                                                                                 FILED
                                                                              Aug 27, 2019
                                                                              10:30 AM(CT)
                                                                            TENNESSEE COURT OF
                                                                           WORKERS' COMPENSATION
                                                                                  CLAIMS




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

DEBORAH BRATCHER,                           ) Docket No. 2019-05-0373
        Employee,                           )
v.                                          )
                                            )
YATES SERVICES, LLC,                        ) State File No. 21633-2018
         Employer,                          )
And                                         )
                                            )
TRAVELERS INDEM. CO.,                       ) Judge Dale Tipps
        Carrier.                            )


     EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING REQUESTED BENEFITS


       This case came before the Court on August 22, 2019, for an Expedited Hearing on
whether Ms. Bratcher is entitled to additional medical or temporary disability benefits.
To receive these benefits, Ms. Bratcher must be likely to establish at a hearing on the
merits that her time off work and her need for additional medical treatment arose
primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. For the reasons below,
the Court holds Ms. Bratcher failed to meet this burden and is not entitled to the
requested benefits at this time.

                                   History of Claim

      Ms. Bratcher suffered a work injury on March 19, 2018. Yates accepted the injury
and provided treatment for her neck and shoulder pain. Her first authorized provider,
Premise Health, ordered shoulder and neck MRIs. It then treated Ms. Bratcher with anti-
inflammatory medication and physical therapy before referring her to an orthopedist.

       Yates provided an orthopedic panel, and Ms. Bratcher selected Dr. Timothy
Steinagle. He first saw her on June 6 for complaints of right-shoulder pain. He noted the
cervical MRI was normal, but the shoulder MRI showed mild tendinosis of the rotator
cuff with no evidence of a tear. Dr. Steinagle saw no evidence of nerve root
impingement and diagnosed rotator cuff strain. He administered an injection, referred

                                           1
Ms. Bratcher to physical therapy, and assigned light-duty restrictions.

       Ms. Bratcher returned to Dr. Steinagle on July 19 and reported no improvement.
He noted full range of motion and good strength and concluded, “Mild rotator cuff
tendinosis seen on MRI with no evidence of underlying tear or surgical pathology. Has
completed an adequate amount of treatment for work related RC tendonitis. Continued
subjection complaint of shoulder pain and dysfunction not substantiated by objective
physical findings.” He also noted preexisting arthritis of the AC joint.1 Dr. Steinagle
concluded that he had nothing further to offer Ms. Bratcher and released her. He added,
“She may follow up with her personal physician for evaluation and treatment of
preexisting AC arthritis.”

       Ms. Bratcher sought treatment on her own from other providers and introduced
several partial medical records at the hearing.2 One of these is a February 5, 2019 return-
to-work form signed by Dr. Jonathan Head, which noted, “Patient’s shoulder and chest
pain is probably work related.” In Ms. Bratcher’s FMLA forms, Dr. Head also checked
“yes” to the question, “Is the disability work related?” She further introduced a March 11
MRI report from Nashville General Hospital that states, “Question tiny avulsion of the
supraspinatus tendon footprint and small labral tear.”

       Ms. Bratcher testified that she returned to work after Dr. Steinagle released her but
eventually requested FMLA leave because of her continuing neck and shoulder problems.
Yates terminated her employment after the leave expired. She requested that the Court
order Yates to provide additional medical treatment and temporary disability benefits.

       Yates contended that it accepted Ms. Bratcher’s claim and provided all benefits to
which she is entitled. It argued she failed to prove she is likely to establish that her need
for any additional treatment arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her
employment. For these reasons, it asked the Court to deny her request.

                               Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

        Ms. Bratcher must provide sufficient evidence from which this Court might
determine she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-
239(d)(1) (2018); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App.
Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015). To prove a compensable injury, Ms. Bratcher
must show that her alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of
her employment. To do so, she must show, “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty
that it contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need
1
  Dr. Steinagle also assessed noncompliance because he understood that Ms. Bratcher failed to attend her
therapy sessions. Ms. Bratcher denied this. She testified convincingly that she requested the rescheduling
of the fourth week of therapy and eventually completed it.
2
  The Court summarizes only the relevant medical records.
                                                    2
for medical treatment, considering all causes.” “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. See Tenn. Code Ann. §
50-6-102(14).

        Yates does not dispute that an injury occurred. The question, therefore, is whether
Ms. Bratcher appears likely to prove at a hearing on the merits that her work injury
primarily caused her current symptoms or need for treatment. The Court cannot find at
this time that she is likely to meet this burden.

       The Court accepted several medical records into evidence. Yates relied on Dr.
Steinagle’s conclusions that: 1) Ms. Bratcher has completed an adequate amount of
treatment for her work-related tendonitis; 2) the objective physical findings do not
support her continued complaints; and 3) she suffers from preexisting AC joint arthritis.
Because Ms. Bratcher selected Dr. Steinagle from a panel of physicians, his opinion is
presumed correct. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E). Thus, the question is
whether Ms. Bratcher submitted sufficient information to overcome this presumption.

       To make this determination, the Court turns to the records of Dr. Head, the only
other physician to comment on the cause of Ms. Bratcher’s condition. He stated that her
shoulder and chest pain “is probably work related,” and he indicated on the FMLA form
that her disability was work-related. However, whether an injury is related to an
employee’s work is no longer the legal standard for determining compensability. Rather,
as noted above, the current statute requires proof that the injury arose primarily out of
and in the course and scope of employment. Thus, the fact that Dr. Head felt Ms.
Bratcher’s condition was related to her work is insufficient, without more, to overcome
the presumption of Dr. Steinagle’s opinion.

        Ms. Bratcher appeared sincere in her belief that her work activities caused her
current condition. However, the Court must abide by the causation requirements of the
Workers’ Compensation Law and cannot infer from the mere existence of her condition
that it arose primarily out of her employment. Because Ms. Bratcher failed to present
any evidence that her current need for treatment arose primarily out of her work injury,
the Court cannot find at this time that she appears likely to prevail on a claim for
additional medical benefits.

        Similarly, the Court must deny Ms. Bratcher’s request for temporary disability
benefits at this time because she has not yet demonstrated that the medical restrictions
that led to her termination arose primarily out of the work injury.




                                            3
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

   1. Ms. Bratcher’s claims against Yates and its workers’ compensation carrier for the
      requested medical and temporary disability benefits are denied at this time.

   2. This matter is set for a Scheduling Hearing on October 17, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. You
      must call toll-free at 855-874-0473 to participate. Failure to call might result in a
      determination of the issues without your further participation. All conferences are
      set using Central Time.

      ENTERED August 27, 2019.



                                  _____________________________________
                                  Judge Dale Tipps
                                  Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims


                                      APPENDIX

Exhibits:
   1. Affidavit of Deborah Bratcher
   2. Records from Nashville General Hospital
   3. Work note from Dr. Jonathan Head
   4. Records from Dr. Timothy Steinagle
   5. Wage Statement
   6. Records from FNP Deborah Smith
   7. Appointment reminders from Dr. Philip Elizondo
   8. March 19, 2018 Form C-42
   9. June 1, 2019 Form C-42
   10. FMLA correspondence between Deborah Bratcher and Laurel Black
   11. Disability Accommodation Request Form
   12. Medical Release Forms
   13. FMLA forms

Technical record:
   1. Petition for Benefit Determination
   2. Dispute Certification Notice
   3. Request for Expedited Hearing
   4. Employer’s Position Statement



                                            4
                           CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

      I certify that a copy of the Expedited Hearing Order was sent as indicated on
August 27, 2019.

Name                       Certified Email     Service sent to:
                           Mail
Deborah Bratcher                     X         Genuinelyhonest803@gmail.com
John R. Rucker III, Esq.             X         john@johnlewisattorney.com
Employer Attorney



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




                                        5
