1 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSAT I ON APPEALS BOARD

C a r l t o n L u c i a

, J r

. ) D ocket No

. 2 0 2 2

- 0 7

- 0 3 4 9

)

v. ) S tate File N o

. 5 3 8 2 3

- 2 0 2 1

)

D S V S o l u t i o n s

, I n c

. , e t a l

. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )

Compensation Claims )

R o b e r t V

. D u rh a m

, Judge )

A f f

i r m e d and Remanded

I n t h i s i n t e r l o c u t o ry ap p e a l

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

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

. T h e e m p l o y e e

i n

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

. T h e e m p l o y e r

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

, including

s u r g e ry

. F o l l o w i n g s u r g e r y

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

n o t i c e d i s s u e s w i t h g r i p strength a n d d r o p p i n g o b j e c t s

. A f t e r a d d i t i o n a l t e s t i n g

, t h e

e m p l o y e e ’ s a u t h o r i z e d physician d i a g n o s e d c a r p a l t u n n e l s y n d r o m e a n d r e c o m m e n d e d

a n o t h e r s u r g e ry

, w h i c h t h e e m p l o y e r d e n i e d

. Following an expe dited hearing, t he trial

court f o u n d t h e e m p l o y e e w a s l i k e l y t o p r e v a i l a t t r i a l a n d i s s u e d a n o r d e r r e q u i r i n g t h e

e m p l o y e r t o p r o v i d e t h e s u r g e r y

. The emp loye r h a s ap p e a l e d . Having carefully reviewed

the record, we a f f

i r m the trial court’s decision and remand the ca se

.

J u d g e M e r e d i t h B

. W e a v e r delivere d the opinion of the Appeals Board in whic h

P r e s i d i n g Judge Timothy W. Conner and Judge Pele I. Godkin joined

.

K

r i s t e n C

. S t e v e n s o n

, K n o x v i l l e

, Tennessee, for the employ e r

- appellant, D S V S o l u t i o n s

, I n c

.

C

. L a rry H i c k s

, C a m d e n

, Tennessee, for the employ e e

- appellee, C a r l t o n L u c i a

, J r

. 

### FILED

Aug 21, 2023

10:32 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

APPEALS BOARD2 Memorandu m Opinion 1

O n J u n e 1 0

, 2 0 2 1

, C a r l t o n L u c i a

, J r

. ( “ E m p l o y e e ” ) w a s w o r k i n g f o r D S V

S o l u t i o n s

, I n c

. ( “ E m p l o y e r ” )

, w h e n h e i n j u r e d h i s r i g h t w r i s t a n d t h u m b c l o s i n g t h e d o o r

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

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

, f r o m w h i c h E m p l o y e e s e l e c t e d D r

. B l a k e C h a n d l e r

. D r

. C h a n d l e r o r d e r e d

x

- r a y s a t E m p l o y e e ’ s i n i t i a l v i s i t o n S e p t e m b e r 1 5

, 2 0 2 1

, w h i c h r e v e a l e d a p a r t i a l l y

h e a l e d s c a p h o i d f r a c t u r e

. D r

. C h a n d l e r t h e n o r d e r e d a n M R I

, w h i c h s h o w e d t h a t “ t h e

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

c h a n g e s

. ” D r

. C h a n d l e r r e f e rr e d E m p l o y e e t o D r

. M i c h a e l S

. D o l a n

, a h a n d a n d w r i s t

s p e c i a l i s t w i t h i n t h e s a m e p r a c t i c e

.

D r

. D o l a n s a w E m p l o y e e o n O c t o b e r 2 1

, 2 0 2 1

, a t w h i c h t i m e h e r e q u e s t e d a C T

s c a n t o d e t e r m i n e t h e a g e a n d s e v e r i t y o f t h e f r a c tu r e

. T h e s c a n r e v e a l e d a nondisplaced

o b l i q u e f r a c t u r e o f t h e p r o x i m a l p o l e o f t h e s c a p h o i d

, t h o u g h i t d i d n o t r e v e a l t h e a g e o f

t h e f r a c tu r e

. D r

. D o l a n r e c o m m e n d e d s u r g e ry t o r e p a i r t h e w r i s t f r a c tu r e

, w h i c h

E m p l o y e r a p p r o v e d

. F o l l o w i n g t h e p r o c e d u r e

, E m p l o y e e w a s p l a c e d i n a c a s t

, w h i c h w a s

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

. H e u n d e rw e n t p h y s i c a l t h e r ap y f o r

t w o m o n t h s b e f o r e D r

. D o l a n r e l e a s e d h i m t o w o r k w i t h o u t r e s t r i c t i o n s o n F e b r u a ry 1 5

, 2 0 2 2

.

A t a n a p p o i n t m e n t w i t h D r

. D o l a n i n M a r c h 2 0 2 2

, E m p l o y e e i n d i c a t e d h e w a s s t i l l

h a v i n g i s s u e s w i t h s w e l l i n g

, a n d i n A p r i l 2 0 2 2 h e r e p o r t e d a l o s s o f g r i p s t r e n g t h a n d a

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

. D r

. D o l a n s t a t e d

, “ B a s e d

u

p o n t h e p a t i e n t ’ s h i s t o r y a n d e x a m

, I b e l i e v e [ h e h a s ] c a r p a l t u n n e l s y n d r o m e ” a n d

o r d e r e d a n E M G t o c o n f i r m h i s d i a g n o s i s

. E m p l o y e r d e c l i n e d t o a u t h o r i z e t h e E M G

, a n d

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

. T h e E M G u l t i m a t e l y t o o k

p l a c e i n J u l y 2 0 2 2

.

A t E m p l o y e e ’ s A u g u s t 2 0 2 2 ap p o i n t m e n t

, D r

. D o l a n r e v i e w e d t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e

E M G

, s t a t i n g E m p l o y e e h a d “ t e x t b o o k c a r p a l t u n n e l e x a c e r b a t i o n ” a n d n o t i n g E m p l o y e e

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

. H e r e c o m m e n d e d

s u r g e r y

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

r e v i e w p r o v i d e r

. E m p l o y e e ’ s a t t o r n e y s e n t a q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o D r

. D o l a n o n M a r c h 7

, 2 0 2 3

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

a s a r e s u l t o f t h e w o r k i n j u ry o f J u n e 1 0

, 2 0 2 1

. ” D r

. D o l a n m a r k e d “ [ y ] e s ” i n t h e s p a c e

provided a n d s i g n e d t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e

.

1 “ The a ppeals b oard may, in an ef fo rt to secure a j ust and spe edy determination of matters on ap peal and

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

wh ichever the a ppeals b oard deems appropriate, in cas e s that are not legally and/ or factually nove l or

complex .” Tenn. Comp. R

. & Regs. 0800

- 02

- 22

- .03(1) (2 020)

.3 A t a M a y 2 3

, 2 0 2 3 e x p e d i t e d h e a r i n g

, E m p l o y e r a r g u e d t h a t t h e c a r p a l t u n n e l

s y n d r o m e w a s d u e t o a n e w i n j u ry b a s e d o n a M a r c h 1 0

, 2 0 2 2 p h y s i c a l t h e r ap y n o t e i n

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

o v e r u s e ” f r o m w o r k i n g o n h i s f a r m

. I n i t s o r d e r

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

a n “ h o n e s t

, c a n d i d

, a n d f o r t h r i g h t ” w i t n e s s r e g a r d i n g h i s l a c k o f s y m p t o m s p r i o r t o t h e

w o r k i n j u r y

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

. D o l a n ’ s m e d i c a l r e c o r d s a n d

respons e t o t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e c a r p a l tu n n e l s y n d r o m e w a s a

“ c o m p l i c a t i o n ” f r o m t h e w o r k i n j u ry a n d i t s m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t ; f u r t h e r

, t h e c a r p a l t u n n e l

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

. A s s u c h

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t

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

, s t a t i n g E m p l o y e e i s likely t o p r o v e t h a t t h e

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

r e a s o n a b l y n e c e s s a r y t o t r e a t i t

. 2 E m p l o y e r h a s ap p ealed

.

I n i t s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

, E m p l o y e r s t a t e s t h a t t h e i s s u e i s “ [ w ] h e t h e r E m p l o y e e m e t

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

- e x i s t i n g condition

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

tu n n e l s y n d r o m e

. ” N e i t h e r p a r t y f i l e d a b r i e f

, a n d n e i t h e r p a r t y f i l e d a transcript o f t h e

h e a r i n g

.

W i t h o u t a t r a n s c r i p t o r s t a t e m e n t o f t h e e v i d e n c e

, w e presume that the evidence

p r e s e n t e d a t t h e e x p e d i t e d h e a r i n g supported the fin dings of the trial court. See, e.g.

, Estate of Cockril l , No. M2010

- 00663

- COA

- R3

- CV, 20 10 Tenn. A p p. LEXIS 75 4

, at

*11

- 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2010) ( “ [W]here no transcrip t or statement of the

evidence is filed, the appellate c ourt is required to presume that the record, had it been

properly preserved, woul d have supported t he a ctio n of t he trial c ourt. ” ); Leek v. Powell

, 884 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996 ) ( “ In the absence of a transcrip t or statement

of the evidence, we must conclusively presume that every fact admiss ible under the

pleadings was foun d or should have b een foun d favo rab ly t o the appellee. ” )

.

M o r e o v e r

, i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a b r i e f

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

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

. As s tated by

t he Tennessee Supreme Court, “ [i]t i s not the role of the cou rts, t ria l or appellate, to

research or construct a litigan t ’ s case or arguments for him or her. ” Snee d v. Bd. of Prof ’ l

Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tenn. , 301 S.W.3d 603, 61 5 (Tenn. 2 010).

Indeed, were we to search th e recor d for possi bl e err ors a nd r aise issues and arguments

for Employer, we would be acting as its counsel, which th e law clearly prohibits

. Webb

v. Sherrell , No. E2 0 13

- 02724

- COA

- R3

- CV, 2015 Tenn . App. LEX IS 645, at *5 (Tenn.

Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2015 )

. A p p e l l a t e c ourts will not “ dig through the record in an attempt

to discover arguments o r issues that [a p a rty] may have m ade ” because doing so “ would

2 Employee requested attorneys ’ fees , although his c ounsel did not sp ecify the specific provision of the

statute that suppo rted the req u est . T he trial court de ferre d consider a tion of the req uest until t he

compensation hearing, citing Tr avis v. Carter Ex press , Inc.

, No. 2018

- 03

- 0237, 2019 TN Wrk. Comp.

App . Bd. LEXIS 25 , at *13, 14 (Tenn

. Workers ’ C omp. App. Bd. June 24, 2019).4 place [the opposing party] in a distinct and likely insurmountable and unfair

disadvantage

. ” I d

. C o n s e q u e n t l y

, b a s e d o n t h e p a u c i t y o f t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s

, w e a f f

i r m

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

.

For the foregoing reasons, we affi rm the trial court ’ s o r d e r and remand the c ase.

Costs on appeal are taxed to Employer

.TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSAT ION APPEALS BOARD

Carlton Lucia, Jr. ) Docket No. 2022-07-0349

)

v. ) State File No. 53823-2021

)

DSV Solutions, Inc., et al. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )

Compensation Claims )

Robert V. Durham, Judge )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

case was sent to the following recipients by the following methods of service on this the 21st day

of August, 2023.

Name Certified

Mail First Class

Mail Via

Fax Via

Email Sent to:

Kristen C. Stevenson X kcstevenson@mijs. com

Charles L. Hicks X office@hickslawfirm.net

larry@hickslawfirm.net

Robert V. Durham

, 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

Matthew Keene

Acting Clerk, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board

220 French Landing Dr., Ste. 1-B

Nashville, TN 37243

Telephone: 615-532-1564

Electronic Mail: WCApp eals.Clerk@tn.gov