Court Opinion

ID: 9941042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 18:33:02.105897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:09.948608
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                  Feb 15, 2024
                                                                                  12:21 PM(CT)
                                                                               TENNESSEE COURT OF
                                                                              WORKERS' COMPENSATION
                                                                                     CLAIMS

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

 TOWANDA MILLER,                                    )        Docket No.: 2022-08-0929
          Employee,                                 )
 v.                                                 )
 SMITH & NEPHEW INC.,                               )        State File No.: 40160-2021
           Employer,                                )
 And                                                )
 TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY,                       )
           Carrier.                                 )        Judge Shaterra R. Marion
                                                    )

 ____________________________________________________________________________

                     COMPENSATION ORDER DENYING BENEFITS

        The Court held a Compensation Hearing on February 12, 2024, on Ms. Miller’s
entitlement to medical and disability benefits. The Court holds that Ms. Miller is not
entitled to payment for medical bills or disability benefits for her back surgery because she
submitted no admissible medical proof that the surgery was primarily related to her work
injury. However, the Court awards medical benefits to the extent that Ms. Miller’s
compensable injury requires additional treatment.

                                 Motion for Continuance

       As a preliminary issue, Ms. Miller filed a motion for continuance three business
days before the compensation hearing. Smith & Nephew opposed the motion, and the Court
heard the parties’ arguments on the day of the hearing.

      In her motion, Ms. Miller requests more time to address the C-32 after Smith &
Nephew objected to its admissibility. At the hearing, she says that she tried to get Dr.
Crosby to testify live, but he was unavailable. She also wants a continuance because Smith
& Nephew sent her medical deposition transcripts but not the accompanying exhibits.

      Smith & Nephew argues that Ms. Miller’s motion did not comply with the
scheduling order motion deadline of December 12, 2023. Additionally, Ms. Miller did not
mention Dr. Crosby at the prehearing conference, nor did she list Dr. Crosby as a witness
in her pre-trial filings. Further, Smith & Nephew sent the exhibits in question to Ms. Miller
by email, and they were also available through the Court’s filing system.

       The Court finds that Ms. Miller did not mention missing files before the hearing,
nor did she identify Dr. Crosby as a potential witness. Thus, the Court denies her motion
for a continuance.

                                     History of Claim

       Ms. Miller injured her back when a co-worker opened a door into her on May 17,
2021. After conservative treatment at a clinic, she chose orthopedist Riley Jones from a
panel offered by Smith & Nephew.

        Dr. Jones noted that Ms. Miller reported back pain that sometimes radiated into her
left buttock but not into her arms or legs. At the hearing, Ms. Miller confirmed that she did
not have radiculopathy when she treated with the clinic or with Dr. Jones.

       Dr. Jones’s diagnostic testing came back normal except for evidence of a disc
protrusion with no nerve compression. Dr. Jones then referred Ms. Miller to neurosurgeon
John Brophy. Dr. Brophy confirmed that the tests did not show nerve compression, and
Ms. Miller only complained of soft-tissue back pain without radiculopathy. He did not
recommend surgery or injections and released her back to Dr. Jones with no anticipated
need for treatment and a 0% impairment.

        Dr. Jones then ordered a bone scan, which also came back negative, although Ms.
Miller testified it was incomplete due to the pain she suffered during the procedure. After
the scan, Dr. Jones diagnosed a lumbar sprain and discharged Ms. Miller with no
anticipated need for further treatment and a 0% impairment. Ms. Miller testified that two
months after her release, she received two unauthorized injections that gave her short-term
relief but did not heal her symptoms.

       Ms. Miller said that over a year after Dr. Jones’s release, she sought unauthorized
treatment with Dr. Glen Crosby. Ms. Miller offered a C-32 from Dr. Crosby, but on Smith
& Nephew’s objection, it was not admitted into evidence. The Court found the C-32 did
not contain the statement of qualifications required by Tennessee Code Annotated section
50-6-235(c). She also offered Dr. Crosby’s medical records, but they were excluded as
hearsay.

       Dr. Jones reviewed Dr. Crosby’s records and testified that Dr. Crosby found
evidence of radiculopathy, and he ultimately performed a discectomy. Dr. Jones testified
that Dr. Crosby’s records did not change his original opinion. He did not believe Dr.
Crosby’s treatment and surgery to be more than 50% related to Ms. Miller’s work injury,
relying on Ms. Miller’s lack of radiculopathy when Dr. Jones treated her.
        Dr. Brophy also disagreed with Dr. Crosby’s assessment that his treatment and
surgery were related to Ms. Miller’s work injury. Dr. Brophy stated that Ms. Miller did not
develop radiculopathy until months after her injury. Thus, he could not relate it to her work
injury. He also relied on the fact that Ms. Miller had a positive straight leg raise when she
saw Dr. Crosby, but a negative straight leg raise test when Dr. Jones examined her. Dr.
Brophy testified that a positive straight leg raise occurs in about 80% of people who have
a ruptured disc.

       Ms. Miller did not offer any evidence establishing that a doctor took her off work
for her alleged injury.

                       Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

                                   Involuntary Dismissal

       At the close of Ms. Miller’s direct proof, Smith & Nephew moved for a directed
verdict, meaning an “involuntary dismissal” of Ms. Miller’s case under Rule 41.02(2) of
the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. In Burchfield v. Renfree, the Tennessee Court of
Appeals stated that the court may grant the motion only if it determines that reasonable
minds could not differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. 2013 Tenn.
App. LEXIS 685, at *86-87 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).

       A motion for involuntary dismissal is rarely appropriate in a workers’ compensation
case, “inasmuch as a reversal of the trial court’s ruling results in additional proceedings
and undue delay.” Cunningham v. Shelton Sec. Serv., 46 S.W.3d 131, 137-38 (Tenn. 2001).
The trial court should instead hear the entire case and make appropriate findings of fact,
and alternative findings, when necessary, for appellate review. Id.

       Here, Dr. Jones’s deposition and medical records had been entered into evidence,
providing proof of a compensable work injury. Thus, the Court does not find an involuntary
dismissal appropriate and denies the motion.

                                         Causation

       Ms. Miller has the burden of proof on all essential elements of her claim. Scott v.
Integrity Staffing Solutions, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *6 (Aug. 18,
2015). She must show by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to the
requested benefits. Willis v. All Staff, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 42, at *18
(Nov. 9, 2015).

      Ms. Miller must first prove that her alleged injury and need for treatment, arose
primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. She must show “to a
reasonable degree of medical certainty that [the incident] contributed more than fifty
percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering
all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12) (2023). “Shown to a reasonable degree of
medical certainty” means that, in the opinion of the treating physician, it is more likely than
not considering all causes as opposed to speculation or possibility. Id.

       In this case, Drs. Jones and Brophy said that Ms. Miller’s May 17 injury was not
primarily responsible for her need for surgery. As authorized treating physicians, their
causation opinions are presumed correct. Id. at -102(12)(E).

       Ms. Miller has the burden of rebutting that presumption. The Court finds that she
did not, as she offered no admissible proof to counter the opinions of Drs. Jones and
Brophy. 1 Therefore, Ms. Miller is not entitled to medical benefits relating to Dr. Crosby’s
surgery. However, the medical proof did establish that Ms. Miller suffered a work-related
lumbar strain. Thus, Smith & Nephew shall provide any reasonable and necessary medical
treatment the strain may require, with Dr. Jones as the authorized physician.

       As for disability benefits, Ms. Miller offered no proof of being taken off work, so
the Court cannot award temporary total disability benefits. Further, the medical proof
established that Ms. Miller retained no permanent impairment as a result of her May 17,
2021 work injury. Thus, the Court cannot award permanent partial disability benefits.

        IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

        1. Ms. Miller’s request for payment of past medical bills with Dr. Crosby,
           temporary total disability, and permanent partial disability is denied.

        2. Smith and Nephew shall continue to provide medical treatment with Dr. Riley
           Jones for any reasonable, necessary, and work-related condition under
           Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204.

        3. The Court taxes the $150.00 filing fee to Smith & Nephew, to be paid to the
           Court Clerk under Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-
           .06 (2022) within five business days of this order becoming final, and for which
           execution might issue if necessary.

        4. Smith & Nephew shall prepare and submit to the Court Clerk a Statistical Data
           Form (SD2) within ten business days of this order becoming final.
1
  Even if Dr. Crosby’s opinion had been admitted into evidence, his responses are mere disagreements with
Drs. Jones and Brophy, providing no insight into how he reached his conclusion or why the opinions of
Drs. Jones and Brophy were incorrect. Further, Ms. Miller admits to developing radiculopathy after being
released from Drs. Jones and Brophy. Without additional information, Ms. Miller could not have rebutted
the presumption afforded to the opinions of Drs. Jones and Brophy.
      5. Unless appealed, this order shall become final 30 days after issuance.

      ENTERED February 16, 2024.

                                 _______________________________________
                                 Judge Shaterra R. Marion
                                 Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

                                     APPENDIX

Exhibits
   1. Employer-submitted Medical Records, incorporated by the depositions of Dr. Jones
       and Dr. Brophy
   2. Deposition Transcript of Dr. Jones with CV
   3. Deposition Transcript of Dr. Brophy with CV
   4. Wage Statement
   5. [For Identification Only] Medical Bill of Ms. Miller
   6. Ms. Miller’s High School Diploma
   7. [For Identification Only] C-32 of Dr. Crosby
   8. [For Identification Only] Medical Records submitted by Ms. Miller
   9. [For Identification Only] Letters from Dr. Crosby
   10. [For Identification Only] Check Stubs
   11. [For Identification Only] Pictures Submitted by Ms. Miller
   12. [For Identification Only] Written Statement from Michael Kossman, Jr.
   13. Ms. Miller’s Earnings Statements
   14. Pictures Submitted by Employer

Technical Record
   1. Petition for Benefit Determination
   2. Dispute Certification Notice
   3. Hearing Request
   4. Scheduling Order
 5. Dispute Certification Notice (Post-Discovery ADR), with letter from Employer to
     Mediator
 6. Employee’s Prehearing Statement
 7. Employer’s Prehearing Statement and Brief
 8. Employer’s Exhibit List
 9. Employer’s Witness List
 10. Employer’s Objection to Employee’s C-32
 11. Employee’s Motion for Continuance
 12. Employer’s Response to Motion for Continuance

                          CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I certify that a copy of this order was sent as indicated on February 16, 2024.

Name                      U.S.     Via Service sent to:
                          Mail    Email
Towanda Miller,            X        X   4512 Ridgewood Road
Employee                                Memphis, TN 38116
                                        towandamillertn@gmail.com
Paul Nicks,                         X   pnicks@travelers.com
Employer’s Attorney

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