Court Opinion

ID: 9390572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 19:46:20.824372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:33.903687
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                 Apr 27, 2023
                                                                                 02:26 PM(CT)
                                                                              TENNESSEE COURT OF
                                                                             WORKERS' COMPENSATION
                                                                                    CLAIMS

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

 MARCOS SOSA MARTINEZ,                      )    Docket No. 2021-06-0071
          Employee,                         )
 v.                                         )    State File No. 80044-2021
 HALLORAN INVESTMENT                        )
 PROPERTIES, LLC,                           )    Judge Joshua Davis Baker
          Employer.                         )

 ___________________________________________________________________

      COMPENSATION ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
 ____________________________________________________________________

       On April 18, 2023, the Court heard Halloran’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Halloran argued affirmative evidence that negated essential elements of Mr. Sosa
Martinez’s claim and showed there was no genuine issue for trial. Mr. Sosa Martinez did
not produce specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. So, the Court grants summary
judgment to Halloran and dismisses this claim with prejudice.

                                      Claim History

        Mr. Sosa Martinez alleged in his petition that he was Halloran’s employee. He wrote
that lifting heavy rocks at a Halloran jobsite in August 2020 caused him back pain that
developed into paralysis, requiring emergency medical treatment three months later.

      According to the Rule 72 declaration of Michael Halloran, who owns Halloran
Investment Properties, LLC, Mr. Sosa Martinez worked as its independent contractor on
masonry projects.

       Mr. Martinez underwent emergency surgery. His diagnosis and medical records
suggested to Dr. Heather Cappello that his condition resulted from a bacterial infection,
not masonry work. She signed an affidavit that explained the bacterial infection’s effect on
his spine as follows:

                                             1
        Untreated bacterial infections for prolonged periods spread throughout the
       body, as this infection did in Mr. Martinez. Pain is typically located in the
       infected disc space where Mr. Martinez had evidence of multiple abscesses
       from advanced imaging. The pain from the infected spine progressively
       worsens to weakness in the lower extremities resulting in eventual paralysis
       when left untreated due to the nature of the spread throughout the
       bloodstream.

       According to Dr. Cappello’s affidavit, “Mr. Martinez did not develop a spinal
infection from heavy lifting or a work-related injury. The disease process developed from
an untreated bacterial infection that progressively worsened due to the nature of the disease
process.” Dr. Cappello concluded that his “conditions were not more than 50% caused by
an alleged work accident, or work related duties, considering all other causes.”

       The Court denied expedited relief, finding Mr. Sosa Martinez was unlikely to
prevail at a final hearing on compensability. It also entered a partial scheduling order,
directing the parties to complete lay witness depositions by a certain deadline.

       Halloran filed this motion for summary judgment with a Statement of Undisputed
Material Facts, which cited to Dr. Cappello’s affidavit and to Mr. Halloran’s declaration.
Concerning his status as an independent contractor rather than an employee, the statement
of material facts said that Mr. Sosa Martinez worked as a mason that Halloran hired on a
project-by-project basis. Further, he supplied his own tools except for any large equipment.
He also hired helpers to assist him and could work for others if he wished.

     Halloran sent Mr. Sosa Martinez, who is self-represented, a copy of Rule 56.
However, Mr. Sosa Martinez did not oppose the motion with a written response.

       At the hearing, Mr. Sosa Martinez said he did not respond to the motion because he
did not have an opinion from another doctor and experienced significant personal stress
concerning family outside the United States.

                                     Law and Analysis

       To oppose summary judgment, a party must file a response “not later than five days
before the hearing[.]” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.03 (2022). Halloran properly sent a copy of Rule
56 to Mr. Sosa Martinez. Yet Mr. Sosa Martinez did not file a response. Therefore,
Halloran’s motion for summary judgment is unopposed. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-
02-21-.18(1)(d) (February, 2022).

       Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there

                                              2
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.

       Halloran must do one of two things to prevail: (1) submit affirmative evidence that
negates an essential element of Mr. Sosa Martinez’s claim, or (2) demonstrate that his
evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of his claim. Tenn. Code Ann. §
20-16-101 (2022); see also Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d
235, 264 (Tenn. 2015).

      Here, Halloran submitted affirmative evidence negating essential elements of Mr.
Sosa Martinez’s claim, including medical causation and his employment relationship.

        Specifically, Dr. Cappello’s affidavit affirms that Mr. Sosa Martinez cannot prove
medical causation, which requires an expert’s testimony to a “reasonable degree of medical
certainty” that the employment “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the .
. . need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(C).
According to her affidavit, he needed medical treatment for an infection unrelated to work.

        Further, Mr. Halloran’s declaration shows that Mr. Sosa Martinez did not have the
requisite employment relationship for a compensable claim. To recover workers’
compensation benefits, a claimant must be an employee and not an independent contractor.
Peters v. Mitchell d/b/a A Clean Connection, LLC, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS
7, at *7 (Feb. 8, 2016).

        Halloran met its burden with affirmative evidence, so Mr. Sosa Martinez “may not
rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleading.” Rye, at 265. Rather, he must
produce affidavits, pleadings, depositions, responses to interrogatories, or admissions that
set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.06.
If not, “summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered” against him. Id.

        Here, Mr. Sosa Martinez did not oppose Halloran’s motion with specific facts to
show a genuine issue exists for trial. Rather, his allegations are his claim’s only
underpinning, and allegations alone cannot survive summary judgment. Two material
facts, that Mr. Sosa Martinez was an independent contractor and that he did not suffer a
work-related injury, are undisputed and leave no genuine issue for trial. Thus, Halloran is
entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

   1. Mr. Sosa Martinez’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits is dismissed with
      prejudice to its refiling.

   2. Unless appealed, this order shall become final thirty days after issuance.

                                               3
  3. The filing fee of $150.00 is taxed to Halloran Investment Properties, LLC under
     Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.07, to be paid to the
     Court Clerk and for which execution might issue as necessary.

  4. Halloran Investment Properties, LLC shall prepare and file the SD-2 with the Court
     Clerk within ten days of this order becoming final.

ENTERED April 27, 2023.

                                ___________________________________
                                Joshua Davis Baker, Judge
                                Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

                                          4
                              CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on April 27, 2023.

Name                      Certified   Via      Via Service sent to:
                           Mail       Fax     Email
Marcos Sosa Martinez,                          X    Mmartinez5708894@gmail.com
Employee
John Lewis,                                    X      john@johnlewisattorney.com
Employer’s Attorney

                                ____________________________________________
                                Penny Shrum, Court Clerk
                                Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
                                Wc.courtclerk@tn.gov

                                          5
                                              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