Case Information

*1 FILED

Jun 24, 2021 09:09 AM(ET)

TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS IN THE AT KNOXVILLE JACK T. HUFFAKER, ) Docket No. 2017-03-1196 Employee, ) v. ) CAC OF KNOX COUNTY, ) State File No. 13120-2016

Employer, ) And ) TENNESSEE MUNICIPAL LEAGUE ) Judge Lisa A. Lowe RISK MANAGEMENT THE POOL, )

Carrier. ) COMPENSATION ORDER

This case came before the Court for a Compensation Hearing on June 22, 2021. The parties agree Mr. Huffaker sustained a work-related left ankle injury, for which he is entitled to benefits. However, the disputed issues are whether alleged knee, back, elbow, and shoulder conditions arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment, and whether he is entitled to benefits for those conditions .

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Mr. Huffaker established entitlement to medical and permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits for his ankle injury but failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to benefits for his knee, back, elbows, and shoulders

History of Claim Mr. Huffaker drove a transport bus for CAC, and he fell while exiting his bus. He was 60 years old at the time. After initial treatment failed to reduce left-ankle swelling, he began treating with orthopedist and foot specialist Dr. Mary Testerman. Dr. Testerman treated him conservatively from June to November 2016, then placed him at maximum medical improvement on November 8, 2016. She released him with permanent restrictions and an impairment rating of three percent. Mr. Huffaker did not return to work with CAC or any employer.

1 *2 Mr. Huffaker filed a Petition for Benefit Determination seeking treatment for his knee, back, elbows and shoulders. Following an Expedited Hearing, the Court held that he presented sufficient evidence to entitle him to a panel of physicians for evaluation and treatment of any work-related back or knee injury but not for his elbows or shoulders. CAC then provided two panels of orthopedic physicians, and Mr. Huffaker selected Dr. Michael Casey for his knee and Dr. Colin Booth for his back.

Dr. Casey evaluated Mr. Huffaker and noted: I do not feel that over two years later that this is truly an event from his fall. My diagnosis today is more patellofemoral pain with some early

patellofemoral wear. I see no other evidence of internal derangement. I do not feel that this is directly related to his workers compensation injury back in February 2016.

As for the back, Dr. Booth stated, the patient s issues are due to degenerative disc disease, which is long standing. His injury may have aggravated these symptoms but at two years out, I cannot say his current symptoms are due to any work injury.

After receiving these opinions, Mr. Huffaker filed another Petition for Benefit Determination requesting MRIs of his knee, back, elbows, shoulders, and neck, as well as a second opinion for his ankle complaints.

The Court issued a second Expedited Hearing Order holding that CAC was not obligated to provide the requested MRIs or a second opinion. Ultimately, Mr. Huffaker obtained MRIs on his own, but he did not provide a medical opinion interpreting them or relating the findings to his work injury. ^[1] He acknowledged on cross-examination that no physician has ever informed him that his alleged knee, back, elbow, or shoulder complaints are work-related.

Mr. Huffaker argued that he did not have a choice of physicians on the original panel because CAC made the selection and just directed him to sign the panel. He testified that he sustained injuries to parts of his body other than his ankle when he fell, but CAC ignored them. He also took issue with Dr. Testerman s treatment of his ankle injury.

CAC argued that it has provided Mr. Huffaker with the treatment he is entitled to under the law and that he accepted such treatment at the time. *3 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Mr. Huffaker has the burden of proof on all essential elements of his claim. Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *6 (Aug. 18, 2015). At a compensation hearing, he must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to the requested benefits. Willis v. All Staff , 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 42, at *18 (Nov. 9, 2015).

The parties agree that Mr. Huffaker sustained a work-related left ankle injury for which he is entitled to benefits. However, he also claimed injuries and a need for treatment for his knee, back, elbows, and shoulders.

To prove entitlement to this additional treatment, Mr. Huffaker must show that these alleged injuries arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. This includes the requirement that he must show ertainty that [the incident] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considerin hown to a reasonable degree of ns 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) (2020).

Mr. Huffaker did not provide any medical opinion relating his knee, back, elbows or shoulders to his work injury. The only medical opinions regarding the knee and back are those of Drs. Casey and Booth, and neither related Mr. Huffaker s symptoms or need for treatment to the work injury. Although the Court is aware of Mr. Huffaker held belief that his current conditions and need for treatment arose primarily out of his work injury, his lay opinion alone is legally insufficient to establish the essential element of medical causation. Parties and their lawyers cannot rely solely on their own medical interpretations of the evidence to successfully support their arguments. Lurz v. Paper Co., 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 8, at *16 (Feb. 14, 2018). Thus, the Court holds that Mr. Huffaker failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to treatment or permanent disability benefits for his knee, back, elbows or shoulders.

Regarding Mr. Huffaker s undisputed ankle injury, Dr. Testerman gave him a three percent impairment. Thus, his original award is 13.5 weeks of benefits, or $4,511.84, and his initial compensation period expired on February 13, 2017. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 207(3)(A). If an employee is unable to return to work with any employer or returns to work at less than his/her pre-injury pay, that employee may be entitled to increased benefits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-207(3)(B). Here, Mr. Huffaker was unable to return to work and was older than 40 at the time of his injury, so he is entitled to $2,797.34 in increased benefits for a total of $7,309.17. He is also entitled to medical benefits for his ankle injury with Dr. Testerman as his authorized physician.

3 *4 IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows: 1. Mr. Huffaker is entitled to ongoing reasonable, necessary, and related medical treatment for his ankle injury with Dr. Testerman as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204.

2. Under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3), Mr. Huffaker is entitled to 450 weeks times his impairment rating, which equates to $4,511.84 in permanent partial disability benefits and an additional $2,797.34 in increased benefits. His total permanent partial disability award is $7,309.17.

3. After a Compensation Hearing Order en Compensation Judge has become final under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(c)(7), compliance with this Order must occur in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50- 6-239(c)(9). The Insurer or Self-Insured Employer must submit confirmation of compliance with this Order to the Bureau by email to WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov no later than the fifth business day after this Order becomes final or all appeals are exhausted. Failure to submit the necessary confirmation within the period of compliance may result in a penalty assessment for non-compliance.

4. CAC of Knox County shall pay the $150.00 filing fee under Compensation Claims and Alternative Dispute Resolution 0800-02-21-.06 (2019) directly to the Court Clerk within five business days of the date of this order, for which execution may issue if necessary.

5. CAC of Knox County shall file a Statistical Data Form (SD-2) within ten business days of entry of this order. 6. Absent an appeal, this Order shall become final thirty calendar days after entry. ENTERED on June 24, 2021. _____________________________________

JUDGE LISA A. LOWE

Court aims

4

APPENDIX

*5 Exhibits: 1. Wage Statement, Form C-41 2. Petition for Benefit Determination, filed October 10, 2017 3. First Report of Work Injury, Form C-20 4. Daily Vehicle Checklist 5. Panel of Physicians, Form C-42, selection date of February 19, 2016 6. Medical Record of Dr. Chris Testerman 7. Panel of Physicians, Form C-42, selection date of August 30, 2018 8. Panel of Physicians, Form C-42, selection date of August 30, 2018 9. Medical Record of Dr. Michael Casey 10. Medical Record of Dr. Colin Booth 11. MRI reports (marked for identification purposes only)

Technical record: Petition for Benefit Determination Dispute Certification Notice Order Motion for Extension of Time cond Motion for Extension of Time Expedited Hearing Order Granting Medical Benefits Docketing Notice for on-the-Record Determination Order Granting Extension Expedited Hearing Order Denying Benefits Decision on the Record Order Scheduling Mediation Dispute Certification Notice Scheduling Order of Filing of Medical Records Notice of Appearance Order Amending Scheduling Order Scheduling Order Order Cancelling In-Person Compensation Hearing and Setting Status Conference Order Setting Compensation Hearing Statement of Jack Huffaker, filed August 16, 2020 Statement of Jack Huffaker, filed August 20, 2020 Statement of Jack Huffaker, filed September 24, 2020 Statement of Jack Huffaker, filed November 2, 2020 Statement of Jack Huffaker, filed November 10, 2020 Order Denying Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines

5 *6 24) Order Granting Motion to Withdraw 25) Order Setting Deadline and Scheduling Hearing 26) Scheduling Order 27) Motion for Discovery 28) e to Motion for Discovery 29) Order Denying Extension for Discovery 30) s Pre-Compensation Hearing Statement 31) List 32)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the Order was sent as indicated on June 24, 2021. Name Mail Email Service sent to: Jack Huffaker, X X 516 Kay Drive Self-Represented Strawberry Plains, TN 37871 Employee pappytofour@gmail.com Hanson R. Tipton, X htipton@watsonroach.com Employer s Attorney

______________________________________

PENNY SHRUM, COURT CLERK

wc.courtclerk@tn.gov

6

NOTES

[1] Mr. Huffaker wanted to introduce the MRI reports into evidence; however, he did not file an Exhibit List 10 days before the hearing as required by the Court s Scheduling Order. Since he did not identify the MRI reports as exhibits on an Exhibit List, the Court denied his request. 2