                                                                                  FILED
                                                                               May 24, 2019
                                                                               08:50 AM(CT)
                                                                             TENNESSEE COURT OF
                                                                            WORKERS' COMPENSATION
                                                                                   CLAIMS




           TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION
          IN THE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS
                           AT KNOXVILLE

TONYA LYNN STEPHENS,                        ) Docket No.: 2018-03-1494
        Employee,                           )
v.                                          )
QUALITY PRIVATE CARE d/b/a                  ) State File No. 59534-2016
VOLUNTEER STAFFING, INC.,                   )
         Employer,                          )
And                                         )
BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY                        ) Judge Lisa A. Lowe
INSURANCE COMPANY,                         )
         Carrier.                          )


             EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER GRANTING BENEFITS
                      DECISION-ON-THE-RECORD


        This matter came before the Court on Ms. Stephens's Request for Expedited
Hearing (REH). She asked that the Court issue its decision based on a review of the
record without convening an in-person hearing. Quality Private Care (QPC) objected to a
record review and requested an in-person hearing. Based on the limited medical issues
involved, the Court overruled the objection, issued a Docketing Notice, and gave the
parties until May 7 to file objections and/or position statements.

        When Ms. Stephens filed her REH, she sought various treatments ordered by her
authorized treating physician, Dr. David Newman, including: medial branch blocks;
spinal cord stimulator; right shoulder injection; G.I. evaluation; and compounded creams.
After she filed the REH, QPC agreed to authorize all of the treatments except the
compound creams. Therefore, the legal issue is whether Ms. Stephens is likely to prevail
at a hearing on the merits in proving entitlement to the compounded creams. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court holds Ms. Stephens would likely prevail and orders
QPC to provide the compound creams.




                                            1
                                    History of Claim

        QPC provided in-home nursing for homebound patients and employed Ms.
Stephens as a Licensed Practical Nurse. While transferring a patient to a bed in August
2016, Ms. Stephens felt a pop in her left shoulder and experienced pain shooting down
her left arm into her wrist and fingers. She also felt pain in her neck, back, left hip, and
pain and numbness down her left lower extremity. Ms. Stephens notified her supervisor
and wrote a statement that day. She also completed QPC's Statement of Injured
Worker's Form.

       Ms. Stephens initially underwent conservative treatment, but after continued pain
and an MRI, QPC provided a panel of orthopedic surgeons. Ms. Stephens chose Dr.
William Hovis, who diagnosed her with a rotator cuff tear and SLAP lesion.           He
recommended surgery, which he performed in November. Due to Ms. Stephens's post-
surgery pain complaints, Dr. Hovis ordered a left shoulder arthrogram and performed
another surgery after reviewing the arthrogram results.

        After the second surgery, Ms. Stephens experienced sensitivity symptoms, and Dr.
Hovis diagnosed possible complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). He recommended a
stellate ganglion block, and Ms. Stephens underwent two of those without much
improvement. After Dr. Hovis recommended a third block, Ms. Stephens refused and
elected to concentrate on physical therapy. She last saw Dr. Hovis in November 2017,
and he referred her for evaluation with a shoulder specialist, Dr. Sean Grace.

       Dr. Grace, sent Ms. Stephens for another shoulder MRI. After the MRI, Dr. Grace
diagnosed Ms. Stephens with CRPS and recommended evaluation with Dr. Robert
Lavelle for possible sympathetic nerve blocks.

       Instead of scheduling an appointment with Dr. Lavelle, QPC circulated another
panel of physicians. Ms. Stephens chose Dr. David Newman, a pain management
specialist, as her authorized physician. Dr. Newman evaluated Ms. Stephens and
confirmed her diagnoses of CRPS, lumbar facet syndrome, and dysthymic disorder. As
part of his treatment plan, he prescribed various things, including the following
compounded creams: Gabapentin, 3%; Ketoprofen, 2%; Lidocaine, 2.5%; Bupivicaine,
2.5%; and Ketamine, 15%.

       On April 18, 2018, QPC submitted Dr. Newman's orders to Utilization Review
(UR) with Dr. Mahajan, who denied the recommended treatment based on his opinion
that Ms. Stephens did not have CRPS. Concerning the compounded creams, Dr. Mahajan
noted that topical analgesics are largely experimental and have few trials to determine
efficacy and safety. Further, he stated that the compounded creams are primarily
recommended when trials of antidepressants and anticonvulsants have failed and there
was no indication that the Gabapentin and Cymbalta Ms. Stephens took had failed. On

                                            2
September 18, 2018, QPC submitted the compounded creams to UR for a second time.
Again, Dr. Mahajan found the compounded creams not medically necessary.

      Dr. Neman somewhat disagreed with the effectiveness of the Cymbalta. In
response to a letter, he wrote that Ms. Stephens's Cymbalta helped with anxiety and sleep
but not her pain and that the compounded cream plus her Cymbalta is an effective
medication combination for CRPS.

       Later, Dr. Newman again recommended a spinal cord stimulator trial, right-
shoulder steroid-injection, compounded creams and GI evaluation. QPC submitted the
spinal cord stimulator treatment to UR on January 2, 2019, and this time Dr. Mahajan
said Ms. Stephens had symptoms consistent with CRPS and that the previously denied
spinal cord stimulator trial was now medically necessary and appropriate. Dr. Mahajan's
report did not address the medical necessity of Dr. Newman's other recommended
treatment.

                       Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

        Ms. Stephens need not prove every element of her claim by a preponderance of the
evidence to obtain relief. McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk.
Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015). Instead, she must present
sufficient evidence to prove she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. ld.; Tenn.
Code Ann.§ 50-6-239(d)(l) (2018).

       Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(l)(A) provides that "[t]he
employer or the employer's agent shall furnish, free of charge to the employee, such
medical and surgical treatment ... made reasonably necessary by accident as defined in
this chapter." Moreover, "treatment recommended by a physician ... selected pursuant
to [§ 50-6-204(a)(3)] or by referral, if applicable, shall be presumed to be medically
necessary for treatment of the injured employee Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-204(a)(3)(H) ...
and shall be rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence that the recommended
treatment substantially deviates from the guidelines[.]" Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-
204(a)(3)(I); see also Morgan v. Macy's, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 39, at
* 17 (Aug. 31, 2016).

      Here, the panel-selected physician, Dr. Newman, recommended compounded
creams to treat Ms. Stephens's symptoms. The UR physician, Dr. Mahajan, originally
denied all of Dr. Newman's treatment recommendations, including the compounded
creams, because he did not think Ms. Stephens had CRPS, despite the CRPS diagnosis
from Drs. Newman, Hovis, and Grace. Upon resubmission, Dr. Mahajan changed his
mind and found Ms. Stephens did have CRPS. While he agreed that certain treatments
were medically necessary, he did not address the compounded creams.


                                             3
        The Court faces conflicting medical opinions from Dr. Mahajan and Dr. Newman.
A trial judge "has the discretion to conclude that the opinion of one expert should be
accepted over that of another expert." Bass v. The Home Depot USA., Inc., 2017 TN
Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 36, at *9 (May 26, 20 17). As stated by the Tennessee
Supreme Court, "When faced ... with conflicting medical testimony ... it is within the
discretion of the trial judge to conclude that the opinion of certain experts should be
accepted over that of other experts and that it contains the more probable explanation."
Thomas v. Aetna Life and Cas. Co., 812 S.W.2d 278, 283 (Tenn. 1991) (internal
quotation marks omitted).

       Dr. Mahajan reviewed Ms. Stephens's medical records and consulted treatment
guidelines but never personally evaluated her. In contrast, Dr. Newman has been treating
Ms. Stephens since April 13, 2018. Moreover, as the panel-selected authorized treating
physician, Dr. Newman's treatment recommendations enjoy a presumption of being
medically necessary. The Court concludes Dr. Newman is in the better position to make
treatment recommendations for Ms. Stephens and that Dr. Mahajan's April 18, 2018 UR
report fails to rebut those recommendations by clear and convincing evidence. In fact,
QPC did not ask Dr. Mahajan's opinion about the compounded creams after he concluded
that Ms. Stephens does in fact have CRPS.

      A UR denial decision remains effective for six months, which means Dr.
Mahajan's second September 18, 2018 denial was in effect until March 18, 2019, under
Rule 0800-02-06.06 (7)(a) of the Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations. On
April 1, 2019, it appears that Dr. Newman again prescribed the compounded creams.
QPC did not provide a UR decision following that order. Therefore, Dr. Newman's
compounded cream treatment-recommendation is presumed medically necessary.

       Based on this, this Court concludes Ms. Stephens presented sufficient evidence
that she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in proving entitlement to the
recommended compounded creams.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

   1. Quality Private Care· shall provide Ms. Stephens with the compounded creams
      recommended by Dr. David Newman.

   2. This matter is set for a Scheduling Hearing on July 8, 2019, at 10:30 a.m.
      Eastern Time. The parties must call (865) 594-0109 or (toll-free) (855) 383-0003
      to participate in the Scheduling Hearing. Failure to appear by telephone may
      result in a determination of the issues without your further participation.

   3. Unless interlocutory appeal of the Expedited Hearing Order is filed, compliance
      with this Order must occur no later than seven business days from the date of entry

                                           4
     of this Order as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(3).
     The Insurer or Self-Insured Employer must submit confirmation of compliance
     with this Order to the Bureau by email to WCC mpliance.Pr gram@tn. gov no
     later than the seventh business day after entry of this Order. Failure to submit the
     necessary confirmation within the period of compliance may result in a penalty
     assessment for non-compliance.

     ENTERED on May 24, 2019.


                                LISA A. LOWE, JUDGE
                                Court of Workers' Compensation Claims


                                    APPENDIX

     The Court reviewed the following documents:

1.   Petition for Benefit Determination
2.   First Report of Work Injury
3.   Dispute Certification Notice
4.   Request for Expedited Hearing
5.   Tonya Lynn Stephens's Exhibit List
6.   Affidavit ofTonya L. Stephens with handwritten statement and Summit's
     Statement oflnjuries Form
7. Medical Records of Dr. William Hovis
8. Medical Records of Dr. Sean Grace
9. Medical Records of Dr. David Newman
10. Utilization Review Determination of Dr. Nakai Mahajan, dated April 18, 2018
11. Questionnaire to Dr. David Neman, dated November 7, 2018
12. Opinion of Dr. David Newman, dated December 5, 2018
13 . Correspondence of Attorney Kohl busch
14. January 3, 2019 Utilization Review Determination of Dr. Nakai Mahajan
15. Affidavit of Attorney Jay Kohlbusch
16. QPC's Objection to Request for Decision on the Record
17. Order Overruling Objection to On-The-Record Determination
18. QPC's Amended Objection to On-The-Record Determination
19. Response to QPC's Amended Objection, including Ms. Stephens's Request for
     Attorney's Fee
20. Order Overruling Amended Objection to On-The-Record Determination
21. QPC ' s Response to Expedited Hearing Brief
22. Table of Contents for and various medical records provided by QPC
23. Amended Docketing Notice for On-The-Record Determination

                                          5
   24. Employee's Response to Employer's Expedited Hearing


                            CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

        I certify that a true and correct copy of the Expedited Hearing Order was sent to
the following recipients by the following methods of service on May 24, 2019.

         Name             Certified   Fax       Email   Service sent to:
                           Mail
Jay Kohl busch,                                  X      Kohlbuschlaw@hotmail.com
Employee's Attorney

Nicholas J. Peterson,                            X      nick.peterson@petersonwhite.com
Amy Brown,                                              amy. brown@petersonwhite.com
Employer's Attorneys




                                            J!          ~~ -
                                        ~RUM, Court Clerk
                                        WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov




                                            6
