FILED

Mar 02, 2020

02:17 PM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION 

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS 

AT JACKSON 

MICHAEL HAYES, 

Employee, 

v. 

JACKSON GOLF & COUNTRY 

CLUB, 

Employer, 

And, 

TECHNOLOGY INS. CO., 

Carrier. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 2019-07-0251 

State File No. 51271-2017 

Judge Allen Phillips 

COMPENSATION ORDER FOR PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY 

BENEFITS 

The issue in this case is the amount of permanent partial disability benefits for Mr. 

Hayes, a tennis professional. He claimed it was six percent, and the Club claimed it was 

three. After considering the evidence, the Court holds Mr. Hayes sustained a six-percent 

permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. 

History of Claim 

Mr. Hayes began playing tennis at age five and turned professional at eighteen. He 

was once the number-six ranked player in his native England and competed for his 

country in international events. Over the years, he played against top-ranked 

professionals. 

Mr. Hayes played collegiately at the University of Memphis. While there, he 

learned of an opening for a tennis professional at the Club and applied. Mr. Hayes was 

hired by Jay Veazey, the Club's head professional. 

On May 11, 2017, Mr. Hayes felt a "tweak" in his right shoulder while serving a 

ball. The incident so affected his play that he reported it to Mr. Veazey, who 

recommended that Mr. Hayes see Dr. Kelly Pucek, an orthopedic surgeon who had 

1 
previously treated him for a shoulder injury. Mr. Hayes took Mr. Veazey's advice, and 

the Club later accepted Dr. Pucek as the authorized treating physician. 

Testifying by deposition, Dr. Pucek said Mr. Hayes reported the "sudden onset of 

pain" while serving and that he sensed a loss of "some velocity" on his serves. Dr. Pucek 

diagnosed impingement syndrome and a possible labral tear, later confirmed by an MRI. 

Dr. Pucek surgically repaired the tear and performed a sub-acromial decompression for 

the impingement. He testified that shoulder surgery on a tennis professional is "more 

concerning" than on an attorney, for example, because of the overhead activity required 

to play tennis. 

Two months after the surgery, Dr. Pucek found Mr. Hayes's motion was not 

improving, but he added that labral repair patients are "always a little slower" in 

recovering motion. However, after two more months, he found Mr. Hayes lacked only 

some external rotation of his shoulder, while all other planes of motion were "in pretty 

good shape." So, he released Mr. Hayes to regular duty. Mr. Hayes returned to work, but 

for the next two years voiced complaints about his shoulder, which Dr. Pucek described 

as "concerning," and possibly "long term." 

Regarding his impairment rating, Dr. Pucek testified that the AMA Guidelines to 

the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 61h Edition, allow for a "rating based on motion 

or the surgical procedure." He thought that a rating based on the surgical procedure was 

more appropriate because Mr. Hayes lacked only some external rotation. Thus, under the 

diagnosis-based method, Dr. Pucek assigned Mr. Hayes two-percent permanent 

impairment to his upper extremity for the labral repair and one-percent impairment for 

the impingement. These combined for a rating of three percent to the upper extremity, 

which converted to two-percent impairment to body as a whole. However, after his 

deposition, Dr. Pucek corresponded with Mr. Hayes's counsel stating that had he been 

asked, he would have increased the rating to three percent to the body because of Mr. 

Hayes's ongoing complaints. He based his increased rating on "modifiers" found in Table 

15-5 of the Guides, a table addressing several diagnoses including labral tears, but did not 

elaborate on what modifiers he used. Nevertheless, the parties agreed to the change in 

rating. 

Mr. Hayes saw Dr. Samuel Chung for an independent medical evaluation (IME). 

Dr. Chung testified that Mr. Hayes was thirty-two years old and had taught tennis at the 

Club for seven years. He said Mr. Hayes reported "acute" pain when serving a ball and 

then noted "very little force behind" his serve. He noted Mr. Hayes complained of 

continued difficulty with his serve after surgery, describing that he could not fully serve 

overhead but rather used a more "sideways" motion. At the time of the IME, Dr. Chung 

said Mr. Hayes thought his motion was "if anything ... getting worse." 

2 
Dr. Chung confirmed the veracity of those complaints when he examined Mr. 

Hayes, finding "a mild degree of motion loss in almost all planes of his right shoulder." 

Dr. Chung specifically documented the actual degrees of Mr. Hayes's motion in 

extension, flexion, adduction, abduction, and internal rotation and, because of the losses 

in those planes, thought "range of motion [was] the biggest factor" of impairment. Thus, 

Dr. Chung used Table 15-34 of the Guides, titled "Shoulder Range of Motion," to assess 

six-percent impairment to the body as a whole. He explained that "the main rationale for 

me using the range of motion is really directed by the Guide's [sic] direction because if 

there is an injury and recovery of a certain diagnosis, unless it's completely normal 

motion, we ... are, you know asked to use the range of motion. And that's what I did." 

Mr. Hayes was the only witness at the hearing. He explained his injury continues 

to affect his service velocity, describing a decrease from 115 to 80 miles per hour. 

Because of that, he obtained a machine that simulates service. Further, he said he hoped 

he might play in more tournaments in the future, but now he cannot. Finally, he testified 

that he reduced his on-court instruction time from approximately forty hours per week 

down to roughly thirty. Because of Mr. Hayes's lay testimony, his counsel argued that 

Dr. Chung's rating was more in line with the true effects of the injury. 

For its part, the Club objected to the relevance of Mr. Hayes's testimony regarding 

the ill effects of his injury, asserting instead that the Court should focus on the ratings. 

The Court overruled those objections. 

As to the ratings themselves, the Club argued Dr. Pucek, as the authorized treating 

physician, is presumed correct, and that Mr. Hayes did not rebut that presumption by a 

preponderance of the evidence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(k)(7) (2019). In 

support, it pointed to a section of the Guides, Chapter 15, page 461, which provides the 

diagnosis-based method is the "method of choice for calculating impairment," and that 

"range of motion is used principally as a factor in the Adjustment Grid." Finally, the Club 

argued that the Guides make no distinctions between occupations, whether a professional 

tennis player or an attorney, the comparative dichotomy used by Dr. Pucek. 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

Mr. Hayes must establish the extent of his permanent disability by a 

preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6). The extent of his 

disability is a question of fact, determined by a consideration of all of the evidence, 

including both expert and lay testimony. Duignan v. Stowers Mach. Corp., No. E2018-

01120-SC-R3-WC, 2019 Tenn. LEXIS 224, at *22 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. Panel June 

19, 2019). 

3 
When considering the expert proof, the Court considers the qualifications of the 

experts, the circumstances of their examination, the information available to them, and 

the evaluation of the importance of that information by other experts. Bass v Home Depot 

USA, Inc., 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 36, at *9 (May 26, 2017). 

Applying those factors here, the Court first finds both doctors qualified to assess a 

rating; Dr. Pucek is a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, and Dr. Chung is a specialist in 

physical medicine and rehabilitation, as well a certified independent medical examiner. 

They are on equal footing. 

Second, as to the circumstances of their evaluation, the Court finds Dr. Pucek had 

the most contact with Mr. Hayes, seeing him on many occasions over two years as 

opposed to Dr. Chung's one-time evaluation. It seems reasonable the physician having 

greater contact with the employee would have the advantage to provide a more accurate 

opinion. Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 803 S.W.2d 672, 677 (Tenn. 1991). However, 

Dr. Chung specifically detailed Mr. Hayes's loss of motion using a methodology he said 

is dictated by the Guides. Conversely, though Dr. Pucek agreed the Guides allow a rangeof-motion loss rating, he did not document any measurements of Mr. Hayes's shoulder 

motion. The Court takes judicial notice that the Guides provide that if more than one 

method of rating exists, then the evaluator should use the method producing the higher 

rating. Guides, page 2, Table 2-1 n.12. The Court takes further notice that Table 15-5, the 

table used by Dr. Pucek for his diagnosed-based rating, provides that range of motion 

may be used as an alternative to the diagnosis-based rating. Guides, page 405, Table 15-

5, footnote. 

Third, the information available to the experts in assessing impairment supports 

Dr. Chung. As noted, he documented his specific measurements in all planes of motion. 

Contrast this with Dr. Pucek's testimony that most planes of motion were "in pretty good 

shape." 

Finally, the factor of which information was important to other experts again 

supports Dr. Chung. Dr. Pucek expressed his concern with Mr. Hayes's ongoing 

complaints and surmised they might become long-term. Even more compelling was Dr. 

Chung's explanation of how lost motion affects a professional tennis player. 

In support of its position that Dr. Pucek was correct, the Club cited Marshall v. 

Pinnacle, No. W2015-00382-SC-R3-WC, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 751 (Tenn. Workers' 

Comp. Panel Oct. 27, 2016). There, a Workers' Compensation Panel contrasted the 

impairment rating of a Medical Impairment Rating Registry (MIRR) physician, whose 

rating also carries a presumption of correctness, with that of an IME physician like Dr. 

Chung. The Panel found the trial court erred in finding the IME rating rebutted the MIRR 

physician by clear and convincing evidence. Specifically, that IME physician testified he 

4 
did not follow the directives of the Guides to assess the rating because he disagreed with 

the Guides's recommended methodology. 

Marshall is distinguishable. Unlike the IME physician there, Dr. Chung testified 

he did follow the Guides's directives when assessing his rating. Moreover, Dr. Pucek, 

whose rating is entitled to a presumption of correctness, agreed the Guides allow use of 

range-of-motion. Thus, the only expert proof here is that the Guides allow a range-ofmotion impairment, and the only material difference is that Dr. Chung actually measured 

and documented the lost motion. Moreover, the standard to rebut Dr. Pucek is lower than 

the applicable standard in Marshall, a preponderance as opposed to clear and convincing 

evidence. 

Turning to the lay testimony, the Court is guided by longstanding authority that 

the employee's own assessment of his physical condition and resulting disability is 

competent testimony not to be disregarded. Orrick v. Bestway Trucking, Inc., 184 S.W.3d 

211, 217 (Tenn. 2006). Thus, the Court respectfully disagrees with the Club's assertion 

that the Court's focus remain primarily on the ratings. Here, Mr. Hayes's testimony is 

particularly important when he described the detrimental effects of his injury. 

Namely, Mr. Hayes said he began playing tennis at age five, twenty-seven years 

ago, and became a professional by age eighteen, playing at an international level. His 

level of experience provides him keen insight into how his injury affects his play. He 

described his loss of service velocity, approximately thirty-five miles per hour slower 

post-injury, and he doubted he could play in tournaments. Importantly, his injury caused 

him to lighten his work schedule by ten hours per week, a loss of earning capacity 

directly reflective of the extent of disability. This lay testimony supports Dr. Chung's 

rationale for the higher rating. 

Finally, the Court finds Mr. Hayes credible. His testimony was calm, self-assured, 

confident, forthcoming, reasonable, and honest. See Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 694-

695 (Tenn. 2014) (discussing indicia of witness credibility). He was consistent in his 

history and resolute in his complaints, and he neither exaggerated nor embellished his 

symptoms. Instead, the Court was convinced he provided an honest assessment of the 

effects of his injury. 

In totality, the Court holds Mr. Hayes rebutted the presumption of correctness 

attached to Dr. Pucek's rating and that Dr. Chung's rating is the more accurate. It follows 

that Mr. Hayes is entitled to an award of six-percent permanent partial disability to the 

body as a whole under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3), calculated as six 

percent times 450 weeks times the stipulated compensation rate of$888.00, or $23,976. 

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows: 

5 
1. Jackson Country Club shall pay Mr. Hayes permanent partial disability benefits of 

$23,976 under Tennessee Code Annotated section 207(3)(A) based on Dr. 

Chung's six-percent permanent partial impairment rating to the body as a whole. 

2. Jackson Country Club will continue to pay for reasonable and necessary future 

medical benefits related to the injury under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-

6-204(a)(l)(a). Dr. Pucek remains the authorized treating physician. 

3. The Court assesses the $150.00 filing fee to Jackson Country Club to be paid to 

the Court Clerk under Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-

.06 (August, 20 19) within five business days of this order becoming final, and for 

which execution may issue if necessary. 

4. Jackson Country Club shall file a Statistical Data Form (SD-2) with the Court 

Clerk within five business days of the date this order becomes final. 

5. Absent an appeal, this order shall become final thirty days after issuance. 

ENTERED March 2, 2020. 

pensation Claims 

APPENDIX 

Exhibits: 

1. First Report of Work Injury 

2. Deposition of Dr. Kelly Pucek 

3. Deposition ofDr. Samuel Chung 

4. Collective Medical Records 

Technical record: 

1. Petition for Benefit Determination 

2. Dispute Certification Notice (DCN) 

3. Request for Scheduling Hearing 

4. Scheduling Order 

5. Post-Discovery DCN 

6. Pre-Compensation Hearing Statement 

6 
7. Employer's Compensation Hearing Brief 

8. Employee's Witness and Exhibit List 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that a copy of this Compensation Hearing Order was sent as indicated on 

March 2, 2020. 

Name Certified First Via Service Sent To: 

Mail Class Email 

Mail 

Charles M. Purcell and X chuck@gsclegal.com 

Katherine C. Wallace, katie@Qsclegal.com 

Attorneys for Employee 

Rosalia Fiorello, X rfiorello@wimberlylawson.com 

Attorney for Employer 

7