Court Opinion

ID: 4995509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-29 14:03:32.942672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:16:52.314634
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                  Sep 23, 2021
                                                                                  02:02 PM(CT)
                                                                               TENNESSEE COURT OF
                                                                              WORKERS' COMPENSATION
                                                                                     CLAIMS

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

WILLIAM SIMS,                                )   Docket No 2020-05-0526
         Employee,                           )
v.                                           )   State File No. 42697-2019
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,                  )
         Employer,                           )   Judge Robert Durham
And                                          )
SAFETY NAT’L CAS. CORP.,                     )
         Insurer.                            )

             EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS

       The Court held an Expedited Hearing in this case on September 15, 2021. Mr.
Sims seeks an order requiring Nissan to provide treatment for his low-back and right-hip
pain, along with weakness in his right leg, that he asserts is due to his work-related injury
of June 12, 2019. The Court holds that Mr. Sims is not likely to prove at trial that these
complaints are due to his work injury and denies his requested relief.

                                     History of Claim

       Although Mr. Sims’s injury occurred in 2019, the medical history relevant to this
claim began several years earlier.

       In 2015, Mr. Sims began treating with Tennessee Valley Pain Consultants
(TVPC), a pain management facility. According to the initial record, Mr. Sims explained
that he had suffered from fibromyalgia for years and that it caused constant, burning pain
that would “migrate” to his shoulders, upper arms, low back, thighs, and left knee. He
also complained of anxiety, frequent itching in his left chest and a “crawling electrical
sensation” along the outer thighs.

      TVPC diagnosed Mr. Sims with several conditions associated with his various
pain points and altered sensation complaints, including myalgia, lumbago, cervicalgia,

                                             1
lumbar radiculopathy, and bilateral shoulder pain.       He received opioids, anti-
inflammatories, nerve pain medication, and other drugs to treat his symptoms. To
address Mr. Sims’s low-back pain and tingling in his thighs, TVPC ordered a lumbar
MRI in 2016, but the MRI was negative for any abnormalities.

       Since 2015, Mr. Sims has visited TVPC every few months to renew his
prescriptions. He also receives thoracic or lumbar epidural steroid injections every three
to four months, which he asserted alleviates the tingling sensations in his thighs. Little
variation has occurred with Mr. Sims’s symptoms or TVPC’s treatment.

        Despite his complaints, Mr. Sims continued working full-time for Nissan as a tool-
and-die maker. On June 12, 2019, an overhead crane struck him in the left shoulder,
forcing him to bend sideways over his machine and requiring him to twist around the
crane to free himself. Mr. Sims testified that as he did so, he felt a “pop” in his back that
caused immediate pain. However, it was only after he discovered that he was unable to
lift his right foot that he became truly concerned and notified his supervisor that he
needed help. The supervisor escorted Mr. Sims to the in-house medical clinic.

       At the clinic, Mr. Sims complained of right-hip and right-shoulder pain, and he
told the provider that his “right leg won’t move.” The provider immediately called an
ambulance to take him to the emergency room. According to Mr. Sims, a nurse presented
him with several blank documents for his signature as he was being strapped into a
gurney and told him he needed to sign them to receive treatment.

       One of the forms was a choice of physician form, which Mr. Sims testified was
completely blank when he signed it. The form had the names of three doctors printed in
the appropriate spaces, and the bottom portion where Dr. Mary Gerges, Nissan’s in-house
doctor, was selected as the authorized physician was handwritten with ink that was a
different color from Mr. Sims’s signature. Mr. Sims testified that this was not his
handwriting. Nissan did not offer any evidence to rebut Mr. Sims’s testimony about the
choice of physician form.

        After Mr. Sims signed the forms, he was transported to the emergency room. The
ER notes state that he complained of feeling a “pop” in his low back and now suffers
from severe low-back pain with tingling in his right thigh and difficulty in raising his
right leg. Mr. Sims admitted to chronic low-back pain but stated the pain was “much
worse” after the accident and that the weakness was new. A lumbar MRI revealed
“significant facet degenerative change with bilateral neural foraminal stenosis” at L4-5
especially on the left with “evidence of edema and enlargement” of the exiting left L4
nerve root. After Mr. Sims’s symptoms improved, the ER provider released him to return
to light duty with significant restrictions.

       Mr. Sims returned to work the next day and received further treatment with Dr.

                                             2
Gerges. 1 She diagnosed a work-related left-shoulder contusion. She also believed the
work incident exacerbated his chronic conditions, causing low-back and right-hip
sprain/strain with right-leg weakness and paresthesia. She kept him on light duty with
significant restrictions.

       On July 10, Dr. Gerges wrote that Mr. Sims reported his low-back pain had
worsened that day with pain radiating into his right hip and testicle, but he had complete
resolution of his left-shoulder pain and right-leg weakness. Dr. Gerges maintained the
work restrictions and ordered physical therapy.

       Dr. Gerges saw Mr. Sims for the last time on August 7. Mr. Sims reported a
stabbing pain in his right-low back and a burning sensation on the outside of his right
thigh. Dr. Gerges noted he said that after an epidural steroid injection at TVPC, he had
“significant improvement” in his symptoms over the weekend; however, the symptoms
progressively worsened when he returned to work. At this point, Dr. Gerges said that she
did not believe Mr. Sims’s low-back pain and paresthesia were “primarily work related”
but were most likely due to an exacerbation of pre-existing lumbar arthritis. She
concluded that his current symptoms were beyond a sprain/strain injury, especially since
“his MRI was negative for any acute findings that could have been caused by current
injury.” Based on this report, Nissan denied any further treatment.

       Mr. Sims continued to experience low-back/right-hip pain and right-leg weakness,
so he sought treatment with orthopedist John Rodriguez Feo, III on June 16, 2020. Dr.
Feo recorded that Mr. Sims claimed his work accident caused right-leg weakness, which
was not there before. Mr. Sims also said he had increased pain and paresthesia radiating
down his right leg all the way to his foot. After examination and a review of x-rays and
the 2019 MRI, Dr. Feo found the symptoms were consistent with a right-sided L5-S1
radiculopathy, likely secondary to “L5-S1 dynamic spondylolisthesis.”

       Dr. Feo ordered another MRI, which he felt was “relatively unremarkable” but did
suggest L5-S1 spondylolisthesis that was consistent with neural foraminal stenosis and
Mr. Sims’s right leg symptoms. He believed surgery would be appropriate, except for the
fact that Mr. Sims was significantly overweight, which would complicate any operative
procedure. He recommended another epidural steroid injection and noted that Mr. Sims
was seeing a doctor for possible bariatric surgery to reduce his weight. 2 Dr. Feo did not
mention causation for Mr. Sim’s back condition in his records.

        Mr. Sims continued to believe his symptoms were due to the accident, and he filed
a Petition for Benefit Determination seeking treatment. Nissan then sent Mr. Sims for an

1
 Mr. Sims has remained fully employed by Nissan and is not seeking temporary disability benefits.
2
 Mr. Sims has since undergone a gastric sleeve abdominal procedure and has lost a significant amount of
weight.
                                                  3
independent medical evaluation with neurosurgeon Douglas Matthews.

        According to Dr. Matthews’s report, Mr. Sims complained of low-back and right-
hip pain that radiated to his big toe and intensified with standing or walking; however, he
denied any weakness. On exam, Mr. Sims exhibited limited lumbar range of motion. He
had normal strength, as well as light touch sensations in all his extremities. A straight leg
raise test revealed mild back discomfort, but Mr. Sims did have absent reflexes in both
legs and walked with a mild limp.

       Dr. Matthews concluded that Mr. Sims suffers from a degenerative lumbar spinal
condition at L4/5 with facet degenerative changes that include joint swelling. These
degenerative changes have created lumbar stenosis and varying degrees of radiculopathy.
He believed that Mr. Sims’s work injury caused a temporary exacerbation of his pre-
existing medical conditions but did not cause an anatomic change. He stated there was
“no evidence” that the injury caused a “permanent elevation in [Mr. Sims’s] pain or
permanent damage to his spine.” Instead, the work injury caused a temporary
exacerbation of a lumbar strain and lumbar radiculopathy that “rapidly returned to [Mr.
Sims’s] chronic state.”

       At the hearing, Mr. Sims took issue with the accuracy of Dr. Matthews’s
statements. While he admitted that he had a long history of pain, including low-back
pain, he insisted that after the accident his symptoms were different and more severe in
his low back and right hip. He also testified that he continues to suffer from right-leg
weakness, which he never had before his accident.

                        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

        Mr. Sims must present evidence from which this Court can determine that he is
likely to prove at trial that the additional treatment he seeks is for complaints that are due
to his work injury. See McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp.
App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *9 (Mar. 27, 2015). Given the evidence, the Court holds that Mr.
Sims did not meet his burden on this issue.

        Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204 governs an employer’s obligation to
provide medical treatment made “reasonably necessary” by a work injury. Nissan does
not contest that Mr. Sims suffered a compensable injury on June 12, 2019, or that he
initially required treatment for it. But it maintains that further treatment is no longer
reasonably necessary, since Mr. Sims’s current complaints are not due to his accident.

      The issue of reasonable and necessary treatment is complicated by the fact that,
while Nissan provided treatment immediately after the accident, the undisputed evidence
shows that it did not comply with the law in providing Mr. Sims’s medical care.
Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(i) requires an employer to provide

                                              4
a panel of three doctors from which the injured employee may choose a treating
physician. Mr. Sims testified that the Choice of Physician Form he signed before going
to the emergency room was blank. In addition, the portion selecting Dr. Gerges was
written in a different hand and with different ink from Mr. Sims’s signature. The Court
finds Mr. Sims’s testimony credible, and Nissan did not offer any contrary evidence.
Thus, the Court holds that Mr. Sims is likely to prove that he was not given an
opportunity to choose an authorized physician from a panel.

        Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that Nissan is obligated to provide a
panel at this stage. See Berdnik v. Fairfield Glade Com’ty Club, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp.
App. Bd. LEXIS 32, at *10-11 (May 18, 2017). In Berdnik, the Appeals Board held that
the first question that must be answered before ordering benefits is whether the evidence
shows that the employee is likely to prove at trial that she is entitled to benefits. Id. at
*11. Even though the employer failed to provide a panel, the only medical evidence
presented at the hearing proved that the employee’s condition was not causally related to
employment. Thus, the Appeals Board held that the employee did not prove she was
likely to prevail at trial and was not entitled to a panel. Id.

       The same analysis applies here. Mr. Sims has the burden to show that he is likely
to prove at trial that his right-lumbar, hip, and leg pain and weakness were caused by his
work-related injury. To prove causation, Mr. Sims must show to a reasonable degree of
medical certainty that his work injury contributed more than fifty percent in causing these
symptoms, considering all causes. “Reasonable degree of medical certainty” means “it is
more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or uncertainty.”
See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2020). Given that the standard requires “medical
certainty,” causation must be shown through an expert medical opinion. Id.

       The only medical proof as to causation is that of Dr. Gerges and Dr. Matthews.
Both gave the opinion that, while Mr. Sims’s work-related injury caused a temporary
exacerbation of his pre-existing medical conditions, his current complaints and possible
need for surgery are primarily due to his degenerative disc disease and not the work
injury. While the Court finds Mr. Sims credible as to how his symptoms differ now as
opposed to before the injury, the Court holds that his testimony alone is not sufficient to
establish entitlement to further medical treatment. Therefore, Mr. Sims’s request for
further medical treatment is denied at this time.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

       1. Mr. Sims’s request for additional medical treatment is denied.

       2. The Court refers this case to the Bureau’s Compliance Program to investigate
          and determine if, and to what extent, it should issue a penalty for Nissan’s
          apparent failure to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-

                                             5
            204(a)(3)(A)(i).

      3. This case is set for a Scheduling Hearing on November 8, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.
         Central Time. The parties must call 615-253-0010 to participate. Failure to
         call might result in a determination of the issues without the party’s
         participation.

      ENTERED on September 23, 2021.

                                   _____________________________________
                                   ROBERT DURHAM, JUDGE
                                   Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

                                       APPENDIX

Technical Record:
      1. Petition for Benefit Determination
      2. Dispute Resolution Statement
      3. Dispute Certification Notice
      4. Request for Expedited Hearing
      5. Notice of Expedited Hearing
      6. Nissan’s Pre-Hearing Brief
      7. Nissan’s Witness List
      8. Nissan’s Exhibit List

Exhibits:
      1.    Mr. Sims’s Rule 72 Statement
      2.    Wage Statement
      3.    Nissan’s Submission of Evidence (Collective Exhibit)
      4.    MRI Report
      5.    Choice of Physician Form
      6.    Emergency Room Report

                                            6
                         CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I certify that a copy of the Order was sent as indicated on September 23, 2021.

Name              Certified    Via        Email Address
                  Mail         Email
William Sims      X            X          991 Rowe Gap Road,
                                          Winchester, TN 37398
                                          asims@madison.k12.al.us
Stephen Morton                 X          stephen@mgclaw.com
                                          amber.dennis@mgclaw.com
Compliance                     X          WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov
Program
                                               - -~rr~
                                       _____________________________________
                                       PENNY SHRUM, Court Clerk
                                       WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov

                                         7
                           Expedited Hearing Order Right to Appeal:

     If you disagree with this Expedited Hearing Order, you may appeal to the Workers’
Compensation Appeals Board. To appeal an expedited hearing order, you must:

   1. Complete the enclosed form entitled: “Notice of Appeal,” and file the form with the
      Clerk of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims within seven business days of the
      date the expedited hearing order was filed. When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must
      serve a copy upon all parties.

   2. You must pay, via check, money order, or credit card, a $75.00 filing fee within ten
      calendar days after filing of the Notice of Appeal. Payments can be made in-person at
      any Bureau office or by U.S. mail, hand-delivery, or other delivery service. In the
      alternative, you may file an Affidavit of Indigency (form available on the Bureau’s
      website or any Bureau office) seeking a waiver of the fee. You must file the fully-
      completed Affidavit of Indigency within ten calendar days of filing the Notice of
      Appeal. Failure to timely pay the filing fee or file the Affidavit of Indigency will
      result in dismissal of the appeal.

   3. You bear the responsibility of ensuring a complete record on appeal. You may request
      from the court clerk the audio recording of the hearing for a $25.00 fee. If a transcript of
      the proceedings is to be filed, a licensed court reporter must prepare the transcript and file
      it with the court clerk within ten business days of the filing the Notice of
      Appeal. Alternatively, you may file a statement of the evidence prepared jointly by both
      parties within ten business days of the filing of the Notice of Appeal. The statement of
      the evidence must convey a complete and accurate account of the hearing. The Workers’
      Compensation Judge must approve the statement before the record is submitted to the
      Appeals Board. If the Appeals Board is called upon to review testimony or other proof
      concerning factual matters, the absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence can be
      a significant obstacle to meaningful appellate review.

   4. If you wish to file a position statement, you must file it with the court clerk within ten
      business days after the deadline to file a transcript or statement of the evidence. The
      party opposing the appeal may file a response with the court clerk within ten business
      days after you file your position statement. All position statements should include: (1) a
      statement summarizing the facts of the case from the evidence admitted during the
      expedited hearing; (2) a statement summarizing the disposition of the case as a result of
      the expedited hearing; (3) a statement of the issue(s) presented for review; and (4) an
      argument, citing appropriate statutes, case law, or other authority.

For self-represented litigants: Help from an Ombudsman is available at 800-332-2667.
                                              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