Court Opinion

ID: 9896859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 17:06:19.22732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:37.715817
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                          Nov 14, 2023
                                                                                          10:54 AM(CT)
                                                                                       TENNESSEE COURT OF
                                                                                      WORKERS' COMPENSATION
                                                                                             CLAIMS

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

SONDRA L. CLAYBROOKS,                              )   Docket No 2020-06-0489
          Employee,                                )
v.                                                 )
INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC,                               )   State File No. 23248-2020
         Employer,                                 )
And                                                )
TWIN CITY FIRE INS. CO.,                           )   Judge Robert Durham
          Carrier.                                 )

        COMPENSATION ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

        The Court heard Insight’s Motion for Summary Judgment on November 6, 2023.
Insight asserts entitlement to summary judgment because Ms. Claybrooks does not have
sufficient evidence to create a material question of fact as to whether she suffered a
compensable injury when she fell at work on May 9, 2019. For the reasons below, the Court
grants the motion. 1

                                        History of Claim

       Ms. Claybrooks testified that on May 9, 2019, she went to the restroom while at a
work meeting. She slipped on the wet restroom floor, causing her legs to “split” before she
fell on her right side. She immediately reported the fall to her manager, completed an
accident report, and sought care at a clinic. However, Insight did not provide a panel.

       After an expedited hearing in February 2021, the Court held that while Ms.
Claybrooks had not established the likelihood of proving causation, she was entitled to a
panel of physicians. Ms. Claybrooks then asserted a claim against the Subsequent Injury
Fund.

1
 Ms. Claybrooks has a separate hearing loss claim against Insight and the Subsequent Injury Fund. That
claim is not affected by this Order.
                                                  1
      Over the next few years, Ms. Claybrooks saw multiple doctors, both authorized and
unauthorized, for a variety of conditions.

       On November 17, 2022, the Court set a second expedited hearing to address Ms.
Claybrooks’s requests for additional medical and temporary disability benefits. The Court
also reset the deadlines of a scheduling order and set a compensation hearing for May 15,
2023. Later, the Fund filed a motion for summary judgment, and Ms. Claybrooks filed a
response with attached medical records.

        The Court set the summary judgment and expedited hearing for March 6. Ms.
Claybrooks did not appear, even though she was in the building. Given the circumstances
and the claim’s history, the Court granted the Fund’s motion for summary judgment
because Ms. Claybrooks did not submit any expert opinions that complied with Tennessee
Rules of Civil Procedure 56 to support her claim. The Court also denied Ms. Claybrooks’s
hearing request. However, her other claims remained, and the compensation hearing was
still scheduled for May 15. Ms. Claybrooks appealed, which stayed any further Court
proceedings.

       On March 31, Insight filed a motion for summary judgment, citing Ms.
Claybrooks’s inability to provide an expert opinion proving causation. Specifically,
Insight’s statement of undisputed facts included statements from authorized physicians’
records that Ms. Claybrooks’s complaints were not primarily caused by her fall at work.
Insight set the motion for May 15. Ms. Claybrooks did not respond to the motion.

       On May 30, the Appeals Board affirmed and determined the appeal was frivolous.
The Board issued the decision after the scheduled dates for Insight’s summary judgment
and compensation hearings. Ms. Claybrooks filed another appeal, attempting to appeal the
Board’s order. After the Board dismissed that appeal, the Court set a scheduling hearing.
During the hearing, the Court was inadvertently cut off, and Ms. Claybrooks hung up. She
did not call back, and several unsuccessful attempts were made to reach her. The Court
proceeded with the scheduling hearing and set the compensation hearing for November 6.

      Ms. Claybrooks appealed the Scheduling Order, and the Appeals Board affirmed on
September 14.

       Insight reset its motion for summary judgment on October 23, setting it on the
compensation hearing date of November 6. It also filed a “supplement” to its motion,
which pointed out reasons for the delays, that Ms. Claybrooks had not responded to the
motion, and that she had not provided an admissible expert opinion. Ms. Claybrooks did
not respond to the motion.

      On October 30, Ms. Claybrooks filed a motion for continuance and a motion that
the Court considered as a motion to strike the summary judgment motion. The Court set a

                                           2
telephone hearing for November 2 and sent notices to the parties. Ms. Claybrooks did not
attend. The Court denied her motion to continue and took the other motion under
advisement.

        At the in-person hearing on November 6, the Court first considered the motion to
strike Insight’s summary judgment motion. After hearing arguments, the Court struck
Insight’s “supplement” to its motion but allowed argument to proceed on the summary
judgment motion. After hearing arguments, the Court asked Ms. Claybrooks if she had
any medical opinions in the form of C-30 reports or depositions that supported her position
that her physical complaints were primarily related to her 2019 fall. She did not, and the
Court granted Insight’s motion.

                                     Law and Analysis

        Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 (2023).

        To prevail, Insight must do one of two things: (1) submit affirmative evidence that
negates an essential element of Ms. Claybrooks’s claim; or (2) demonstrate that her
evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of her claim. Tenn. Code Ann. §
20-16-101 (2023); see also Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d
235, 264 (Tenn. 2015). If Insight meets its burden, Ms. Claybrooks must then “demonstrate
the existence of specific facts in the record which could lead a rational trier of fact to find
in [her] favor.” Rye, at 265. The Court “must view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party and must also draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-
moving party.” Love v. Love Management, Inc., 2022 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS
9, at *15 (Feb. 23, 2022).

       To prove her claim, Ms. Claybrooks must show that her orthopedic complaints were
caused by a “specific incident or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course
and scope of employment” with Insight, specifically her fall on May 19, 2019. Tenn. Code
Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A) (2019). Further, she must prove causation “to a reasonable degree
of medical certainty,” through expert medical opinion. Id. at -102(14)(D).

      The Court will first address Ms. Claybrooks’s argument that the Court should have
denied the summary judgment motion, or at least continued the hearing on it.

       Insight originally filed its motion on March 31, 2023, and set it for a hearing in May.
The hearing, as well as any other substantive proceedings, were delayed due to stays caused
by Ms. Claybrooks’s appeals. One of these appeals was determined to be frivolous; the
other was administratively dismissed. Further, Ms. Claybrooks made no attempt to respond

                                              3
to Insight’s motion. When Insight reset a hearing on the motion for November 6, the date
already set for the compensation hearing, Ms. Claybrooks again did not respond other than
filing the motion to continue and then failed to appear at the hearing set for her motions.

       Rule 56 provides that hearings must be set at least thirty days after the motion is
filed and that the non-moving party must file a response within five days of the hearing.
Insight complied with this deadline, as it filed the motion on March 31. Ms. Claybrooks
had ample time to properly respond but failed to do so. Thus, Ms. Claybrooks’s motion to
strike and/or continue the summary judgment motion is denied. However, as for the
“supplement” filed on March 31, the Court finds that Insight filed it fewer than thirty days
before the hearing and will not consider it.

       Turning to the merits of the motion for summary judgment, Insight asserts that Ms.
Claybrooks does not have any expert medical proof that her fall at work primarily caused
her orthopedic complaints. In support, it includes in its Statement of Undisputed Facts
assertions from two authorized physicians that Ms. Claybrooks’s complaints did not
primarily arise out of and in the course and scope of her employment. Ms. Claybrooks did
not respond to the statement before the hearing; thus, these assertions are deemed admitted.
Dave v. Dion Ice, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 131, at *5 (July 26, 2017). Ms.
Claybrooks did not respond to the motion but instead attempted to rely on voluminous,
previously filed medical records.

       The Appeals Board considered similar facts several months ago, when Ms.
Claybrooks appealed the order granting summary judgment to the Subsequent Injury Fund.
In that decision, the Board observed that the trial court could not consider the medical
records but was “allowed only to consider ‘pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions of file, together with the affidavits, if any.’ Medical
records, standing alone, are not included on the list.” Claybrooks v. Insight Global, LLC,
2023 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *11 (May 30, 2023) (citing Sadeekah v.
Zaher Abdelaziz d/b/a Home Furniture and More, 2021 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS
19, at *12-13 (June 22, 2021)). The Board found that Ms. Claybrooks had not identified
any “admissible evidence that would create a genuine issue of material fact” as to the
Fund’s liability.” It held that the trial court considered the admissible evidence before it
and correctly granted summary judgment to the Fund. Id.

       The same is justified in this case. None of the information submitted by Ms.
Claybrooks that might constitute an expert opinion was in the form of a pleading,
admission, interrogatory response, affidavit, deposition, or medical report under Tennessee
Code Annotated section 50-6-235. Because Rule 56 requires information to be in one of
those forms, the Court finds Ms. Claybrooks did not submit any admissible evidence
showing a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she suffered a compensable injury
from her May 9, 2019 work-related fall. Insight met its burden of demonstrating that Ms.
Claybrooks’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of her claim, and

                                             4
submitted affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the claim. The Court
grants the motion for summary judgment.

IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

   1. Ms. Claybrooks’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits is dismissed with
      prejudice to its refiling. Unless appealed, this order becomes final in thirty days.

   2. Insight shall pay the $150 filing fee to the Clerk within five business days after this
      order becomes final under Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-
      21-.06 (February, 2022).

   3. Insight shall file Form SD-2 with the Clerk within ten business days of this order
      becoming final.

      ENTERED November 14, 2023.

                                   _____________________________________
                                   ROBERT DURHAM, JUDGE
                                   Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

                                             5
                         CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on November 14, 2023.

Name                    Certified    Via       Via     Service sent to:
                         Mail        Fax      Email
Sondra Claybrooks                               X      Slclay2228@gmail.com
L. Blair Cannon                                 X      Blair.cannon@thehartford.com

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

                                         6
                                              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