                                                                                 FILED
                                                                               Oct 23, 2019
                                                                              01:58 PM(CT)
                                                                            TENNESSEE COURT OF
                                                                           WORKERS' COMPENSATION
                                                                                  CLAIMS




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

NAOMI PATTON,                              )
        Employee,                          ) Docket No. 2019-06-0796
                                           )
v.                                         )
                                           ) State File No. 29170-2019
LAKESHORE HEARTLAND,                       )
       Employer,                           )
                                           )
PREMIER GROUP INSURANCE                    ) Judge Joshua D. Baker
COMPANY,                                   )
        Carrier.                           )


             EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS


      The Court convened an October 10, 2019 expedited hearing to consider whether
Ms. Patton is likely to prove the compensability of two alleged injuries to her left hand
and arm. As Ms. Patton failed to file her claim within the statute of limitations for her
March 23, 2018 injury, and because she did not show she is likely to prove her June 3,
2018 injury is work-related, the Court denies her requested relief.

                                    Claim History

       On her April 18, 2019 Petition for Benefit Determination, Ms. Patton alleged two
work injuries to her left-upper extremity that arose from handling patients: one on March
23, 2018 and another on June 3, 2018. She described each incident in detail. According
to the adjuster’s signed declaration, Lakeshore never paid workers’ compensation
benefits for either alleged injury due to Ms. Patton’s history of carpal tunnel syndrome.

       Ms. Patton’s medical records reference prior carpal tunnel surgeries and also note
she complained of continuing carpal tunnel symptoms both before and after each alleged
work incident. The records show that at least two years earlier before her alleged work
injuries, doctors diagnosed Ms. Patton with repeat bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome based
on complaints of “pain and numbness that comes down into the arms with her left arm
being worse than her right.” The records from a 2017 visit with her personal physician,
Dr. James Rubright, state that she told him about her prior carpal tunnel release surgeries
and complained of bilateral hand pain, mainly in her left hand. After the March 23
incident, she complained to Dr. Rubright of increased hand pain but again acknowledged
that “she did have pain in both of her hands and wrist before this injury.”

       At the hearing, Lakeshore contended Ms. Patton did not provide them an
opportunity to provide authorized treatment following the alleged March 23 incident.
Instead, she portrayed her condition as preexisting and insisted on seeing Dr. Rubright.
Ms. Patton denied she declined treatment under workers’ compensation but continued to
see Dr. Rubright.

       Dr. Rubright treated Ms. Patton again for carpal tunnel syndrome and
osteoarthritis in her hands, but none of his records connects her condition to her
employment. On March 26, 2018, he noted from imaging that she had no sign of an
acute injury but had “diffuse degenerative change,” and he diagnosed “[b]ilateral hand
primary osteoarthritis.” Notably, his records do not capture any complaint from Ms.
Patton of a June 3 work accident, even though he treated her only a few weeks after the
alleged incident.

                       Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

        To prevail at an expedited hearing, Ms. Patton must show that she is likely to
prevail at a hearing on the merits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2018). She
failed to carry this burden.

        Recovery for Ms. Patton’s March 23, 2018 injury is barred by the statute of
limitations. Statutes of limitations exist to ensure fairness by prohibiting undue delay in
bringing claims and to provide defendants timely notice of potential lawsuits. See
American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 554-55 (1974). An employee’s
right to compensation is forever barred unless a petition for benefit determination is filed
within one year after the accident resulting in injury. Tenn. Code Ann. section 50-6-
203(b)(1). The employer has the burden of proving that the statute of limitations bars a
claim. Once the employer establishes those facts, the employee must prove that an
exception exists or the claim is barred. See Cloyd v. Hartco Flooring Co., 274 S.W.3d
638, 647 (Tenn. 2008) (citing Ingram v. Earthman, 993 S.W.2d 611, 633; Jones v. Coal
Creek Mining & Mfg. Co., 180 S.W. 179, 182 (Tenn. 1915).

       Here, Ms. Patton’s petition alleged a March 23 injury, yet she did not file a
petition to claim benefits until over a year later on April 18, 2019. Further, the Court
finds Lakeshore did not pay workers’ compensations benefits to or for Ms. Patton
concerning either of her alleged injuries. Consequently, the Court holds that Ms. Patton

                                             2
failed to prove she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits concerning her March 23,
2018 injury, as she filed her petition beyond the statute of limitations.

       Next, the Court addresses Ms. Patton’s request for expedited relief concerning her
June 3 claim. In Workers’ Compensation Law, “injury” means an injury by accident,
including a cumulative trauma condition, which arises primarily out of and in the course
and scope of employment. Tenn. Code Ann. section 50-6-102(14). An injury “arises
primarily out of the course and scope of employment” if the “employment contributed
more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes.” Id. at 50-6-
102(14)(B). Unless an injury is obvious, an “employee must present expert medical
proof that the alleged injury is causally related to the employment.” Berdnik v. Fairfield
Glade Cmty Club, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 32, at *11. Lay testimony
alone will not suffice. See Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp.
App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *12 (Aug. 18, 2015) (“Employee's lay testimony in this case,
without corroborative expert testimony, did not constitute adequate evidence of medical
causation.”).

      Thus, to succeed at a hearing on the merits, Ms. Patton must produce medical
evidence that the June 3 work accident is the primary cause of her condition. None of Dr.
Rubright’s records regarding treatment rendered shortly after her alleged June 3 accident
mentioned an acute injury at work on that date.

       While Ms. Patton questions the accuracy of these records, the absence of any
complaints of a work-related cause correlates with the defense testimony that she
declined medical care under workers’ compensation in favor of continuing treatment with
Dr. Rubright. Thus, the Court finds it unlikely that she would prevail at a hearing on the
merits in proving the compensability of her June 3 claim and denies her requested relief.

   It is ORDERED as follows:

   1. Ms. Patton’s claim for medical and temporary disability benefits is denied at this
      time.

   2. This matter is set for a status conference on Monday, December 2, 2019, at 10:00
      a.m. (CST). You must call 615-741-2113 to participate in the hearing.
      Failure to call may result in a determination of issues without your further
      participation

ENTERED OCTOBER 23, 2019.




                                             3
                                           _____________________________________
                                           Joshua Davis Baker, Judge
                                           Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims




                                     APPENDIX


Exhibits:

   1.   Medical Records
   2.   Ms. Patton’s affidavit
   3.   Declaration of Mr. Porter Nelms
   4.   Declaration of Ms. Valerie Henderson
   5.   Change of Status Forms
   6.   Partner Time Collection Reports
   7.   Text Messages
   8.   Wage Statements
   9.   Documents attached to Ms. Patton’s Request for Expedited Hearing


Technical Record:

   1. Request for Expedited Hearing
   2. Dispute Certification Notice
   3. Petition for Benefit Determination




                                             4
                          CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

     I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on October 23, 2019.


Name                     Certified Via Via          Service sent to:
                         Mail      Fax Email
Naomi Patton,                            X           Naomi.patton1949@gmail.com
Employee
Frank Gallina,                                 X     fgallina@plcslaw.com
Employer’s Attorney




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




                                           5
