Paul Pittman v. City of Memphis
360 S.W.3d 382
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Pittman is a Memphis firefighter diagnosed with hypertension in 1996 and enrolled in the HHL program, receiving OJI benefits since 1996.
- In July 2005 Pittman was hospitalized for chest pain; angiography showed 90% LAD blockage and CAD, leading to stent placement.
- Pittman filed an OJI heart-disease claim on July 22, 2005; City denied based on Dr. Davis’ opinion of no causal link.
- ALJ held in Oct. 2009 that Pittman had the statutory presumption of causation under §7-51-201 and City failed to rebut it; ALJ credited Dr. Davis’ testimony as competent proof to rebut.
- Chancery Court (2010) affirmed the ALJ’s decision after Pittman petitioned for review under the UAPA; Pittman appeals to Tennessee Court of Appeals.
- Court of Appeals affirms the denial, applying the statutory presumption and substantial evidence review, concluding City’s proof rebutted the presumption and Pittman failed to show causation by a preponderance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of the §7-51-201 presumption | Pittman argues ALJ shifted burden to Pittman to prove causation. | City contends it rebutted presumption with competent medical evidence (Dr. Davis). | ALJ properly applied the presumption; City rebutted it. |
| Sufficiency of medical evidence to prove causation after rebuttal | Smithers supports substantial causal link between occupation and CAD. | Davis and Smithers show CAD caused by multiple factors; occupation not sole cause. | Evidence supports City’s burden shift and rebuttal; Pittman failed to prove causation by preponderance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bohanan v. City of Knoxville, 136 S.W.3d 621 (Tenn. 2004) (reversal standards; burden-shifting in rebuttable presumption cases)
- Coffey v. City of Knoxville, 866 S.W.2d 516 (Tenn. 1993) (requisites to rebut presumption; competent medical evidence)
- Krick v. City of Lawrenceburg, 945 S.W.2d 709 (Tenn. 1997) (credibility and weight of deposition testimony; weight of evidence)
- Tidwell v. City of Memphis, 193 S.W.3d 555 (Tenn. 2006) (standard of review under UAPA; de novo on law, substantial evidence on facts)
- City of Memphis v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 216 S.W.3d 311 (Tenn. 2007) (scope of substantial and material evidence; agency deference)
- CF Indus. v. Tennessee Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 599 S.W.2d 536 (Tenn. 1980) (standard of review for agency actions)