## FILED Feb 14, 2019 12:48 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMSstated she was in a coachingposition atthe time and felt it was herresponsibility to make managers aware ofthings that happened.

Mr. Ricketts was unavailable; therefore, Ms. Chamberlain and Ms. Whittington met Kristina Williquette, another store manager, in the stockroom to share Ms. Chamberlain's concerns. The parties provided slightly different accounts of this conversation. However, everyone agreed the conversation lasted less than five-minutes and was a normal conversation in that everyone spoke in a normal tone ofvoice; there
was no yelling and no quarrel. According to Ms. Chamberlain, before relaying what she heard, she and Ms. Williquette agreed that her name would be "leftout ofit." However, when she sharedher coworker's comments, Ms. Williquette responded that CrackerBarrel takes alleged racial
concerns very seriously, and they would need to complete a report to send to the home office. Ms. Chamberlain stated they discussed the fact that she had promised to leave her
name out of it and after the discussion, Ms. Williquette left the stockroom to return to work. Ms. Chamberlain stated she felt "betrayed" by Ms. Williquette for going back on herpromiseto leave hername out ofit.

Ms. Whittington and Ms. Williquette'stestimony differedregarding what was said about the necessity ofpreparing a report. Ms. Williquette testified by affidavit that she agreed to keep Ms. Chamberlain's name out of it before she described the incident. However, when Ms. Chamberlain described it as racial in nature, Ms. Williquette stated she would need to fill out a statement if she wanted to report the complaint because Cracker Barrel takes racial concerns very seriously. Ms. Williquette advised her to considerwhetherthe incident was truly racial in nature and whether she wanted to pursue awrittenreport. Ms. Williquette thenreturned to work.

Ms. Whittington testified consistently with Ms. Williquette regarding the conversation and stated that after Ms. Williquette left the stockroom, Ms. Chamberlain told her she did not want to prepare areport. Ms. Whittington reassured Ms. Chamberlain that she did not considerthe commentto be racial in nature and thatMs. Chamberlain did not have to complete areport. They both returned to work. BothMs. Williquette and Ms. Whittington testified that during the briefconversation, Ms. Chamberlain did not appear distressed or upset. Ms. Whittington stated she spoke in a normal tone ofvoice, did not cry, was notperspiring, her face was not red, she was breathing normally, and she did not appearunusually anxious. Following the conversation, Ms. Chamberlain began stocking shelves with merchandise in the stockroom. Approximately ten to fifteen minutes later, she experienced numbness spreading through the right side of her face and told Ms. Whittington she did not feel well. She then experienced symptoms down her right arm and asked Ms. Whittingtonto call an ambulance. She believed she was having a stroke.

2Medical treatment
Ms. Chamberlain sought treatment at the hospital emergency room where she had markedly elevated blood pressure of 212/147. Following a CT scan, Dr. Sumathira Sathanandan, a neurologist, diagnosed a left thalamic hemorrhage related to hypertensive crisis. She noted, "hypertensive crisis in thatthis patient did not take her medications last night orthis morning."

Ms. Chamberlain saw several different physicians and/or specialists in the hospital who noted slightly different histories regarding the onset ofher symptoms. Dr. Michael Revelle's ER note indicated Ms. Chamberlain stated her symptoms began "in an argument with someone at work." She also reported to him that she failed to take her bloodpressure medicationthat day andthe nightbefore.

Dr. Sathanandannoted Ms. Chamberlain stated she "forgotto take her medications including her antihypertensives last night and this morning." She further noted that Ms. Chamberlain stated her symptoms began following an upsetting discussion with her supervisor atworkregarding some "issues going on atwork."

Dr. Davidson Curwen, arehabilitationphysician, noted Ms. Chamberlain's history of hypertension and diabetes. He also stated she forgot to take her blood pressure medication and noted her symptoms started shortly after an argumentwith acoworker.

Ms. Chamberlain disputed the accuracy ofthe physicians' histories in her hospital records. First, she stated she did not tell physicians there was a quarrel or argument. Secondly, she testified she did not tell physicians that she failed to take her blood pressure medication that day or the night before. In support of this argument, Ms. Chamberlain noted that upon reviewing her hospital records, she completed a "Request for Amendment ofHealthInformation" form to correctherERrecord history. (Ex. 3.) On the form, she indicatedthatwhen she arrived at the ERonJuly 1, "I could talk, butwhat I
was thinking was different than what I said." She stated her medical records and Dr. Sathanandan's consultation record were incorrect when they said she did not take her blood pressure medication that day and the night before. She explained that she was trying to say she did take her medication. However, Ms. Chamberlain did not mention or correctthe reported history ofan argument on the form. On cross-examination, she stated her focus was correctingthe medication error.
Ms. Chamberlain spent one week in the neuro-intensive unit and then transferred to inpatient rehabilitation through July. Although Cracker Barrel knew of Ms. Chamberlain's stroke and treatment, it denied she provided notice of a work-related injury until June orJuly of2018. Regarding notice, Ms. Whittington testified Ms. Chamberlain received training in

3safety meetings concerning how to report work injuries. Further, Ms. Whittington visited Ms. Chamberlain twice in the hospital, and she never associated her stroke with work. Ms. Whittington spoke to her regarding FMLA, and she never requested workers' compensation benefits. Ms. Whittington first learned Ms. Chamberlain alleged a work injury in June or July 2018, after she filed her PBD. Had she reported a work injury, Ms. Whittington testified she would have completed an accident report, interviewed witnesses, taken statements, ordered a drug screen, and provided a panel. Thus, she testified CrackerBarrel was prejudicedby the lack ofnotice.
On the issue ofcausation, Ms. Chamberlain introduced two letters into evidence,
one from her primary physician, Dr. Misty Allen, and one from Dr. Sathanandan, the neurologist she saw in the ER. Dr. Allen stated she had seen Ms. Chamberlain as a primary care patient since October 2015. She stated:

Ms. Chamberlain had a cerebral infarctionthat caused significantmotor and visual deficits on July 1, 2017. [She] has been diagnosed with hypertension and anxiety. Both of those conditions can worsen when under a lot of stress. Patient is currently taking medication for both ofthese conditions. Due to the increased stress levels at workthis couldhave contributedto her elevatedpressure and acute CVA. (emphasis added).

Dr. Sathanandan stated, "[S]he presented [to the ER] stating she had a meeting with a supervisor which was upsetting to her. In that meeting or soon after, [she] started having stroke symptoms. She was indeed found to have a hemorrhagic stroke in the setting ofhypertensive urgency."

Ms. Chamberlain testified that she could not recall exactly what she told Dr. Sathanandan in the ER, but she knows she said it was not a quarrel. She believedthatthe most she would have said was that it was related to an incident involving another employee. Additionalhearingtestimony
Itwas undisputed that Ms. Chamberlain has a longstanding history ofhigh blood pressure. She testified she was diagnosed with high blood pressure when she was in her twenties. The parties introduced numerous medical records dating back to 2012, where physicians indicated her blood pressure was "uncontrolled" and/or "abnormally high." She stated that even with medication, her blood pressure has spiked. In 2013, Ms. Chamberlain saw Dr. Kevin Lokkesmore and reported she was not taking her blood pressure medication and was trying to manage it on her own. She was required to sign a waiver oftreatment form for refusing to accept blood pressure medication in the office. Ms. Chamberlain explained that she refused the medication that day and has had difficulty controlling her blood pressure over the years because she is allergic to the diuretic contained in mostbloodpressure medications.

4Ms. Chamberlain testified she has also taken anxiety medication for the last ten years and has reported to physicians, at times, that she believedher anxiety contributedto her high blood pressure. She also suffers from chronic nose bleeds, some ofwhich she believedresulted from uncontrolledbloodpressure.
While in the hospital, Ms. Chamberlain took FMLA leave from work. Once her leave expired, she stated she "eased back into" work at Cracker Barrel in the same positionbutwith limitedhours.

Ms. Chamberlain alleged in her Petition for BenefitDetermination (PBD) that her stroke arose out ofher stressful meeting with Ms. Whittington and Ms. Williquette. At the hearing, she testified it was specifically Ms. Williquette's betrayal for going back on her promise that caused her elevated blood pressure and stroke. She further testified her stroke arose out ofthe "culminationofsixyears ofminor events" at work. Findings ofFact and Conclusions ofLaw

At this Expedited Hearing stage, Ms. Chamberlain must present sufficient evidence that she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. McCord v. Advantage HumanResourcing, 2015 TNWrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015).
Cracker Barrel contended Ms. Chamberlain failed to meet the statutory requirements of a compensable injury under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 102. TheCourtagrees. "Injury" is defined in the Workers' Compensation Act to mean "an injury by accident,

. . arising primarily out ofand in the course and scope ofemployment, that
causes death, disablement, or the need for medical treatment." Tenn. Code Ann. §50-6- 102(14)(2018). Arising primarily out ofthe employment means the employment must contribute more than fifty percent in causing the injury, considering all causes. That contribution must be "shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty," meaning a physician believes the injury is work-related "more likelythan not considering all causes, as opposedto speculation orpossibility."See Tenn. CodeAnn. § 50-6-102(14)(D).

The Court finds the medicalprooffrom Drs. Allen and Sathanandan insufficientto establish that Ms. Chamberlain's stroke aroseprimarily out ofher July 1 work meeting. Dr. Allen concluded her increased stress at work could have contributed to her elevated pressure and acute CVA. However, there is no mention ofthe July 1work meeting in Dr. Allen's note to suggest she knew ofthe meeting Ms. Chamberlain alleged caused her stroke. Moreover, the fact that Dr. Allen believed Ms. Chamberlain's work stress "could have" contributed to her stroke is insufficient under the 2013 Reform Act to satisfy the

5requirements ofa compensable workinjury. 2

Dr. Sathanandan also did not conclude that Ms. Chamberlain's reported meeting contributed more than fifty-percent in causing her stroke, considering all causes. Cracker Barrel argued there was no indication that Dr. Sathanandan knew ofMs. Chamberlain's extensive medical history oftreatment for hypertension and periods ofuncontrolled high blood pressure. It further argued that her statements are merely a timeline ofevents, not proofofcause and effect. The Court agrees.
Cracker Barrel also contended Ms. Chamberlain's claim is barredby her failure to provide proper notice of a work injury. Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 201(a)(l) provides that an injured employee must give written notice ofan injury within fifteen days unless it can be shown that the employer had actual knowledge of the accident or that "reasonable excuse for failure to give the notice is made to the satisfaction ofthe tribunal."

In support of its notice defense, Ms. Whittington credibly testified that despite several conversations with Ms. Chamberlain in the hospital, she did not learn that Ms. Chamberlain allegedher stroke was workrelated until June orJuly 2018, almost one year following the alleged incident. Because Ms. Chamberlain failed to give notice, Ms. Whittington testified Cracker Barrel was denied the opportunity to complete an accident report, interview witnesses, take statements, order a drug screen, and provided a panel. The Court finds Ms. Chamberlain did not dispute Ms. Whittington's testimony or otherwise provide any proofto rebut Cracker Barrel's notice defense. Accordingly, the Court holds she is unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in light of Cracker Barrel'snotice defense.
Based on the foregoing, the Court holds Ms. Chamberlain did not present sufficient proofto show she is likely to prevail at trial in meeting the requirements ofa compensablework injury andrebutting CrackerBarrel'snotice defense.

ITIS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Ms. Chamberlain's claim against Cracker Barrel for the requested medical and temporary disability benefits is denied.

2 Cracker Barrel also cited a pre-Reform Act Tennessee Supreme Court Panel decision to argue that employees may not recover for a stress-induced stroke where there is no "identifiable stressful, workrelated eventproducing a sudden mental stimulus such as fright, shock, orexcessive unexpected anxiety." Brown v. UPS, Inc., 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 191, *23 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. PanelApril 1, 2008). However, the Court finds it need not address this argument given its holding that Ms. Chamberlain is unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in meeting the requirements ofa compensable work injury under the
new definition of"injury" underthe 2013 Reform Act.

62. This matter is set for a telephonic Status Hearing on Wednesday, March 5, 2019, at 2:00 p.m. Central Time. You must call toll-free 855-543-5039 to participate in the hearing. Failure to call in may result in a determination ofthe issues withoutyour further participation.

ENTERED February 14, 2019.

JUDGE AMBER

# KLlJ RELL CourtofWorkers' Compensation Claims
APPENDIX Exhibits: 1. Ms. Chamberlain's affidavit3 2. Medical opinionnotes from Dr. Misty Allen and Dr. S.T. Sathanandan 3. Request for Amendment ofHealth Information4 4. WestTennesseeNeuroscience and Spine Centerrecords 5. Dr. Thomas Head'srecords5 6. Physicians Quality Carerecords 7. Employer'sMedical Records Submission 8. Employer's SupplementalMedical Records Submission 9. SpireRehabilitationHospital 10.KristinaWilliquette's Affidavit 11.Notice ofDenial
Technical record: 1. Petition for BenefitDetermination 2. Dispute CertificationNotice 3. Request for ExpeditedHearing 4. OrderDenyingEmployee'sRequest for aDecision onthe Record 5. Order SettingIn PersonExpeditedHearing 6. Employer'sPre-Hearing Statement 7. Employer'sWitness andExhibitList 8. OrderResettingInPersonExpeditedHearing 9. Notice ofEmployer'sProoffor Expedited Hearing 10. Employee'sWitness and ExhibitList 11. Witness Subpoenas

3 The Courtexcludedfrom consideration thehearsay statements in Ms

.Chamberlain'saffidavitattributed to physicians. 4The Courtexcludedfrom consideration the hearsay statements in this exhibit attributedto physicians. 5The Courtexcludedfrom consideration Ms. Chamberlain'shandwritten notations on Dr. Head'srecords. 7CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that atrue and correct copy ofthis Orderwas sentto the following recipients by the following methods ofservice onthis the 14th day ofFebruary, 2019.

Name USPS Email Service sentto: Jeanie Chamberlain, 

## x P. 

### 0.Box405, Employee Atwood, TN 38220 Catheryne Grant,Esq., 

## x catherynelgrant@feeneymurray.com Attorney for Employer

8