Court Opinion

ID: 9896216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 19:25:16.320503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:21.772951
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                 Nov 09, 2023
                                                                                 01:21 PM(ET)
                                                                             TENNESSEE COURT OF
                                                                            WORKERS' COMPENSATION
                                                                                   CLAIMS

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

 WILLIE RUCKER,                                 )   Docket No.: 2021-08-0611
          Employee,                             )
 v.                                             )
 FEDERAL EXPRESS                                )
 CORPORATION,                                   )   State File No.: 46819-2020
          Employer,                             )
 and                                            )
 INDEMNITY INSURANCE                            )
 COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA,                      )   Judge Thomas Wyatt
          Carrier.                              )
                                                )

             COMPENSATION ORDER FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

       Willie Rucker seeks benefits for a compensable head and upper body injury,
including for an allegedly related stroke that occurred eight months later. Federal Express
(FedEx) seeks summary judgment because Mr. Rucker has not come forward with medical
evidence, either in an Expedited Hearing or in response to deadlines set by the Court. Mr.
Rucker’s unsworn response was unresponsive to the issues raised on summary judgment.

       For the reasons below, the Court grants summary judgment dismissing Mr. Rucker’s
stroke case for lack of evidence. The Court also grants summary judgment dismissing Mr.
Rucker’s claim to temporary and permanent disability benefits. Finally, the Court grants
summary judgment awarding Mr. Rucker open future medical benefits for the non-stroke-
related conditions of the compensable injuries to his head and upper body..

                                         History

       In June 2021, Mr. Rucker filed a Petition for Benefit Determination alleging that he
sustained a work injury at FedEx on July 18, 2020. He had an attorney at the time, who
described his injury as follows:

                                            1
                  [A] huge package came down and struck Mr. Rucker on the head
           knocking him unconscious. He was bleeding from his head[.] Months later,
           Mr. Rucker suffered a stroke and doctors attributed [it to] brain damage
           related to incident[.] Workers’ compensation has not paid for any of his
           doctor’s visits.

       During Status Hearings, FedEx denied the work-relatedness of Mr. Rucker’s stroke
but agreed that his head and upper body injury was compensable. In a January 12, 2022
Status Order, the Court noted that Mr. Rucker was seeking causation opinions from two
physicians about his stroke.

        Mr. Rucker’s case proceeded to an Expedited Hearing in February 2022, where
benefits were denied because he “introduced no expert medical proof to support . . . that
his stroke was caused by a work injury.” Mr. Rucker unsuccessfully appealed, and the
Appeals Board remanded the case on May 2, 2023.

       The Court entered a May 26 Scheduling Order requiring Mr. Rucker to “disclose to
FedEx’s counsel the identity, contact information, and records of any medical expert
witness he will rely [on] . . . at the Compensation Hearing by July 31, 2023.” (Emphasis
original.) FedEx moved for summary judgment when the deadline expired without Mr.
Rucker disclosing medical experts.

       FedEx supported its Motion for Summary Judgment with a Statement of Undisputed
Facts stating that Mr. Rucker did not disclose medical experts either before or after the July
31 deadline.1 It also said that FedEx authorized treatment of Mr. Rucker’s head injury by
Drs. Riley Jones and Alan Nadel.

       The Statement of Undisputed Facts set forth that Dr. Jones ordered physical therapy,
x-rays, three MRIs, and two nerve conduction studies to treat Mr. Rucker and diagnose his
injuries. Eventually, Dr. Jones determined that Mr. Rucker’s ongoing complaints did not
arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. Dr. Nadel diagnosed a
post-traumatic headache. He eventually placed Mr. Rucker at maximum medical
improvement with a zero percent impairment. During the hearing, counsel for FedEx stated
that Mr. Rucker’s right to future medical benefits would survive the motion for summary
judgment, which was directed solely toward dismissal of the stroke case.

       Mr. Rucker filed an unsworn response that did not specifically respond to the
Statement of Undisputed Facts. His response to the motion complained that FedEx referred
him to physicians it selected instead of letting him choose his treating doctor. He claimed
those physicians failed to properly treat his injury and gave “false results.” His written
response did not state that he ever disclosed medical experts and gave no explanation for

1
    The Court file does not contain a disclosure filed by Mr. Rucker.

                                                            2
failing to do so. At the hearing, Mr. Rucker stated he left forms for a physician to complete
but had not received them back.
                                         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 (2022). To prevail, FedEx must do one of two
things: (1) submit affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of Mr. Rucker’s
claim, or (2) demonstrate that Mr. Rucker’s evidence is insufficient to establish entitlement
to benefits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-16-101; see also Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis,
MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 264 (Tenn. 2015).

       If FedEx’s motion successfully meets one of the burdens set out above, Mr. Rucker
must respond by producing affidavits, pleadings, depositions, responses to interrogatories,
or admissions that set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, or
he has sufficient evidence to prove his case. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.06. If he fails to do so,
“summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the [nonmoving] party.” Id.

        Here, Mr. Rucker bears the burden of proving all elements of his claim, including
that his stroke arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. To prove
the work-relatedness, or causation, of his stroke, he must show that the employment
contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing it, considering all causes. He must
prove causation “within a reasonable degree of medical certainty,” meaning “that in the
opinion of the physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to
speculation or possibility.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(A)-(D) (2023).

        FedEx’s summary judgment motion compelled Mr. Rucker to demonstrate, in
compliance with the procedures and time limitations of Rule 56, that he has sufficient
evidence to prove his case. He did not follow the Rule 56 requirement of responding to
the statement of undisputed material facts. Therefore, the Court finds that the facts in the
statement are undisputed. The issue then is whether under Rule 56.06 summary judgment
is “appropriate.”

        Considering the merits of FedEx’s motion, the Court finds it successfully
demonstrated that Mr. Rucker’s evidence is insufficient to prove medical causation of his
stroke, an essential element of his claim. This means that the burden shifts to him to
demonstrate the existence of specific facts in the record which could lead a rational trier of
fact to find in his favor[.]” Rye, at 265. Mr. Rucker did not meet this burden. Just as he
failed to provide a medical causation opinion at the Expedited Hearing, he offered no
medical evidence to defend FedEx’s summary judgment motion. Further, the deadline in
the scheduling order for developing that type of medical proof has passed. For that
reason, the Court enters summary judgment dismissing his stroke case with prejudice

                                              3
to its refiling.

       FedEx’s Statement of Undisputed Facts, which Mr. Rucker did not place into
dispute, also establishes that Mr. Rucker has attained maximum medical improvement of
his compensable head and upper body injury. A treating physician assigned a zero percent
impairment rating for the injury.

       An employee’s right to temporary disability benefits ends when the employee
attains maximum medical improvement, and an employee who retains a zero percent
impairment rating is not entitled to an award of permanent disability benefits. Tenn. Code
Ann. § 50-6-207. For this reason, the Court enters summary judgment dismissing Mr.
Rucker’s claim to temporary and permanent disability benefits for his July 18, 2020 work
injury at FedEx.

      Finally, FedEx stated at the hearing that Mr. Rucker is entitled to open future
medical benefits for the non-stroke-related conditions arising primarily out of and in the
course and scope of his July 18, 2020 work injury. For that reason, the Court enters
summary judgment awarding Mr. Rucker open authorized future medical benefits for his
compensable injuries under Drs. Jones’s and Nadel’s care for his July 18, 2020 work injury.

       The Court’s decision fully resolves this claim. The Court taxes the $150.00 filing
fee to FedEx, which shall remit it to the Clerk no later than five business days following
the entry of this order. FedEx shall also complete and file an SD2 form documenting the
conclusion of this case.

       IT IS ORDERED.

       ENTERED November 9, 2023.

                                   _____________________________________
                                   Judge Thomas Wyatt
                                   Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

                                            4
                            CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the Order was sent as indicated on November 9, 2023.

Name                     Regular U.S.       Email     Service sent to:
                         Mail/Certified
                         Mail
Willie Rucker                  X                X     Willruck777@gmail.com
Employee                                              3523 Graceland Dr., Apt. 1
                                                      Memphis, TN 38116

Stephen Miller                                  X     smiller@mckuhn.com
Joseph Baker                                          jbaker@mckuhn.com
Employer’s Attorneys

                                          ______________________________________
                                          Penny Shrum, Court Clerk
                                          WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov

                                            5