Court Opinion

ID: 6220622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-10 19:51:42.513623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:34.285708
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                Feb 10, 2022
                                                                                01:33 PM(CT)
                                                                             TENNESSEE COURT OF
                                                                            WORKERS' COMPENSATION
                                                                                   CLAIMS

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

 DOMINIC MANCINO, III,                       )   Docket No.: 2021-04-0181
          Employee,                          )
 v.                                          )   State File No.: 42986-2021
 CITY OF WESTMORELAND,                       )
          Employer,                          )   Judge Robert Durham
 And                                         )
 PUBLIC ENTITY PARTNERS,                     )
          Insurer.                           )

              EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS

       This Court held an Expedited Hearing on February 1, 2022. Mr. Mancino seeks an
order requiring Westmoreland to provide benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder that he
allegedly incurred while dealing with a distraught mother of an overdose victim. The Court
holds that Mr. Mancino did not provide sufficient evidence to show that he is likely to
prove at trial that he suffers from compensable PTSD and denies his requests.

                                    History of Claim

                                      Lay Testimony

      Westmoreland hired Mr. Mancino to work as a policeman in 2018 and a year later
was promoted to sergeant. Mr. Mancino’s job involved the usual confrontations that occur
with police work.

       In addition to his job, Mr. Mancino had other significant stressors in his life. He
was involved in a lawsuit against a previous employer and had sole responsibility for
raising his two young children after a contentious divorce. He suffered from chronic
hypertension, and given his work on the night shift and his parental responsibilities, he
only slept a few hours each day.

      On January 23, 2021, Mr. Mancino and another officer responded to a call about a
drug overdose. Mr. Mancino had many past encounters with the victim and his mother and

                                            1
built a relationship with them. Upon arrival, the officers found the victim on the floor. The
victim had also defecated on himself. The other officer attempted CPR, while Mr. Mancino
collected evidence. He also had to deal with the mother, who was frantic, screaming,
weeping and repeatedly asking if her son were dead. He testified that this was the first
time he ever had to assist a distraught mother at the scene of a drug overdose.

       Mr. Mancino stated that, while he had been through many stressful and traumatic
events as an officer, this incident affected him in a way he had never experienced before.
He kept reliving the scene over and over. In the weeks that followed, he had daily
nightmares, and he drank heavily to stave them off. However, he did not tell anyone at the
police station of his difficulties.

       Mr. Mancino suffered a heart attack on February 16 and filed a workers’
compensation claim afterward. 1 He was interviewed on March 30 by the carrier. Mr.
Mancino admitted to the typical stress faced by police officers but stated that he had no
unusual stressors recently. He could think of nothing that might have precipitated his heart
attack and did not mention the January incident.

       On April 6, Mr. Mancino was on vacation when the Tennessee Bureau of
Investigation served him with a search warrant. The agents informed Mr. Mancino that
they were investigating charges that he solicited sex from a minor and impounded all of
his electronics. Mr. Mancino’s children were visiting their mother at the time, and she
refused to let them return once she learned of the allegations. 2

       A few days later, Mr. Mancino attended training about PTSD and police suicide.
Mr. Mancino testified that, afterward, he believed that he “checked all the boxes” for
PTSD. He immediately told another sergeant that he believed he needed help. He thought
the sergeant communicated this to Westmoreland Police Chief Steven Jolley.

       Chief Jolley and Captain Ray Amalfitano, Mr. Mancino’s immediate supervisor,
then met with Mr. Mancino. They discussed the investigation and potential ramifications.
Mr. Mancino told Chief Jolley that his “heart is no longer in law enforcement” and cited
several stressful incidents, including the drug overdose. He told the Chief that he might be
suffering from PTSD. He also said that he was contemplating changing careers.

        Chief Jolley responded that he would see if Westmoreland would pay Mr. Mancino
through the end of the month while he looked for another job. In the meantime, he was on
administrative leave pending the investigation. Mr. Mancino told Chief Jolley that he had
called a suicide hotline recently, and he wanted to speak with a counselor but was unable
to get an appointment. Captain Amalfitano spoke with a friend at Hope Family Health and

1
    That claim is separate from this one.
2
    The children are now back in Mr. Mancuso’s custody.
                                                    2
was able to get Mr. Mancino an appointment.

        At the hearing, Chief Jolley testified that he has been in law enforcement for more
than twenty-five years. He stated that a police officer must frequently deal with death, by
violence or accident, including by drug overdose. Moreover, distraught loved ones are
often present at an accident or crime scene, and police officers are routinely obligated to
assist them. He also emphasized that Mr. Mancino was placed on administrative leave
because of the criminal investigation and not his alleged PTSD. Chief Jolley admitted that
he did not notify Westmoreland’s carrier about Mr. Mancino’s claimed PTSD, but he stated
that it was not his job to do so.

                                      Medical Proof

        Mr. Mancino saw Tess Cothran, a licensed professional counselor, on April 12. Ms.
Cothran noted that Mr. Mancino claimed depressive and trauma symptoms, such as
nightmares, repeated memories/thoughts, avoidance, loss of joy, emotional distance, and
hypervigilance. Mr. Mancino told her that he had been abusing alcohol for the past six
months to avoid nightmares that he attributed to trauma from working in law enforcement,
and he had been suffering from symptoms “for a while now.” However, her report did not
mention the drug overdose or describe any other specific traumatic incidents. At his next
visit, Mr. Mancino stated that he had been having nightmares “for a long time,” but they
had become more frequent over the “past six or eight months.”

        Ms. Cothran continued to see Mr. Mancino regularly through 2021. While she noted
other non-work-related stressors, she did not mention the overdose. In July, she wrote that
more than fifty percent of “Mr. Mancino’s posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms are
indeed a result of employment experiences.” She did not specify the “experiences.” Mr.
Mancino conceded that Ms. Cothran’s earlier notes did not mention the overdose.
However, he said that she certainly knew about it, and the notes are merely brief summaries
of their lengthy sessions. He also said that it took some time in therapy to realize that the
overdose was the inciting event for his PTSD.

        In response to Ms. Cothran’s records, Westmoreland submitted an employer’s
examination report dated January 21, 2022, from psychiatrist Scott Ruder, M.D. His report
states that Mr. Mancino described the January incident but did not say it was significantly
different or more disturbing than previous calls for overdoses. Mr. Mancino said that he
drank as much as a “1.75 liter of tequila” a day, January through May, to sleep without
nightmares. He explained a common nightmare was hearing the victim’s mother
screaming, although the nightmares were not as intense as before. He also described apathy
and a persistent low mood and energy but denied panic attacks or flashbacks.

            Dr. Ruder concluded that Mr. Mancino did not have a “mental injury under
the workers’ compensation law.” He further found that a PTSD diagnosis was

                                             3
unwarranted. He noted inconsistencies, such as Mr. Mancino’s alcohol use, and also found
it significant that the PTSD claim occurred only days after being served with a search
warrant. As to the depressive symptoms,

       Dr. Ruder observed that Mr. Mancino described persistent depressive symptoms,
but these symptoms also did not meet the definition of mental injury under workers’
compensation law. While he believed that Mr. Mancino did identified a work-related event
in January 2021 that resulted in a “sudden and unusual stimulus,” he did not believe, to a
reasonable degree of medical certainty, that it resulted in a mental injury, or that Mr.
Mancino’s employment caused by was “50% or more” the cause for athe need to treat a
mental injury.

      In response to Dr. Ruder’s report, Mr. Mancino obtained an evaluation from
psychologist David Pickering, Ph.D. on January 27. Dr. Pickering noted that Mr. Mancino
responded to the drug overdose call on “January 23, 2020” and it was after the “one-year
anniversary” of his heart attack. Mr. Mancino described his nightmares as the mother
“screaming over the loss of her only surviving child.” Dr. Pickering agreed with Ms.
Cothran that the PTSD diagnosis was appropriate, and the event that triggered it was the
drug overdose and Mr. Mancino’s encounter with the victim’s mother.

                       Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

                                      Compensability

        Mr. Mancino must present evidence from which this Court can determine that he is
likely to prove at trial that the benefits he seeks are for a compensable mental injury under
Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law. See McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing,
2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *9 (Mar. 27, 2015). Tennessee Code
Annotated section 50-6-102(17) (2021) defines “mental injury” as “a loss of mental
faculties or a mental or behavioral disorder, arising primarily out of . . . an identifiable
work-related event resulting in a sudden or unusual stimulus.” A “sudden mental stimulus”
must be “unusual from the ordinary stress of the worker’s job.” Edwards v. Fred’s
Pharmacy, 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 9, at *7 (Feb. 14, 2018). The Court
holds that Mr. Mancino did not meet this burden.

      Mr. Mancino must show that his employment caused his alleged injury “to a
reasonable degree of medical certainty,” which means “it is more likely than not
considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or uncertainty.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-
6-102(14). Further, causation must be shown through an expert medical opinion. Id.

       Mr. Mancino’s only opinions on diagnosis and causation are from Ms. Cothran, a
licensed counselor, and Dr. Pickering, a psychologist. “The law in Tennessee is clear,
“causation and permanency of a mental injury must be proven by a medical doctor, not a

                                             4
psychologist[.].” Geddings v. Imperial Guard & Detectives Servs., No. W1999-00199-
WC-R3-CV, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 368, at *9 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel June 27, 2000).
Without even weighing the evidence, the Court must hold that Mr. Mancino has not
provided an expert opinion sufficient to prove a causal relationship between his alleged
PTSD and his employment. 3 Thus, his requests for temporary disability benefits and
reimbursement for medical expenses are denied.

                                                 Panel

       The issue remains whether Westmoreland must provide Mr. Mancino a panel of
doctors, even though he has yet to prove causation. See Hawes v. McLane Co., Inc., 2021
TN Wrk Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 30, at *10 (Aug. 25, 2021). Tennessee Code Annotated
section 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(i) requires an employer to offer an injured employee a panel of
three doctors from which the employee may choose a treating physician. Westmoreland
did not introduce any evidence that it did so after Mr. Mancino notified Chief Jolley of his
alleged PTSD. Thus, the Court holds that Mr. Mancino is likely to prove that he was not
given an opportunity to choose an authorized physician.

        However, this does not necessarily mean that Westmoreland 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 initial question 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 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 show she was likely to prevail at trial and was not entitled to a panel of doctors. Id.

      The analysis in this case is the same. Dr. Ruder gave the only medical causation
opinion. He clearly stated, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Mr. Mancino
does not suffer from PTSD. Further, while he might have depressive symptoms, Dr. Ruder
did not believe that this condition qualifies as a “mental injury” under workers’
compensation law, nor was his employment more than fifty percent responsible.

       Moreover, like Dr. Ruder, the Court finds the timing of Mr. Mancino’s claim
significant. The alleged incident occurred in late January, but he did not give notice until
April, and even then, he only mentioned the incident among several others. More
important, he gave notice immediately after learning of the criminal investigation, which
the Court does not find coincidental.

3
 Neither Ms. Cothran nor Dr. Pickering said that Mr. Mancino’s mental condition disabled him from work,
and Chief Jolley explicitly stated that Mr. Mancino was on administrative leave pending the outcome of the
criminal investigation and not his asserted mental injury. Thus, even if Mr. Mancino had proved causation,
he still would not be entitled to temporary disability benefits at this time.
                                                    5
       Mr. Mancino also had several other significant stressors in his life. In addition to
the criminal investigation, he also had to cope with his recent heart attack, lawsuit,
relationship with his ex-wife, temporarily losing custody of his young children and sleep
deprivation. It is unclear how much Ms. Cothran and Dr. Pickering were told of these
additional stressors before forming their opinions. Further, Ms. Cothran noted that Mr.
Mancino was suffering from nightmares “for a long time,” and both the nightmares and his
drinking began to intensify several months before the January incident.

       Finally, the Court disagrees with Dr. Ruder that the overdose event was “sudden
and unusual,” given Mr. Mancino’s job as a police officer. As Chief Jolley testified,
dealing with death, including drug overdoses, is an unfortunate aspect of every police
officer’s job. He further stated that interacting with distraught loved ones at an accident or
crime scene, while certainly unpleasant and stressful, is common for law enforcement.

       Mr. Mancino testified that this was the first time he ever had to attend to a grieving
mother. Yet, the standard is not whether the event was unusual for the employee, but if it
was unusual for the type of work the employee did. Edwards, at *7. The Court holds that
the evidence did not prove that the overdose incident met this standard.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED THAT:

       1. Mr. Mancino’s request for benefits 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
          Westmoreland’s apparent failure to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated
          section 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(i).

       3. This case is set for a Scheduling Hearing on March 28, 2022, at 10:00 a.m.
          Central Time. The parties must call 615-253-0010. Failure to appear might
          result in a determination of the issues without the party’s participation.

       ENTERED on February 10, 2022.

                                    _____________________________________
                                    ROBERT DURHAM, JUDGE
                                    Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

                                              6
                                     APPENDIX

Technical Record:
      1. Petition for Benefit Determination
      2. Dispute Certification Notice
      3. Notice Expanding Deadlines
      4. Westmoreland’s Pre-Hearing Brief
      5. Mr. Mancino’s Pre-Hearing Brief
      6. Westmoreland’s Exhibit List
      7. Westmoreland’s Late-Filed Exhibit List

Exhibits:
      1. Mr. Mancino’s Rule 72 Statement
      2. Mr. Mancino’s recorded statement
      3. Indictments
      4. Facebook photographs
      5. Complaint in action against Tennessee State University
      6. Email chain between Mr. Mancino and Chief Jolley
      7. First Report of Injury
      8. Mr. Mancino’s employment application
      9. Notice of Denial
      10. Medical records from Fast Pace
      11. Medical records from Hope Family Care Center
      12. Medical records from Hendersonville Medical Center
      13. Additional records from Hope Family Care Center
      14. Causation opinion from Ms. Cothran
      15. Medical records from Macon County Hospital
      16. Dr. Ruder’s evaluation
      17. Dr. Pickering’s evaluation
      18. Additional Facebook posts
      19. Exhibits attached to Westmoreland’s Notice of Late-Filed Exhibits
      20. News releases

                                           7
                         CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I certify that a copy of the Order was sent as indicated on February 10, 2022.

Name                    Certified     Via       Via     Service sent to:
                         Mail         Fax      Email
Dominic Mancino, III       X                     X      206 Meador Drive,
                                                        Lafayette, TN 37383
                                                        dangeloiii@hotmail.com
Jennifer Buchanan                                X      Jennifer.buchanan@farrar-
                                                        bates.com
Compliance Program                               X      WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov

                                       _____________________________________
                                       PENNY SHRUM, Court Clerk
                                       WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov

                                          8
                           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