Court Opinion

ID: 9961695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 15:38:06.204773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:20.981802
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                              Apr 19, 2024
                                                                              10:26 AM(CT)
                                                                               TENNESSEE
                                                                          WORKERS' COMPENSATION
                                                                             APPEALS BOARD

            TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
               WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Sherry M. Webber                            )   Docket Nos.    2022-01-0063
                                            )                  2022-01-0064
v.                                          )
                                            )   State File Nos. 47618-2019
Steris Corporation, et al.                  )                   53206-2019
                                            )
                                            )
Appeal from the Court of Workers’           )
Compensation Claims                         )
Thomas L. Wyatt, Judge                      )

                             Affirmed and Certified as Final

In this appeal, the employee seeks to have two court-approved settlements set aside,
contending, among other allegations, that medical documentation and other information
had been concealed from her at the time of her settlement hearings, that her impairment
ratings were too low, and that both the employer’s insurer and her own attorneys had
breached a “fiduciary duty” to her. The trial court concluded the employee failed to
prove grounds for relief by clear and convincing evidence with respect to either
settlement. The employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we
affirm the trial court’s decision and certify it as final.

Judge Meredith B. Weaver delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which
Presiding Judge Timothy W. Conner and Judge Pele I. Godkin joined.

Sherry M. Webber, Chattanooga, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se

Stephen B. Morton, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, Steris Corporation

Robert R. Davies, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Subsequent Injury and Vocational
Recovery Fund

                                           1
                                     Memorandum Opinion 1

       Sherry Webber (“Employee”) suffered two separate work-related injuries while
working for Steris Corporation (“Employer”). On June 5, 2019, she reported injuries to
both shoulders caused by lifting heavy trays, resulting in left and right rotator cuff,
biceps, and labral tears. These injuries were treated by Dr. Chad Smalley, who released
Employee at maximum medical improvement on May 3, 2021, with a 5% permanent
medical impairment. Employee entered into a settlement agreement which resolved her
shoulder and upper extremity claims and resulted in a lump sum payment that included
her original award plus increased benefits based on her age and work status. 2 The
settlement also obligated Employer to provide reasonable and necessary future medical
care directly related to the work injury as provided in Tennessee Code Annotated section
50-6-204. The settlement was approved by the trial court on June 30, 2022.

        In addition, on July 16, 2019, Employee alleged injuries to her right hip and foot,
as well as her neck and back, when she slipped on some water and fell while working for
Employer. Employer provided medical treatment with Dr. Jesse Doty, Dr. John Alex
Sielatycki, and Dr. Benji Miller, all of whom released Employee at maximum medical
improvement and assigned permanent medical impairment ratings. With respect to these
claims, the parties entered into a settlement agreement based on a combined permanent
medical impairment of 10% for the injuries she sustained on July 16, 2019. At the time
of this settlement, Employee’s initial compensation period had not expired. As a result,
the parties agreed to compromise all claims and potential claims for a lump sum payment
in addition to Employee’s original award. Employer also agreed to provide all reasonable
and necessary future medical care directly related to the work injuries as provided in
Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204. This settlement was also approved by the
trial court on June 30, 2022.

       Almost a year later, on May 11, 2023, Employee filed a petition for benefit
determination but did not complete the portion asking her to “[i]dentify the
problem . . . with the workers’ compensation claim.” She then filed two more petitions
for benefit determination on May 23, 2023, one for each date of injury. In regard to the
June 2019 injury, Employee indicated she did not have “long term medical provisions”
for her left shoulder under the settlement agreement, and that she also would “like to
contest the impairment rating.” Relative to the July 2019 injury, Employee alleged that
Dr. Sielatycki was “negligent in reporting full medical disclosure,” that Dr. Miller

1
 “The appeals board may, in an effort to secure a just and speedy determination of matters on appeal and
with the concurrence of all judges, decide an appeal by an abbreviated order or by memorandum opinion,
whichever the appeals board deems appropriate, in cases that are not legally and/or factually novel or
complex.” Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-22-.03(1) (2023).
2
 Employee was represented by counsel in both settlements, which were approved simultaneously on June
30, 2022. Employee is no longer represented by counsel and is proceeding pro se.
                                                   2
“refused to disclose actual ICD-10 medical diagnostic code,” and that Dr. Doty stated he
would testify against her if he “had to go to court,” which in Employee’s view is a
“[b]reach of medical ethics and standards.” 3

        Following the filing of a Dispute Certification Notice in each case on August 15,
2023, the trial court issued an order in each matter directing Employee to file any motions
to set aside pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure by
November 6, 2023. Employee filed two such motions, although both filings contained
the state file and docket numbers for both injuries. In the motions, she stated, “I am
submitting concrete medical evidence documentation with this plea that supports my
claim to reexamine my injury case.” She indicated that she suffered additional injuries
during the shoulder surgery performed by Dr. Smalley and that both her prior attorney
and Employer’s insurance carrier breached a fiduciary duty regarding the medical
documentation and “disclosure of injuries.” Employee attached various uncertified
medical records from Dr. Smalley as well as a radiology report. She also attached a letter
to the trial court and one to her former counsel accusing Drs. Miller and Sielatycki of
breaching “medical ethics.” Finally, there were additional filings averring Employer’s
carrier had concealed information and made decisions compromising Employee’s health.
Employer responded, arguing that a party seeking relief pursuant to Rule 60.02 bears the
burden of proving entitlement to the relief by clear and convincing evidence and that
there was no evidence Employer had engaged in fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct
despite Employee’s allegations against her physicians and attorney. The trial court
agreed with Employer and denied both motions to set aside. Employee has appealed. 4

       On appeal, Employee asserts she can prove she is entitled to relief from the prior
settlements “by contradiction” and by submitting her MRI and “‘BROADSPIRE’ [sic]
OWN TREATING PHYSICIANS CLINICAL DOCUMENTATIONS THAT
SUBSTANTIATE AND PROVIDE EVIDENTIARY MEDICAL PROOF WITH
DOCUMENTED FACTS.” (Capitalization in original.) In response, Employer contends
that despite Employee’s sincerely held belief that her settlements were unfair, she has
provided no evidence supporting her claims for relief from the settlements under Rule
60.02. We agree.

          Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in part:

          On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or
          the party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding
          for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable

3
  Employee made numerous other allegations in various filings, including claims of perjury, breach of
fiduciary duties, “questionable medical practices,” “lack of medical ethics,” discrimination, “medical
cover-up,” and “lack of morals and character.”
4
    The matters were consolidated on appeal.
                                                  3
      neglect; (2) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),
      misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (3) the
      judgment is void; (4) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
      discharged, or a prior judgement upon which it is based has been reversed
      or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that a judgment should
      have prospective application; or (5) any other reason justifying relief from
      the operation of the judgment.

We have previously noted the Tennessee Supreme Court’s statement that relief under
Rule 60.02 is “rare and disfavored” and is “an exceptional remedy.” Johnson v.
Pilgrim’s Pride, Inc., No. 2015-01-0273, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 20, at
*10 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Apr. 27, 2016) (quoting Furlough v. Spherion Atl.
Workforce, LLC, 397 S.W.3d 114, 127 (Tenn. 2013)). In addition, an employee seeking
to set aside an order approving a workers’ compensation settlement in accordance with
Rule 60.02 must present clear and convincing evidence supporting a proper basis to set
aside the judgment. Baugus v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Ins. Co., No. 2022-05-409,
2023 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 32, at *6 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. July
18, 2023). On appeal, the trial court’s decision to grant or deny such a motion will be
upheld absent an abuse of discretion. Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328 (Tenn.
2010). A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies an incorrect legal standard,
reaches an illogical or unreasonable decision, or bases its decision on a clearly erroneous
assessment of the evidence, resulting in an injustice to the complaining party. See, e.g.,
State v. Ostein, 293 S.W.3d 519, 526 (Tenn. 2009).

        Here, Employee was represented by counsel when she agreed to two settlements
with Employer. She signed both settlement agreements. She was questioned by the court
regarding her understanding of the terms of each settlement, and she asked the court to
approve the settlements. Both agreements obligate Employer to provide reasonable and
necessary future medical treatment directly related to her work injuries, and Employee
has presented no evidence that Employer has breached any term of the settlement
agreements. She has provided no evidence of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part
of Employer, or any other proof establishing she is entitled to relief from the judgments.
Indeed, most of Employee’s allegations pertain to her medical providers in both claims
and her own interpretation of the medical records rather than any purported actions of
Employer. In short, Employee has not submitted clear and convincing evidence of any of
the conditions set out in Rule 60.02 that would justify granting her motions to set aside
the settlements.

       Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the trial court and certify them as final.
Costs on appeal have been waived.

                                            4
                 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
                   WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Sherry M. Webber                                      )      Docket Nos. 2022-01-0063
                                                      )                  2022-01-0064
v.                                                    )
                                                      )      State File Nos. 47618-2019
Steris Corporation, et al.                            )                      53206-2019
                                                      )
                                                      )
Appeal from the Court of Workers’                     )
Compensation Claims                                   )
Thomas L. Wyatt, 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 19th day
of April, 2024.

 Name                              Certified   First Class   Via   Via     Sent to:
                                   Mail        Mail          Fax   Email
 Sherry M. Webber                                                    X     czsherry@gmail.com
 Stephen B. Morton                                                   X     stephen.morton@mgclaw.com
                                                                           amber.dennis@mgclaw.com
 Robert R. Davies                                                    X     robert.davies@tn.gov
 Thomas L. Wyatt, Judge                                              X     Via Electronic Mail
 Kenneth M. Switzer, Chief Judge                                     X     Via Electronic Mail
 Penny Shrum, Clerk, Court of                                        X     penny.patterson-shrum@tn.gov
 Workers’ Compensation Claims

Olivia Yearwood
Clerk, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
220 French Landing Dr., Ste. 1-B
Nashville, TN 37243
Telephone: 615-253-1606
Electronic Mail: WCAppeals.Clerk@tn.gov