not provide them an opportunity to provide authorized treatment following the alleged March 23 incident

. Instead, she portrayed her condition as pre existing and insisted on seeing Dr. Rubright

. Ms. P atton denied she declined treatment under workers ’ compen sation but continued to see Dr. Rubright.

Dr. Rubright treated Ms. Patton again for carpal tunnel syndrome and osteoarthritis in her hands, b ut none of h is records connect s her condition to her employment

. On March 26, 2018, he noted from imaging that she had no sign of an acute injury but had “diffuse degenerative change,” and he diagnosed “[b]ilateral hand primary osteoarthritis.” Notably, his records do not capture any complaint from Ms.

Patton of a June 3 work accident

, even though he treated her only a few weeks after th e alleged incident.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

To prevail at an expedited hearing, Ms. Patton must show that she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50

- 6

- 239(d)(1) (2018). S he failed to carry this burden.

Recovery for Ms. Patton ’ s March 23, 2018 injury is barred by the statute of

limitations. Statutes of limitations exist to ensure fairness by prohibiting undue delay in bringing claims and to provide defendants timely notice of potential lawsuits. Se e American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah , 414 U.S. 538, 554

- 55 (1974). An em ployee’s right to compensation is forever barred unless a petition for benefit determination is filed within one year after the accident resulting in injury. Tenn. Code Ann. section 50

- 6

- 203(b)(1). The employer has the burden of proving that the statute of limitations bars a claim. Once the employer establishes those facts, the employee must prove that an exception exists or the claim is barred

. See Cloyd v. Hartco Flooring Co. , 274 S.W.3d 638, 647 (Tenn. 2008) (citing Ingram v. Earthman

, 993 S.W.2d 611, 633 ; Jones v. Coal Creek Mining & Mfg. Co. , 180 S.W. 179, 182 (Tenn. 1915)

.

Here, Ms. Patton’s petition alleged a March 23 injury

, yet she did not file a petition to claim benefit s until over a year later on April 18, 2019. Further, the Court

finds Lakeshore did not pay workers’ compensations benefits to or for Ms. Patton concerning either of her alleged injuries. Consequently, the Court holds that Ms. Patton3

failed to prove she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits concerning her March 23, 2018 injury

, as she filed her petition beyond the statute of limitations.

Next, the Court addresses Ms. Patton’s r equest for expedited relief concerning her

June 3 claim. In Workers’ Compensation Law, “injury” means an injury by accident, including a cumulative trauma condition, which arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. Tenn. Code Ann. section 50

- 6

- 102(14). An injury “arises primarily out of the course and scope of employment” if the “employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes.” Id . at 50

- 6

- 102(14)(B). U nless an injury is obvi ous, an “ employee must present expert medical proof that the alleged injury is causally related to the employment .” Berdnik v. Fairfield

Glade C m ty Club , 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 32, at *11. L a y testimony

alone will not suffice

. See Scott v. In tegrity Staffing Solutions

, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEX IS 24, at *12 (Aug. 18, 2015) (“ Employee's lay testimony in this case, without corroborative expert testimony, did not constitute adequate evidence of medical

causation .” ).

Thus, to succeed at a hearing on the merits, Ms. Patton must produce medical

evidence that the June 3 work accident is the primary cause of her condition. N one of Dr. Rubright’s records regarding treatment rendered shortly after her alleged June 3 accident

mentioned an acute i njury at work on that date.

While Ms. Patton questions the accuracy of the se records, the absence of any complaints of a work

- related cause correlates with the defense testimony that she declined medical care under workers’ compensation in favor of continuing treatment with Dr. Rubright. Thus, the Court finds it unlikely that she would prevail at a hearing on the

merits in proving the compensability of her June 3 claim and denies her requested relief.

It is ORDERED as follows:

1. Ms. Patton’s claim for medical and temporary disability benefits is denied at this

time

.

2. This matter is set for a status conference on Monday, December 2 , 2019 , at 1 0:00 a.m. (C S T). You must call 615

- 741

- 2113 to participate in the h earing. Failure to call may result in a determination of issues without your further participation

ENTERED O CTOBER 23, 2019

.4 _____________________________________ Joshua Davis Baker, Judge Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

APPENDIX

Exhibits :

1. Medical Records

2. Ms. Patton’s affidavit

3. Declaration of Mr. Porter Nelms

4. Declaration of Ms. Valerie Henderson

5. Change of Status Forms

6. Partner Time Collection Reports

7. Text Messages

8. Wage Statements

9. Documents attached to Ms. Patton’s Request for Expedited Hearing

Technical Record :

1. Request for Expedited Hearing

2. Dispute Certification Notice

3. Petition for Benefit Determination5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on October 23 , 2019

.

Name Certified

Mail Via

Fax Via

Email Service sent to:

Naomi Patton, Employee X Naomi.patton1949@gmail.com

Frank Gallina, Employer’s Attorney X fgallina@plcslaw.com

_____________________________________ Penny Shrum, Clerk

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov