## FILED ::'\ovember3.2017
1N COURTOF WORKERS'COhJPlNSATION CLilllS

TENNESSEE BUREAU OFWORKERS' COMPENSATION INTHE COURTOFWORKERS' COMPENSATIONCLAIMS AT KINGSPORT JENNIFERDOUGLAS, Employee, 

### v. PINEPALMSMGT.,Inc., d/b/a MEDICAL CARE, Employer, AND HARTFORDINSURANCE, Carrier. ) DocketNumber: 2017-02-0314 ) ) ) StateFile Number: 97179-2016 ) ) ) ) JudgeBrianK. Addington )

EXPEDITEDHEARING ORDERDENYING MEDICALAND TEMPORARYDISABILITYBENEFITS Time9':35Ml

This matter came before the undersigned Workers' Compensation Judge on October 30, 2017, for an Expedited Hearing. The central legal issues are whether Ms. Douglas suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment with Pine Palms while traveling to attend a quarterly meeting, and ifso, the benefits to which she is entitled. The Court holds Ms. Douglas has not come forward with sufficient evidence to establish she is likely to prevail at ahearing on the merits and denies herrequest for medical and temporary disability benefits atthis time. ClaimHistory Ms. Douglas received severe injuries in an automobile accident on November 15, 2016, while travelling to a quarterly meeting. Ms. Douglas started work for Pine Palms in April 2015 as a LPN. Pine Palms has three locations. Ms. Douglas worked primarily three days perweek atthe Johnson City location and as a fill-in for absentemployees and for quarterly educational meetings at the Elizabethton location. Pine Palms did not pay her for travelling to and from work, but it paid nurses for their time at the quarterly meeting. On November 15, 2016, Ms. Douglas worked in Pine Palms' Johnson City office during the day. Afterher shift ended, Ms. Douglas drove home and remained there for a 1while before she left for the meeting after dark. Unfortunately on the way to the meeting, Ms. Douglas was involved in a serious motor vehicle accident when a third party struck her car. The Courtwill not recount her injuries, but she underwent extensive surgery and incurred morethan $100,000 in medical bills. Ms. Douglas testified that she has been unable to work following the accident and is still under a doctor's care. 1 She confirmed her average weekly wage was $225.35, whichprovided a compensationrate of$150.23. Ms. Douglas argued that Pine Palms required her to go to the quarterly meeting and could have disciplined her for missing it. She asserted she was not a traveling employee but that this was a "special errand" that benefited her employer. Sherequested past and ongoing medical benefits and temporary total disability benefits. Hartford argued that Ms. Douglas' injury was not compensable because the accident occurred on herway to work. Findings ofFact and Conclusions ofLaw Ms. Douglas has the burden to prove all essential elements ofher claim. Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *6 (Aug. 18, 2015). However, she need not prove every element ofher claim by a preponderance of the evidence to obtain reliefat an Expedited Hearing. Instead, she must come forward with sufficient evidence from which the trial court can determine that she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015). The primary question is whether Ms. Douglas suffered an injury arising primarily out ofand in the course and scope ofemployment. Generally, an employee is not acting within the course and scope ofemployment when the employee is going to and coming from work unless the employee is on the employer's premises. However, the "special errand exception" applies when an employee is injured while performing some special act, assignment, ormission at the direction ofthe employer. The focus on special errand cases involve an offpremisesjourneythat required additional time and trouble in making the journey, its inconvenience, hazard, or urgency in making it, and the particular circumstances ofit. Hubble v. Dyer, 188 S.W.3d 525, 534 (Tenn. 2006). Ms. Douglas primarily relied on Hubble, Carter v. PhoenixRest. Grp. of TN, Inc., 1997 LEXIS 42 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. Panel Jan. 23, 1997) and Carter v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 2003 LEXIS 750 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. Panel Aug. 27, 2003). Each is distinguishable. In Hubble, Dyer Nursing Home required Ms. Hubble, prior to starting her normaljob, to travel to a special three-day orientation thirty miles from where she wouldbe working. In Carter v. Phoenix, the employer required Ms. Carter to travel to a one-time test approximately twenty-five miles from her normal working location,

1Ms. Douglas did not submitany offwork slips from herphysician. 2although Ms. Carterpreviously worked in that location. In Carter v. Utica, the employer required Ms. Carterto travel from Chattanoogato attend a one-day seminar in Atlanta. In eachcase, the employee sufferedaninjury during the special errand. Ms. Douglas argued that the quarterly educational meeting was special because it entailed duties that differed from hernormaljob. The Court disagrees. The meeting was not a one-time special occurrence, nor was it particular to Ms. Douglas, as Pine Palms required all ofits nurses to attend the quarterly educational meetings. Ms. Douglas knew she must attend this quarterly meetingwhen she accepted the position, so traveling to the meeting did not present any inconvenience beyond her normal job duties. Also, Ms. Douglas took the same route to the meetings that she took to work at the Elizabethton location. Even though she traveled during the evening hours, the Court holds that the travel requirement did notpresent a special hazard. Based on all the evidence submitted, the Court does not find that Ms. Douglas was on a special errand when the accident occurred. Thus, the Court holds Ms. Douglas did not come forward with sufficient evidence from which the Courtwould find her likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows: 1. Ms. Douglas' request forbenefits is denied atthis time. 2. This matteris set for a SchedulingHearing on December21, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The parties must call 855-943-5044 toll-free to participate in the hearing. Failure to appear by telephone may result in a determination ofthe issues withoutyourparticipation.

ENTERED ONNOVEMBER3, 2017.



### Is/BRIAN K. ADDINGTON JudgeBrian K. Addington CourtofWorkers' Compensation Claims

3APPENDIX Exhibits: 1. Ms. Douglas' affidavit 2. Wage Statement 3. Medical Records-Collective Exhibit 4. Collective Exhibit-Photographs 5. Medical Bills Technical Record: 1
. Petition for BenefitDetermination 2. Dispute Certification Notice 3. Request for ExpeditedHearing.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy ofthis Expedited Hearing Order was sent to the following recipients by the following methods of service on November 3, 2017

. Name Certified Fax Email Service sentto: Mail GregHaden, X ghaden@hsdlaw.com Employee'sAttorney JosephBallard, X Joseph.ballard@thehartford.com Employer'sAttorney



### 4