                                                                                             FILED
                                                                                          Aug 23, 2019
                                                                                          10:15 AM(CT)
                                                                                       TENNESSEE COURT OF
                                                                                      WORKERS' COMPENSATION
                                                                                             CLAIMS




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

DALE HUNTER,                                   )
        Employee,                              )       Docket No. 2017-08-1268
                                               )
v.                                             )
                                               )       State File No. 88488-2017
DOUG’S AUTOMOTIVE,                             )
         Employer.                             )
                                               )       Judge Dale Tipps
                                               )



                              EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER
                                  DENYING BENEFITS
                               (DECISION ON THE RECORD)


       This matter came before the Court on August 21, 2019, for an Expedited Hearing
decided on the record without an in-person hearing. The present focus of this case is
whether Mr. Hunter is entitled to additional medical treatment for his alleged back injury.
The central legal issue is whether he is likely to establish at a hearing on the merits that
his need for the requested MRI arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his
employment. For the reasons below, the Court holds Mr. Hunter failed to do so and is
not entitled to benefits at this time.

                                        History of Claim

       This is Mr. Hunter’s second Expedited Hearing. Following the first hearing, the
Court was unable to find that Mr. Hunter was likely to prove medical causation at a
hearing on the merits but issued an order for a panel of physicians.1 Doug’s Automotive
provided a panel, from which Mr. Hunter selected Dr. Sam Murrell.

1
 The Court summarized the full history of Mr. Hunter’s injury and medical treatment in its prior order
and finds it unnecessary to repeat that summary here.
                                                   1
       Mr. Hunter treated with Dr. Murrell but filed a Motion to Compel Medical
Treatment on June 4, 2019, claiming that Dr. Murrell recommended an epidural injection
that Doug’s Automotive refused to authorize. Because Mr. Hunter provided no medical
records or other information regarding the treatment or its relationship to his work injury,
the Court found it could not order Doug’s Automotive to authorize it.

       Mr. Hunter then filed another Motion for Medical Treatment on July 26, this time
with an accompanying letter from Dr. Murrell. The Court determined that the motion
was actually a request to decide his interlocutory claim for medical benefits based on a
review of the file without an evidentiary hearing. The Court deemed the request for a
decision on the record appropriate and issued a Docketing Notice.

      Doug’s Automotive filed a Response and an Objection to Dr. Murrell’s letter, and
the Court took up the hearing request on August 21.

       Dr. Murrell’s letter is the only proof offered by either party. It states:

              Dale Hunter has been under my care with complaints of low back
       pain and leg pain. He was first seen by me on September 7, 2018
       complaining of pain following an injury on 10/15/2017. He was ultimately
       found to have degenerative changes of the lumbar spine at multiple levels
       with a more focal right L5 foraminal disc protrusion. When he was seen by
       me on January 28, 2019, he was offered an epidural steroid injection. He
       ultimately requested to be released to full duty, but then later he followed
       up with me and indicated that he wished to proceed with further treatment.
       In April of this year, an epidural steroid injection was again recommended,
       and he continues under my care awaiting performing of the procedure.

                        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

      The Court first addresses the objections to Dr. Murrell’s letter. Doug’s
Automotive contends the letter is irrelevant because “it does not negate any of the
previous findings that Employee is and has been released . . . at maximum medical
improvement.” This argument is unsupported by any evidence, as Doug’s Automotive
has never provided the Court with any medical records from Dr. Murrell. More
importantly, even if Mr. Hunter were at maximum medical improvement, Doug’s
Automotive provides no authority for the proposition that a finding of maximum medical
improvement terminates an employee’s right to medical treatment made reasonably
necessary by a work injury.

      Doug’s Automotive also argues that Dr. Murrell’s letter is hearsay. This argument
overlooks Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and Alternative Dispute Resolution

                                              2
Rule 0800-02-21-.16(2)(b), which provides that medical records are self-authenticating
and admissible when signed by a physician. As Dr. Murrell signed the letter in question,
it is properly admitted as evidence.

       Turning to the merits of Mr. Hunter’s claim, he need not prove every element of
his claim by a preponderance of the evidence to obtain relief at an expedited hearing.
Instead, he must come forward with sufficient evidence from which this Court might
determine he 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, Mr. Hunter
must show that his alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his
employment. That means he must show, “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that
it contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for
medical treatment, considering all causes.”

       Applying these principles, the Court cannot find that Mr. Hunter would likely
meet his burden of proof at a hearing on the merits. Dr. Murrell’s letter, the only medical
proof introduced in this matter, states that Mr. Hunter has degenerative changes of the
lumbar spine and a L5 disc protrusion. It also shows that Dr. Murrell continues to
recommend an epidural steroid injection. However, the letter does not address whether
the diagnosis or the need for the epidural injection arose primarily out of and in the
course and scope of Mr. Hunter’s employment. Without a medical opinion addressing
this issue, Mr. Hunter cannot prove at this time “to a reasonable degree of medical
certainty” that his work contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury or the
need for the treatment recommended by Dr. Murrell.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

   1. Mr. Hunter’s claim against Doug’s Automotive for the requested epidural steroid
      injection is denied at this time.

   2. This case is set for a Status Hearing on September 24, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. Please
      call toll-free at 855-874-0473 to participate. Failure to call or appear might result
      in a determination of the issues without your further participation. All conferences
      are set using Central Time (CT).

       ENTERED August 23, 2019.



                                   _____________________________________
                                   Judge Dale Tipps
                                   Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

                                            3
                                       APPENDIX

 Exhibits:
    1. Dr. Murrell’s July 16, 2019 letter

 Technical record:
    1. Motion for Medical Treatment
    2. Response to Motion to Have Employer Pay Medical Expenses
    3. Response to Admission of the Purported Letter of Dr. Murrell
    4. Petition for Benefit Determination
    5. Dispute Certification Notice
    6. July 3, 2018 Expedited Hearing Order


                             CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I certify that a copy of the Expedited Hearing Order was sent as indicated on
 August 23, 2019.

Name                     Certified    Fax     Via     Service sent to:
                         Mail                 Email
Dale Hunter                                      X    Dale.hunter29@yahoo.com
James Jones, Jr.,                                X    attorneyjamesjones@gmail.com
Employer’s Attorney



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




                                              4
