2019 Case Law Update

1. 2019 Case Law Update Presenter: Fredrick R. Baker, Attorney, Wimberly, Lawson, Wright, Daves, & Jones

2. Case Law Update Presented by: Fredrick R. Baker, Esq.

3. Womble v. Uncle Dave’s Auto Repair, Inc. • WCAB, December 10, 2018 • Facts: Tow truck driver was injured while loading a disabled vehicle for towing. Employee was subsequently terminated as a result of negative publicity related to the manner in which he handled another towing job. Employer denied request for TPD benefits, based on the termination.

4. Womble v. Uncle Dave’s Auto Repair, Inc. • Issue: Is Employee entitled to TPD benefits? • Holding: Yes. Employer could not establish that Employee’s violation of Employer’s policy played any role in the termination. Since Employee had already been terminated, Employer’s ability to accommodate light duty restrictions was no longer relevant.

5. Travis v. Carter Express, Inc. • WCAB, December 21, 2018 • Facts: The employee, a truck driver, alleged he sustained an injury to his right shoulder while opening a trailer door within the course of his employment. The employer denied the claim for Tennessee workers’ compensation benefits, asserting the employee had, as a condition of his employment, entered into a binding agreement to file any workers’ compensation claims in the State of Indiana.

6. Travis v. Carter Express, Inc. • Issue: Whether a forum selection agreement between an employer and employee that was executed before an employee’s injury is binding? • Holding: No.

7. Chaney v. Team Technologies, Inc. • Tennessee Supreme Court, January 31, 2019 • Facts: An employee collapsed at work because of a medical condition unrelated to employment. The employer knew of the employee’s need for immediate medical assistance. The employer had acquired an AED but did not use it while awaiting the arrival of emergency medical responders. Medical responders assisted the employee, but she suffered a brain injury because of oxygen deprivation.

8. Chaney v. Team Technologies, Inc. • Issue #1: Does an employer have a duty to render reasonable emergency medical assistance? • Holding #1: Yes, an injury that is caused by an employer’s failure to provide reasonable medical assistance arises out of and in the course of employment when an employee becomes helpless at work because of illness or other cause unrelated to employment, the employee needs medical assistance to prevent further injury, the employer knows of the employee’s helplessness, and the employer can provide reasonable medical assistance but does not do so.

9. Chaney v. Team Technologies, Inc. • Issue #2: Given that Team Technologies had a duty to provide reasonable medical assistance to Chaney, did Team Technologies have a duty to use an AED to assist Chaney after she experienced a medical emergency. • Holding #2: No.

10. Memphis Light Gas & Water Division v. Watson • Tennessee Court of Appeals, February 13, 2019 • Facts: Employee suffered personal injuries when a dog attacked her while she was reading meters. Employer paid approximately $30,000 in TTD, PPD, and medical benefits under workers’ compensation, plus approximately $10,000 in NCM expenses. Employee recovered $80,000 in third party settlement.

11. Memphis Light Gas & Water Division v. Watson • Issue: Are nurse case management expenses recoverable as part of an employer's workers' compensation subrogation lien under Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-112? • Holding: No.

12. Hardin v. W.A. Kendall & Co., Inc. • Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims - Compensation Hearing Order: February 13, 2019 - Order on Attorney Fees & Expenses: March 13, 2019 Facts: Employee was groundskeeper who was injured while operating a wood-chipper. Employer argued that willful misconduct barred recovery.

13. Hardin v. W.A. Kendall & Co., Inc. • Issue #1: Does willful misconduct defense bar compensability of the claim? • Holding #1: No, even if rule violations could be proven, Employee had a valid excuse for violations.

14. Hardin v. W.A. Kendall & Co., Inc. • Issue #2: Should Employer be ordered to pay attorney’s fees and expenses under TCA § 50-6-226(d)(1)(B)? • Holding #2: Yes, Court found Employer’s actions at the time of the denial to be erroneous, incorrect, and inconsistent with the facts. Court awarded fees in the amount of $232,182.27 and expenses of $9,095.50.

15. Sandoval v. Williamson • Tennessee Special Workers’ Compensation Panel, March 28, 2019 • Facts: Employee was an undocumented immigrant with a work injury. Original award was settled. Employee failed to return to work at the end of the period of compensation, and Employee sought additional benefits. Employer denied same under TCA § 50-6-207(3)(F).

16. Sandoval v. Williamson • Issue: Is TCA § 50-6-207(3)(F) constitutional? • Holding: Yes. Even though a similar provision under the “old law” was held unconstitutional in Martinez v. Lawhon in 2016, the provision in TCA § 50-6-207(3)(F) is constitutional because it does not punish employers for willfully hiring unauthorized workers, it does not establish a State immigration policy, and does not conflict with Federal law.

17. Mitchell v. Bunge North America, Inc. • WCAB, April 16, 2019 • Facts: The employee was a supervisor at a grain processing facility, who suffered a heart attack and died while at work. The employee’s surviving spouse brought a claim for death benefits, asserting the employee’s heart attack was due to work-related physical exertion, environmental exposures, and mental stress.

18. Mitchell v. Bunge North America, Inc. • Issue: Was the heart attack compensable? • Holding: No, the evidence failed to establish that either a work-related physical stressor or mental stressor was the primary cause of Employee’s heart attack.

19. Linsey v. Acadia Healthcare Co. • WCAB, May 13, 2019 • Facts: Secretary in a hospital was attacked by a patient. Authorized treatment provided for back and shoulder, but not for alleged mental injury. More than one year after Employer made its last voluntary payment, Employee filed PBD seeking benefits for her alleged mental injury. Employer argued that statute of limitations expired.

20. Linsey v. Acadia Healthcare Co. • Issue: Does the Discovery Rule excuse Employee’s failure to file PBD within one year of the last voluntary payment? • Holding: No, statute of limitations barred Employee’s claim for an alleged work-related mental injury.

21. Fredrick R. Baker, Esq.Wimberly Lawson Wright Daves & Jones, PLLC1420 Neal Street, Suite 201P.O. Box 655Cookeville, TN 38503-0655Phone: 931-372-9123Fax: 931-372-9181Email: fbaker@wimberlylawson.com