Court Opinion

ID: 9650243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:27:33.038623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:09.405492
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                Aug 23, 2023
                                                                                07:08 AM(CT)
                                                                             TENNESSEE COURT OF
                                                                            WORKERS' COMPENSATION
                                                                                   CLAIMS

           TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
          IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
                           AT NASHVILLE

 Cecilia Kanbi,                                 )   Docket No. 2020-06-1501
               Employee,                        )
 v.                                             )
 Claudia Ghanem, d/b/a Kebab Gyros,             )   State File No. 66043-2020
               Employer,                        )
 And                                            )
 Society Ins. Co.,                              )   Judge Kenneth M. Switzer
               Carrier.                         )

                               COMPENSATION ORDER

       At a compensation hearing on August 17, 2023, the parties disputed the amount of
permanent partial disability benefits owed to Cecilia Kanbi and her request that Kebab
Gyros offer a panel of physicians for future medical benefits. For the reasons below, the
Court holds that Ms. Kanbi retained an eleven-percent combined impairment rating: ten
percent for her mental injury, and one percent for her physical injuries as assigned by Dr.
Jeffrey Willers. Dr. Willers will remain the authorized treating physician for future
medical benefits.

                                     Claim History

        Ms. Kanbi suffered mental and physical injuries from an armed robbery while
working at Kebab Gyros on November 4, 2019. As to mental injuries, she treated with Dr.
Greg Kyser, who assigned a ten-percent impairment rating. Kebab Gyros did not contest
that rating but instead disputed the extent of Ms. Kanbi’s physical injuries.

       Ms. Kanbi’s right foot was shot during the robbery, requiring extensive medical
treatment. She first saw Dr. Scott Dube, whom she selected from a panel. He referred her
to podiatrist Dr. Tod Bushman, who performed surgery in May 2021. Dr. Bushman later
thought it might be necessary to amputate the third toe or perform an allograft. As either
involves surgery, Kebab Gyros authorized a second opinion with orthopedic surgeon Dr.

                                            1
Willers. Dr. Willers agreed that the amputation was appropriate. Ms. Kanbi consented to
Dr. Willers’s amputation of the toe in April 2022.

       Ms. Kanbi reported continuing foot pain to Dr. Willers several times after surgery.
Physical therapy and various medications gave Ms. Kanbi little relief. At a July visit, Dr.
Willers wrote, “I do not think orthopedically I have any additional treatment options to
offer.” He referred Ms. Kanbi to Dr. Jeffrey Hazlewood for pain management.

      In October, Dr. Hazlewood informally placed Ms. Kanbi at maximum medical
improvement, although he wrote that he would defer to Dr. Willers’s opinion. In
November, Dr. Hazlewood repeated the pronouncement of maximum medical
improvement, assigned a one-percent impairment rating, and placed no work restrictions.1

       Ms. Kanbi returned to Dr. Bushman in early February 2023 on her own. Afterward,
she sought an order for further treatment with him as the authorized treating physician,
expressing dissatisfaction with Dr. Willers. After an expedited hearing, the Court granted
additional medical benefits with Dr. Willers, finding that Ms. Kanbi gave no legal basis for
the designation of any other physician. The order also directed Dr. Willers, as treating
physician, to assign the impairment as required by the statute and administrative rules.
Neither party appealed the order.

      After a March 31 visit, Dr. Willers placed Ms. Kanbi at maximum medical
improvement and assigned a one-percent impairment rating with no work restrictions.

       As to continuing care, Dr. Willers wrote, “I will plan to see the patient back on an
as-needed basis. I have encouraged them to certainly contact me for any problems,
questions, or concerns. . . . Call or Return if symptoms worsen or persist.” He added, “I
do not have any additional treatment options to offer her,” and “[n]o future appointments
are necessary.” Dr. Willers later completed a Form C-32, where he repeated the rating and
wrote that Ms. Kanbi was at maximum medical improvement as of November 14, 2022.

       At trial, Ms. Kanbi again requested that she be allowed to see a physician other than
Dr. Willers. She said that her foot pain interrupts her sleep and makes activities of daily
living difficult. She walks with a cane, which workers’ compensation provided her on Dr.
Willers’s request.

       Ms. Kanbi contested Dr. Willers’s rating but offered no admissible expert evidence
giving a higher rating. Before the compensation hearing, Ms. Kanbi submitted a C-30A

1
 After Dr. Hazlewood placed the rating, the parties discussed settlement but did not reach an agreement.
In December, Ms. Kanbi’s attorney moved to withdraw on her request. He filed a properly supported lien
on her recovery. Neither Ms. Kanbi nor Kebab Gyros opposed the motion or lien.
                                                   2
from Dr. Dube, and during the trial she offered his C-32. Kebab Gyros objected to both,
and the objection was sustained as explained below.

                       Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

       At a compensation hearing, Ms. Kanbi bears the burden of proof and must show
entitlement to benefits by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-
239(c)(6) (2022). But before deciding her compensation, preliminary matters must be
addressed.

                                   Motion to Continue

      Ms. Kanbi requested a continuance of the compensation hearing on August 11,
seeking additional time to obtain a C-32 from Dr. Dube. Kebab Gyros objected.

        The Tennessee Court of Appeals very recently summarized the applicable law for
continuances in Wilder v. Wilder, 2023 Tenn. App. LEXIS 306, at *11 (Tenn. Ct. App.
July 27, 2023). The party seeking a continuance carries the burden to prove the
circumstances that justify the continuance. To meet this burden, the moving party must
supply some “strong excuse” for postponing the trial date. Factors relevant to the decision
include: (1) the length of time the proceeding has been pending, (2) the reason for the
continuance, (3) the diligence of the party seeking the continuance, and (4) the prejudice
to the requesting party if the continuance is not granted. Id.

       Applying the above factors, the injury took place close to four years ago, and this
case has been pending for over two and a half years. The reason for the requested
continuance is to obtain a C-32 from a physician who saw Ms. Kanbi in 2019 and 2020.
She only recently decided to seek his opinion, despite knowing about his involvement in
the case since November 2019. The above factors favor proceeding with the hearing as
scheduled. The Court finds Ms. Kanbi did not offer a strong excuse or “good cause” to
continue the hearing. Tenn. Comp. R. and Regs. 0800-02-21-.11(8) (February, 2022). The
motion is denied.

                        Admissibility of Dr. Dube’s C-32, C-30A

       Ms. Kanbi offered a photocopy of Dr. Dube’s C-32, signed on August 14, 2023, at
trial. Kebab Gyros objected, arguing in part that it was not timely filed. Tennessee
Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.22(3)(a) requires the filing of all

                                            3
proposed exhibits ten business days before a compensation hearing. The objection is
sustained.2

       As to Dr. Dube’s C-30A, the Workers’ Compensation Law gives two means by
which a physician’s opinion is admissible at a compensation hearing: deposition testimony
or “a written medical report on a form established by the administrator.” Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 50-6-235(c)(1). The form to which the statute refers is the C-32, not the C-30A. The C-
30A form itself instructs it is “to be filed with the Workers’ Compensation Carrier or
Adjuster,” and its purpose is informational only for potential settlement. In contrast, a C-
32 reads that it is used “to introduce direct testimony in lieu of a physician’s deposition”;
its purpose is for litigation. Therefore, the C-30A is inadmissible, and Kebab Gyros’s
objection is sustained.

                                    Permanent partial disability

       Turning now to the merits of Ms. Kanbi’s claim, the parties dispute the amount of
permanent partial disability benefits she shall receive. Kebab Gyros does not contest the
ten-percent rating for the mental injury or the one-percent rating for her foot.

       As explained above, Ms. Kanbi did not offer an admissible contrary opinion. She
believes she suffered a higher impairment for the foot injury. She testified to her pain and
difficulty with activities of daily living. The Court observed her walking with a cane.

       The Workers’ Compensation Law allows for permanent partial disability benefits
based on the impairment rating assigned by the authorized treating physician. See Tenn.
Code Ann. § 50-6-204(k)(1). Dr. Willers became her final authorized physician when Ms.
Kanbi consented to his treatment. The statute specifically prohibits a treating physician
from considering “complaints of pain” when placing the rating. Id. at -204(k)(3). Further,
the treating physician’s permanent impairment rating is presumed accurate. Id. at -
204(k)(7).

        The Court finds Ms. Kanbi credible regarding her pain and the devastating impact
the injury has had on her life. But Dr. Willers’s rating is the only opinion in the record and
is presumed correct. The Court finds Ms. Kanbi suffered an eleven-percent combined
impairment.

       Therefore, she is entitled to 49.5 weeks of benefits as her original award, or eleven
percent times 450 weeks. Her agreed weekly compensation rate is $452.04. This equates
to $22,376.48, accrued and payable in a lump-sum. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-207(3)(a).

2
 The proposed exhibit also was a copy and did not bear an original signature. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-
6-235(c)(1) (“A reproduced medical report that is not originally signed is not admissible as evidence unless
accompanied by an originally signed affidavit from the physician[.]”).
                                                     4
Of that, her former attorney is entitled to a twenty-percent fee, or $4,475.30, plus costs of
$545.50, under the agreement Ms. Kanbi signed when she hired him. Tenn. Code Ann. §
50-6-226(a)(1). He filed a properly supported lien on her recovery and is owed $5,020.80.
Therefore, Ms. Kanbi’s net original award is $17,355.68.

      Considering the eleven-percent rating and Ms. Kanbi’s maximum medical
improvement date of November 14, 2022, she is entitled to 49.5 weeks of benefits or 347
days. This time has not passed yet. If, on October 26, 2023, Ms. Kanbi has not returned
to work for any employer or has returned to work but is receiving wages less than what she
earned on the date of injury, she may file a claim for increased benefits under Tennessee
Code Annotated section 50-6-207(B).

                                            Medical benefits

        An employer must provide lifetime medical benefits under Tennessee Code
Annotated section 50-6-204. Kebab Gyros argued that Dr. Willers should be Ms. Kanbi’s
treating doctor; Ms. Kanbi asked for a panel to select a new physician. She argues that Dr.
Willers “continues to say ‘he is done with me, and there is nothing he can do to me[.]’
[M]eanwhile, I am still in excruciating chronic [pain].” Ms. Kanbi cited Limberakis v. Pro-
Tech Security, Inc., 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 53, at *7-10 (Sept. 12, 2017)
(An injured worker is entitled to reasonable and necessary additional treatment in an
accepted claim at the interlocutory stage, and if the authorized treating physician declines
to treat the employee further, a panel is appropriate.).

       In Limberakis, the authorized physician wrote that employee “will be discharged
from further care.” According to the employee, his staff refused to schedule additional
appointments despite repeated requests. Id. at *3. Here, Dr. Willers wrote, “I do not have
any additional treatment options to offer her,” and “[n]o future appointments are
necessary.” But his records also stated, “I will plan to see the patient back on an as-needed
basis. I have encouraged them to certainly contact me for any problems, questions, or
concerns. . . . Call or Return if symptoms worsen or persist.” (Emphasis added). Read
as whole, Dr. Willers expressed a willingness to continue to treat Ms. Kanbi, unlike the
words and deeds of the doctor and his staff in Limberakis.3

       The Appeals Board has characterized the employer’s right to control medical
treatment as “an important public policy underlying the workers’ compensation system in
general.” Rhodes v. Amazon.com, LLC, 2019 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *18
(June 11, 2019). Further, “Tennessee courts have long held that the employer in a workers’

3
  Importantly, the employee in Limberakis made the request for another physician at the interlocutory stage,
not at a compensation hearing. The standard to prevail an expedited hearing is different and a less exacting
burden: “likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits.” At a compensation hearing, the standard is higher;
the employee must show entitlement to benefits by a “preponderance of the evidence.”
                                                     5
compensation case generally has the right to control medical treatment, assuming that the
employer has complied with the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-
204. Id.

        Here, Ms. Kanbi’s concerns are understandable. On one hand, Dr. Willers wrote
that he has nothing to offer; on the other, he agreed to see her p.r.n. and if symptoms persist
or worsen. Still, the latter statements suggest a willingness to remain involved in her
treatment. Ms. Kanbi has not identified any way in which Kebab Gyros has not complied
with the law regarding her medical benefits. The Court cannot ignore the guiding case law.
Ms. Kanbi’s request for a panel is denied. Instead, she is entitled to lifetime future medical
benefits with Dr. Willers as required by section 50-6-204. If Dr. Willers refuses to see her,
she may renew her request at that time.

       IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

   1. Kebab Gyros shall pay Ms. Kanbi $22,376.48 as permanent partial disability
      benefits. Her former attorney, Drew Saulters, is entitled to fees and costs, so her net
      award, accrued and payable immediately, is $17,355.68. Ms. Kanbi may file a
      petition for increased benefits on or after October 26, 2023, if appropriate.

   2. Kebab Gyros shall immediately issue a check to attorney Drew Saulters for fees and
      costs totaling $5,020.80.

   3. Kebab Gyros shall provide lifetime medical benefits with Dr. Kyser and Dr. Willers
      for reasonable, necessary, and work-related treatment. If Dr. Willers refuses to see
      Ms. Kanbi, she may request a panel and if necessary file a petition at that time.

   4. The $150.00 filing fee is taxed to Kebab Gyros, to be paid to the Clerk under
      Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.06 (February, 2022)
      within five business days, and for which execution might issue if necessary.

   5. Kebab Gyros shall prepare and submit to the Clerk a Statistical Data Form (SD-2)
      within ten business days of this order becoming final.

   6. Unless appealed, this order becomes final thirty days after issuance.

       ENTERED August 23, 2023.

                                    ________________________________________
                                    JUDGE KENNETH M. SWITZER
                                    Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

                                              6
                                      Appendix

Exhibits: Medical records
   1. Dr. Willers/Elite
   2. Dr. Hazlewood
   3. Dr. Bushman
   4. Dr. Willers’s C-32/attachments
   5. Dr. Dube-Filed by employer
   6. Dr. Dube’s C30A-Filed by Employee (Identification only)
   7. Dr. Dube’s C32 (Identification only)

Technical record:
   1. Petition for Benefit Determination
   2. Dispute Certification Notice, and Employer’s Additional Information
   3. Status Hearing Order, February 22, 2021
   4. Status Hearing Order, May 26, 2021
   5. Status Hearing Order, August 31, 2021
   6. Status Hearing Order, November 16, 2021
   7. Status Hearing Order, February 14, 2022
   8. Motion for Status Hearing
   9. Motion to Compel Medical Treatment
   10. Status Hearing Order, March 8, 2022
   11. Motion to Compel Temporary Disability Benefits
   12. Employer’s Response/Motion to Compel Dr. Willers’ Examination
   13. Employee’s Response
   14. Employee’s Reply
   15. Order Granting Motion to Compel
   16. Status Hearing Order, May 2, 2022
   17. Status Hearing Order, May 23, 2022
   18. Status Hearing Order, August 8, 2022
   19. Status Hearing Order, October 18, 2022
   20. Motion to Withdraw and to Assert Lien (with attachments)
   21. Employer’s Response
   22. Amended Order Granting Withdrawal and Attorney’s Lien
   23. Status Hearing Order, January 18, 2022
   24. Hearing Request
   25. Employer’s Response to Hearing Request
   26. Order Setting Expedited Hearing
   27. Expedited Hearing Order
   28. Employer’s Motion on Interpretation (with attachments)
   29. Order on Interpretation
   30. Employer’s Motion for Scheduling Conference (with attachments)
   31. Order Setting Scheduling Hearing

                                          7
   32. Employee’s Urgent Request to Kebab Gyros
   33. Order Setting Compensation Hearing
   34. Employer’s motion on Social Security Consent to Release Information
   35. Order Granting Motion to Sign and Return Release
   36. Employer’s Pre-Compensation Hearing Statement
   37. Dispute Certification Notice, Employee’s Additional Issue, Mediator’s Note
   38. Employee’s motion to Continue
   39. Employer’s Response

                            CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on August 23, 2023.

Name                   Certified    Mail         Email   Sent to
                       Mail
Cecilia Kanbi,                         X           X     ahamofa@gmail.com
employee                                                 1201 Field Oak Court
                                                         Antioch TN 37013
Drew Saulters,                                     X     dsaulters@ortalekelley.com
employee’s former                                        jarmstrong@ortalekelley.com
attorney
G. David Hatfield,                                 X     dhatfield@gdhatfieldlaw.com
employer’s attorney

                                   _______________________________________
                                   Penny Shrum
                                   Clerk, Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
                                   WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov

                                             8
                                              NOTICE OF APPEAL
                                      Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
                                        www.tn.gov/workforce/injuries-at-work/
                                        wc.courtclerk@tn.gov | 1-800-332-2667

                                                                                  Docket No.: ________________________

                                                                                  State File No.: ______________________

                                                                                  Date of Injury: _____________________

         ___________________________________________________________________________
         Employee

         v.

         ___________________________________________________________________________
         Employer

Notice is given that ____________________________________________________________________
                         [List name(s) of all appealing party(ies). Use separate sheet if necessary.]

appeals the following order(s) of the Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims to the
Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (check one or more applicable boxes and include the date file-
stamped on the first page of the order(s) being appealed):

□ Expedited Hearing Order filed on _______________ □ Motion Order filed on ___________________
□ Compensation Order filed on__________________ □ Other Order filed on_____________________
issued by Judge _________________________________________________________________________.

Statement of the Issues on Appeal
Provide a short and plain statement of the issues on appeal or basis for relief on appeal:
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

Parties
Appellant(s) (Requesting Party): _________________________________________ ☐Employer ☐Employee
Address: ________________________________________________________ Phone: ___________________
Email: __________________________________________________________
Attorney’s Name: ______________________________________________ BPR#: _______________________
Attorney’s Email: ______________________________________________ Phone: _______________________
Attorney’s Address: _________________________________________________________________________
                           * Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellant *

LB-1099 rev. 01/20                              Page 1 of 2                                              RDA 11082
Employee Name: _______________________________________ Docket No.: _____________________ Date of Inj.: _______________

Appellee(s) (Opposing Party): ___________________________________________ ☐Employer ☐Employee
Appellee’s Address: ______________________________________________ Phone: ____________________
Email: _________________________________________________________
Attorney’s Name: _____________________________________________ BPR#: ________________________
Attorney’s Email: _____________________________________________ Phone: _______________________
Attorney’s Address: _________________________________________________________________________
                              * Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellee *

                                             CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, _____________________________________________________________, certify that I have forwarded a
true and exact copy of this Notice of Appeal by First Class mail, postage prepaid, or in any manner as described
in Tennessee Compilation Rules & Regulations, Chapter 0800-02-21, to all parties and/or their attorneys in this
case on this the __________ day of ___________________________________, 20 ____.

                                                           ______________________________________________
                                                            [Signature of appellant or attorney for appellant]

LB-1099 rev. 01/20                                 Page 2 of 2                                        RDA 11082