Court Opinion

ID: 4560079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-08-26 21:01:38.275086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:14:29.787272
License: Public Domain

TENNESSEE  BUREAU  OF WORKERS’  COMPENSATION                     
                      WORKERS’  COMPENSATION    APPEALS BOARD                       
                                                                                    
          Robert Watson                   )  Docket No. 2017-05-0515                
                                          )                                         
                                                                                    
          v.                              )  State File No. 36534-2017              
                                          )                                         
          Catlett Construction, et al.    )                                         
                                          )                                         
                                          )                                         
          Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )                                       
                                                                                    
          Compensation Claims             )                                         
          Dale Tipps, Judge               )                                         
                                                                                    
                      Affirmed and Remanded—Filed December 14, 2018                 
                                                                                    
          In this second appeal in this case, the employee contends the trial court erred in failing to
          consider his medical reports to be sufficient proof of a specific injury, which he alleges
                                                                                    
          arose out of and in the course and scope of his employment. The trial court determined
          the employee had presented insufficient proof to establish he will likely succeed at trial
          and denied his request for medical and temporary disability benefits. The employee has
          appealed. The employer has asked that we find this appeal frivolous and award
          attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm the trial court’s decision, conclude the appeal is not
          frivolous, and remand the case.                                           
                                                                                    
          Presiding Judge Marshall L. Davidson, III, delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in
                                                                                    
          which Judge David F. Hensley and Judge Timothy W. Conner joined.          
                                                                                    
          Robert Watson, Spring Hill, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se         
                                                                                    
          Michael Haynie, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, Catlett Construction
                                                                                    
                            Factual and Procedural Background                       
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
               We previously issued an opinion in this case on May 18, 2018, containing the
          factual history of the case as follows:                                   
                                                                                    
                    Robert Watson (“Employee”) began working for Catlett            
               Construction (“Employer”) installing windows and doors in 2012. He   
               alleged that he suffered injuries to his left shoulder and low back on June
               23, 2016, when he lifted a window and experienced sharp pain.        
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                          1                                         
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                    Employee acknowledged having problems with his left shoulder and
               low back prior to going to work for Employer, but he asserted he informed
               his supervisor, Joel Catlett, on multiple occasions that he was experiencing
               pain and other symptoms as a result of his work. He maintained he told
               Mr. Catlett about the June 23, 2016 incident that caused an increase in his
                                                                                    
               pre-existing symptoms. He testified that Mr. Catlett responded by telling
               him he was an independent contractor who was not covered by workers’ 
               compensation and that his problems were the result of normal wear and
               tear.                                                                
                                                                                    
                    Mr. Catlett acknowledged that Employee complained of shoulder   
               and back problems, but he denied that Employee ever expressed a belief
                                                                                    
               that those problems were related to his employment. Mr. Catlett and  
               Employee were friends prior to their working relationship, and Mr. Catlett
               testified he was aware that Employee had a history of problems with his
               shoulder and back and, in fact, wore a back brace and used an ice pack on
               his shoulder before Employer hired him. Employer denied being aware  
               Employee claimed he suffered work-related injuries prior to his termination
               in May 2017.                                                         
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                    Employee sought treatment on his own, initially treating with Teresa
               Pisani, a physician’s assistant, on June 28, 2016. At that time, he  
               complained of low back pain that began two days prior. Ms. Pisani noted
               that “[p]atient installs windows all day and is literally wearing out his
               back[.] [H]e over did [it] at home on Sunday.” Employee returned to Ms.
                                                                                    
               Pisani approximately one year later on June 8, 2017. At that time, Ms.
               Pisani observed that “[s]ince he did not have shoulder and back problems
               [prior to starting work for Employer in September 2012], it is likely that
               they incurred [sic] secondary to the repetitive lifting and twisting motion
               required to install windows and doors.” Employee also saw Dr. John   
               Klekamp for his back pain in October 2016, and the record of that visit
               indicates Employee had a “sharp onset” of back pain approximately one
                                                                                    
               year previously while installing windows.                            
                                                                                    
                    On August 5, 2016, Employee saw Dr. Christopher Stark for his left
               shoulder complaints. Dr. Stark noted that Employee reported a “long  
               history of left shoulder problem[s] going on about a year” as well as a “1-
               year history of back problems.” Dr. Stark continued treating Employee for
               his left shoulder injury, ultimately performing surgery. On November 12,
                                                                                    
               2017, Dr. Stark stated that “[t]he injury he had at the time of surgery in
               August 2017 does correlate and is related to the work he was performing in
               2016.”                                                               
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                          2                                         
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
          Watson v. Catlett Constr., No. 2017-05-0515, 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 19,
          at *1-4 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. May 18, 2018) (footnotes omitted). 
                                                                                    
               Following the first expedited hearing, the trial court determined Employee had
          presented sufficient evidence from which the court could conclude he was likely to
                                                                                    
          prevail at trial in establishing he gave proper notice of his injury. However, the trial court
          declined to award medical or temporary disability benefits based on a finding that
          Employee had not presented sufficient evidence to establish he was likely to prevail in
          showing his injuries arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his
          employment. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2018). The trial court noted that
          Employee had provided inconsistent dates of injury and that his testimony and medical
          records did not identify a specific date of injury. Employee appealed that order, which
                                                                                    
          we affirmed on May 18, 2018.                                              
                                                                                    
               At the second expedited hearing, which was a decision on the record, Employee
          submitted, without objection from Employer, Standard Form Medical Reports (“C-32
          reports”) prepared by Dr. Stark and Dr. Mark Hawkins, Employee’s chiropractor.1 Dr.
          Stark prepared two C-32 reports dated December 4, 2017 and February 28, 2018.2 On
          both reports, in response to an inquiry regarding whether a specific incident or series of
                                                                                    
          incidents brought about Employee’s injury, Dr. Stark marked “[y]es.” He also indicated
          the employment activity was primarily responsible for Employee’s need for treatment.
          On the February report, he described the incident as “6/23/16 moving windows/doors”
          and noted Employee’s injury was a “[r]otator cuff tear, labral tear, AC joint injury.”
                                                                                    
               However, in contrast to Dr. Stark, Dr. Hawkins marked “[n]o” in response to the
                                                                                    
          inquiry regarding whether a specific incident or series of incidents caused Employee’s
          injury. He indicated that the mechanism of injury was “lifting windows.” Dr. Hawkins
          also initially marked “[y]es” in response to whether Employee’s injury resulted from an
          aggravation of a pre-existing injury, but then marked out his answer and placed a
          question mark beside the inquiry. He identified Employee’s injury as “rotator cuff
          impingement” and marked “yes” to the inquiry of whether the employment activity was
          primarily responsible for Employee’s need for treatment.                  
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
               The trial court declined to award medical or temporary disability benefits, finding
          that Employee’s proof was still insufficient to establish he was likely to prevail in
          showing that he suffered a work-related injury identifiable by time and place of
          occurrence. The trial court reasoned that, although the three C-32 reports addressed
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
          1 The trial court noted Employer filed a notice of objection “pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-
          235(c)(2),” but determined Employer was reserving its right to depose the doctors rather than objecting to
          the admissibility of the reports. Employer has not appealed that determination.
                                                                                    
          2 The trial observed that, while Dr. Stark dated the second C-32 report February 28, 2017, that appeared to
          be a clerical error.                                                      
                                          3                                         
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
          causation, Employee had not submitted evidence establishing that his injury occurred in
          the course and scope of his employment. The trial court also noted that the three reports
          were the only new evidence submitted and that Employee did not submit additional
          records, affidavits, or testimony establishing that he suffered injuries resulting from a
          specific incident at work on June 23, 2016. Employee has appealed.        
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                   Standard of Review                               
                                                                                    
               The standard we apply in reviewing a trial court’s decision presumes that the
          court’s factual findings are correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.
          See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(7) (2018). When the trial judge has had the
          opportunity to observe a witness’s demeanor and to hear in-court testimony, we give
                                                                                    
          considerable deference to factual findings made by the trial court. Madden v. Holland
          Grp. of Tenn., Inc., 277 S.W.3d 896, 898 (Tenn. 2009). However, “[n]o similar
          deference need be afforded the trial court’s findings based upon documentary evidence.”
          Goodman v. Schwarz Paper Co., No. W2016-02594-SC-R3-WC, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 8, at
          *6 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel Jan. 18, 2018). Similarly, the interpretation and
          application of statutes and regulations are questions of law that are reviewed de novo with
          no presumption of correctness afforded the trial court’s conclusions. See Mansell v.
                                                                                    
          Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393, 399 (Tenn. 2013). We are
          also mindful of our obligation to construe the workers’ compensation statutes “fairly,
          impartially, and in accordance with basic principles of statutory construction” and in a
          way that does not favor either the employee or the employer. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-
          116 (2018).                                                               
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                       Analysis                                     
                                                                                    
                                         A.                                         
                                                                                    
               Before addressing Employee’s arguments, we address as a preliminary matter
          Employer’s assertion that our prior decision, Watson v. Catlett Construction, No. 2017-
          05-0515, 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 19 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd.
                                                                                    
          May 18, 2018), dictates the result here. Employer, relying on the “law of the case”
          doctrine, contends Employee is precluded from litigating a second appeal on an issue
          decided in his first appeal, i.e., whether he is likely to prove a compensable injury at trial.
          We disagree.                                                              
                                                                                    
               The law of the case doctrine generally prohibits relitigation of issues that have
          been decided in a prior appeal of the same case. Memphis Publ’g Co. v. Tenn. Petroleum
                                                                                    
          Underground Storage Tank Bd., 975 S.W.2d 303, 306 (Tenn. 1998). As such, “an
          appellate court’s decision on an issue of law is binding in later trials and appeals of the
          same case if the facts on the second trial or appeal are substantially the same as the facts
          in the first trial or appeal.” Id. The law of the case doctrine, “which applies to issues that
                                                                                    
                                          4                                         
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
          were actually before the appellate court in the first appeal and to issues that were
          necessarily decided by implication,” serves several important objectives: the rule
          “promotes the finality and efficiency of the judicial process, avoids indefinite relitigation
          of the same issue, fosters consistent results in the same litigation, and assures the
          obedience of lower courts to the decisions of appellate courts.” Id.      
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
               However, “[w]hile the doctrine of the law of the case can be a useful tool for the
          sake of judicial economy and consistency, the doctrine is neither a constitutional mandate
          nor a limitation” on a court’s power. State v. Hall, 461 S.W.3d 569, 500 (Tenn. 2015).
          “Rather, it is a longstanding discretionary rule of judicial practice which is based on the
          common sense recognition that issues previously litigated and decided by a court of
          competent jurisdiction ordinarily need not be revisited.” Memphis Publ’g Co., 975
                                                                                    
          S.W.2d at 306. Because the law of the case principle “is merely a practice to guide the
          courts,” it “directs a court’s discretion [but] it does not limit the tribunal’s power.”
          Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363, 383 (Tenn. 2009).                    
                                                                                    
               In the present case, Employee submitted additional evidence at the second
          expedited hearing, from which the trial court’s present expedited hearing order arises.
          Employee was not precluded from doing so or from arguing he suffered an injury from a
                                                                                    
          specific incident, and we are not precluded from reviewing the issue in light of the new
          evidence submitted. See Green v. Rogers Grp., No. 2016-04-0085, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp.
          App. Bd. LEXIS 34, at *3-4 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. May 22, 2017). Simply
          put, the law of the case doctrine does not apply to these circumstances.  
                                                                                    
                                         B.                                         
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
               Turning to the merits of this appeal, Employee asserts the trial court erred in
          concluding that the C-32 reports were insufficient to establish he would likely prevail at
          trial in proving a work-related injury identifiable by time and place of occurrence. In
          response, Employer asks that we find this appeal to be frivolous, asserting Employee
          should be sanctioned because he is attempting to relitigate matters already determined in
          the prior appeal.                                                         
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
               An injured worker has the burden of proof on every essential element of his or her
          claim. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6). However, at an expedited hearing, an
          employee need not prove every element of his or her claim by a preponderance of the
          evidence but must come forward with sufficient evidence from which the trial court can
          determine that the employee is likely to prevail at trial consistent with Tennessee Code
          Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(1). McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, No. 2014-
                                                                                    
          06-0063, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *9 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App.
          Bd. Mar. 27, 2015). This lesser evidentiary standard “does not relieve an employee of
          the burden of producing evidence of an injury by accident that arose primarily out of and
          in the course and scope of employment at an expedited hearing, but allows some relief to
                                                                                    
                                          5                                         
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
          be granted if that evidence does not rise to the level of a ‘preponderance of the
          evidence.’” Buchanan v. Carlex Glass Co., No. 2015-01-0012, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp.
          App. Bd. LEXIS 39, at *6 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Sept. 29, 2015).  
                                                                                    
               Generally, to be compensable, an injury must arise primarily out of and in the
                                                                                    
          course and scope of employment and must cause death, disablement, or the need for
          medical treatment of the employee. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). An “accidental
          injury” is one that is “caused by a specific incident, or set of incidents,” and is
          “identifiable by time and place of occurrence.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A).
          Furthermore, “[a]n injury ‘arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of
          employment’ only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
          employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering
                                                                                    
          all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(B). An “accidental” injury generally does
          not include the aggravation of a pre-existing condition “unless it can be shown to a
          reasonable degree of medical certainty that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in
          the course and scope of employment.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A).   
                                                                                    
               A key component of the 2013 Workers’ Compensation Reform Act is the  
          requirement that the injury for which benefits are sought arise “primarily out of and in the
                                                                                    
          course and scope of the employment.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). Traditionally,
          courts have held that the statutory requirements that an injury arise out of and in the
          course and scope of the employment are not synonymous “although both elements exist
          to ensure a work connection to the injury for which the employee seeks benefits.”
          Blankenship v. Am. Ordnance Sys., LLC, 164 S.W.3d 350, 354 (Tenn. 2005). An injury
          occurs in the course of employment if it takes place while the employee was performing a
                                                                                    
          duty he or she was employed to perform. Fink v. Caudle, 856 S.W.2d 952, 958 (Tenn.
          1993). Thus, the course of employment requirement focuses on the time, place, and
          circumstances of the injury. Saylor v. Lakeway Trucking, Inc., 181 S.W.3d 314, 318
          (Tenn. 2005).                                                             
                                                                                    
               Mindful of these principles, the question before us is whether the evidence
          preponderates against the trial court’s finding that Employee did not come forward with
                                                                                    
          sufficient evidence that he suffered an injury on June 23, 2016 in the course of his
          employment. The trial court found the C-32 reports were not sufficient to establish
          Employee suffered an injury identifiable by time and place of occurrence. The court
          pointed out that the only difference between the second expedited hearing and the first
          expedited hearing was Employee’s submission of the three C-32 reports. The court noted
          that at the first hearing, the medical records and testimony did not support a finding that
          he had suffered a specific injury on June 23, 2016. The court concluded that the newly
                                                                                    
          introduced evidence was still insufficient, noting the various alleged dates of injury and
          the lack of any documented medical history identifying a specific incident or set of
          incidents.                                                                
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                          6                                         
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
               After reviewing the record, we cannot conclude that the evidence preponderates
          against the trial court’s finding that Employee is not likely to prevail in proving he
          suffered a work-related injury on a date certain. Rather, and consistent with the trial
          court’s findings, Employee’s medical records establish that he reported inconsistent dates
          of injury. At a June 28, 2016 doctor’s visit, he complained of back pain, which the
                                                                                    
          record reflects began two days prior to his visit. Employee’s reported history indicated
          he installed windows, which was wearing out his back, as well as his belief that he “over
          did” it at home on the Sunday prior to that visit. Moreover, although Employee is correct
          that Drs. Stark and Hawkins identified the lifting and moving of windows, respectively,
          as the mechanism of his shoulder injury, this alone does not establish the occurrence of a
          specific incident on June 23 or a set of incidents identifiable by time and place of
          occurrence.                                                               
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
               Additionally, there are inconsistencies in the C-32 forms themselves. Dr. Stark’s
          December report lists a specific incident occurring on “6/23/16 moving windows/doors.”
          However, Dr. Hawkins’s response indicated there was no specific incident or series of
          incidents. In short, aside from Employee’s assertion that the injury occurred at work,
          there is nothing in the record establishing Employee’s injuries occurred in the course and
          scope of his employment. The evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s
                                                                                    
          finding in that regard.3                                                  
                                                                                    
                                         C.                                         
                                                                                    
               Employer asks that we find Employee’s appeal to be frivolous and to award
          sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees and costs. As we have noted in prior cases, a
                                                                                    
          frivolous appeal is one that is devoid of merit or brought solely for delay. Yarbrough v.
          Protective Servs. Co., Inc., No. 2015-08-0574, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 3,
          at *11 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Jan. 25, 2016). In light of the additional
          evidence submitted by Employee and considered by the trial court, we do not find this
          appeal to be frivolous, and we deny Employer’s request for sanctions pursuant to Tenn.
          Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-22-.04(6) (2018).                                
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                      Conclusion                                    
                                                                                    
               For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the evidence does not preponderate against
          the trial court’s decision. Accordingly, the trial court’s decision is affirmed and the case
          is remanded.                                                              
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
          3 Because we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that Employee did not establish he suffered an injury in
          the course and scope of his employment, any discussion of whether his injury arose out of his
          employment is pretermitted.                                               
                                          7