FILED
Sep 07, 2022
10:13 AM(CT)
TENNESSEE COURT OF
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CLAIMS
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
AT MURFREESBORO
PATRICK WILLIAMS, ) Docket No. 2019-05-1202
Employee, ) 2019-05-1203
v. )
YATES SERVICES, ) State File No. 57462-2019
Employer, ) 57623-2019
And )
TRAVELERS INDEM. CO., ) Judge Robert Durham
Carrier. )
EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS
The Court held an expedited hearing on August 31, 2022. Mr. Williams sought
benefits for alleged injuries to his shoulders, right elbow, and right knee due to collisions
with machinery on March 5 and July 30, 2019. Yates asserted that the Court should deny
Mr. Williams’s requests since he did not establish causation by showing that his injuries
arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. For the reasons
below, the Court holds that Mr. Williams did not establish that he is likely to prove causation
at trial and denies his claim for benefits.
History of Claim 1
Mr. Williams testified that on March 5, 2019, a piece of machinery called an “assist”
struck him in the right elbow, causing pain in his elbow and shoulders. He admitted that
the assist did not hit his shoulders or cause him to fall. Although he reported the incident,
he did not seek medical treatment or miss any work.
On July 30, 2019, Mr. Williams walked between a tug and a cart attached to it. As
he did so, the tug and cart took off, striking Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams asserted right-knee
pain as well as aggravated bilateral shoulder pain. Yates provided a panel, and Mr. Williams
chose internist Dr. John Byrnes.
1
The parties stipulated to a compensation rate of $386.64. Yates also agreed that Mr. Williams was struck
by machinery on March 5 and July 30 but disputed whether those incidents caused Mr. Williams’s disability
and need for treatment.
1
Mr. Williams saw Dr. Byrnes on August 2. 2 Dr. Byrnes noted that Mr. Williams had
surgery on his right shoulder in 2012. Mr. Williams said that he could not move his
shoulders at all without pain; however, Dr. Byrnes observed that Mr. Williams “moved both
shoulders well.” Mr. Williams also complained of pain and a “chipping” sensation in his
right knee. Dr. Byrnes felt he had a cyst but believed his knee was functionally intact. He
recommended an orthopedic referral for the cyst and medication for the shoulder pain. He
also imposed work restrictions, including a five-pound lifting limit and no work above the
shoulder.
On August 13, Yates’s adjuster wrote two letters to Dr. Byrnes. In the first letter
describing Mr. Williams’s March 5 incident, she asked Dr. Byrnes whether “Mr. Williams’
diagnosis and the need for treatment arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of
employment with the Yates Companies?” Dr. Byrnes circled “No.” Dr. Byrnes then cited
“R elbow pain?” as Mr. Williams’s work-related diagnosis. The adjuster also asked about
“conditions that are pre-existing and or not related to the above noted injury.” Dr. Byrnes
wrote “R extensive rotator cuff surgery.”
In the second letter, the adjuster asked the same questions about the right knee. Dr.
Byrnes replied that Mr. Williams’s diagnosis and need for treatment were not caused by or
related to the July 30 incident but were due to a pre-existing cyst.
Based on these letters, Yates denied both claims on August 16. However, Mr.
Williams still had significant physical restrictions, and Yates told him he could not return
to work with the restrictions. August 16 was the last day Mr. Williams worked at Yates.
On August 20, Mr. Williams went to the emergency room complaining of pain in
both shoulders and his right elbow and knee. He said the pain had increased to the point that
he had difficulty bathing and dressing. The emergency room note said that Mr. Williams
asked for a causation opinion as well as an orthopedic referral.
The emergency room note also said that Mr. Williams exhibited full range of motion
in both shoulders and an apparent cyst over the right knee that needed no emergency
treatment. The doctor found no signs of an acute rotator cuff tear but felt Mr. Williams may
have had rotator cuff tendinopathy. He declined to address causation but did refer Mr.
Williams to orthopedist Ian Byram.
Mr. Williams then treated on his own with Dr. Byram, who recorded his findings
after reviewing bilateral shoulder MRIs. He recounted Mr. Williams’s history of being
struck by machinery on March 5 and July 30 and injuring his shoulders, his right elbow,
and his right knee. An examination revealed full range of motion in his shoulders with
2
According to Mr. Williams, two Yates employees escorted him to the appointment.
2
slight loss of strength on the right and positive impingement signs in both.
Dr. Byram reviewed the MRIs and felt that the right-shoulder MRI showed a prior
rotator cuff tear but also revealed a probable “high-grade partial-thickness or recurrent tear
of the supraspinatus tendon.” He believed the left-shoulder MRI showed a “possible very
small articular surface partial thickness tear at the supraspinatus attachment.” Dr. Byram’s
diagnosis was a “traumatic incomplete tear of the right rotator cuff” and left-shoulder rotator
cuff tendinitis. He recommended surgery for the right rotator cuff and gave a steroid
injection for the left shoulder.
On September 21, Dr. Byram completed a form provided by Yates as part of Mr.
Williams’s application for short-term disability benefits. Dr. Byram listed March 5 as the
“date symptoms first appeared.” He wrote that he planned to do right-shoulder surgery and
that Mr. Williams was restricted from “all functions” until he released him. The form asked
whether Mr. Williams’s disability was “work related,” and Dr. Byram checked “yes.”
Dr. Byram also completed a “Request for Information” form on September 24 to
assist Mr. Williams in seeking unemployment benefits. On that form, Dr. Byram checked
that Mr. Williams was unable to work due to an “illness” caused by his employment.
For its defense, Yates offered affidavits from Dr. Byrnes addressing both claims. For
the shoulder claims, Dr. Byrnes said that he reviewed Dr. Byram’s records, including the
MRI reports. After reviewing the records, he still believed that Mr. Williams’s bilateral
shoulder pain and need for treatment did not arise primarily out of and in the course and
scope of his employment with Yates. He further said that the March 5, 2019 incident did
not contribute more than 50% to Mr. Williams’s need for treatment on his shoulders.
Dr. Byrnes repeated these opinions for the July 30 incident. He stated that Mr.
Williams’s right-knee complaints and need for further treatment did not primarily arise out
of and in the course and scope of his employment with Yates, and that the incident did not
contribute more than 50% to Mr. Williams’s need for further treatment for his right knee.
Finally, Mr. Williams testified that he has not had surgery but still requires it for his
shoulders and his knee. He is in constant pain and has significant motion limitations. He
remained under Dr. Byram’s restrictions and thus could not return to work for Yates.
Although he is currently running his own business, he believed that he is entitled to
temporary partial disability benefits from August 16, 2019, through the present. 3
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
To prevail, Mr. Williams must present evidence from which this Court can determine
3
Mr. Williams did not provide any evidence as to his income since leaving Yates.
3
that he is likely to prove at trial that the temporary disability benefits and additional
treatment are for injuries that primarily arose out of and in the course and scope of his
employment with Yates. See McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk.
Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *9 (Mar. 27, 2015); Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2019).
Given the evidence, the Court holds that Mr. Williams did not meet his burden.
The Court first notes that Mr. Williams’s assertions of being struck by machinery on
March 5 and July 30 are consistent and undisputed by Yates. The MRI reports show that
Mr. Williams suffers from a probable partial tear in his right rotator cuff and perhaps a small
tear in the left with substantial tendinosis. He also suffers from a cyst in his right knee.
However, Mr. Williams must prove a causal connection between the work incidents and his
medical conditions to receive benefits.
To prove a causal connection, Mr. Williams must show to a reasonable degree of
medical certainty that the March 5 and July 30 work incidents contributed more than fifty
percent in causing his current symptoms, considering all causes. Reasonable degree of
medical certainty means “it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to
speculation or uncertainty.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C). Given that the standard
requires “medical certainty,” causation must be shown through expert medical opinion. Id.
The only medical opinions offered by Mr. Williams regarding causation are the two
forms Dr. Byram completed. On the short-term disability application, Dr. Byram checked
a box stating that Mr. Williams’s disability was “work-related.” On the unemployment
benefits form, he checked another box stating that Mr. Williams’s “illness” was caused by
work.
Yates, on the other hand, offered two affidavits from Dr. Byrnes stating that, after
examining Mr. Williams and reviewing all his medical records, his shoulder and knee
conditions did not meet the statutory standard for establishing causation.
Thus, the Court must consider the weight to be given to each opinion. When
weighing expert opinions, the Court may consider, among other things, “the qualifications
of the experts, the circumstances of their examination, the information available to them,
and the evaluation of the importance of that information by other experts.” Bass v. The
Home Depot U.S.A, Inc., 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 36, at *9 (May 26, 2017).
Mr. Williams correctly points out that Dr. Byrnes is an internist while Dr. Byram is an
orthopedist. However, as the authorized treating physician, Dr. Byrnes’s causation opinion
is presumed correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E).
After considering the evidence, the Court holds that the scant opinions from Dr.
Byram, made in a non-workers’ compensation context, are insufficient to overcome Dr.
Byrne’s unequivocal opinions that Mr. Williams’s injuries were not caused by his work for
Yates. Thus, the Court denies Mr. Williams’s requests for benefits at this time
4
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Mr. Williams’s requests for benefits are denied.
2. The parties shall appear on October 13, 2022, at 10:30 a.m. C.T. for a status
conference. The parties must call 615-253-0010 to participate. Failure to attend may
result in the resolution of issues without the parties’ participation.
ENTERED September 7, 2022.
____________________________________
Robert V. Durham, Judge
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
APPENDIX
Technical Record:
1. Petitions for Benefit Determination
2. Dispute Certification Notices
3. Requests for Expedited Hearing
4. Order Permitting Withdrawal of counsel
5. Motion for Summary Judgment
6. Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment
7. June 6, 2022 Order
8. Order Setting Expedited Hearing
9. Yates’s Position Statement
10. Mr. Williams’s Witness and Exhibit List
Exhibits:
1. Mr. Williams’s Rule 72 Declaration
2. First Reports of Injury
3. Choice of Physician Form
4. Application for Short Term Disability Benefits
5. Dr. Byram’s Statement for Mr. Williams’s Application for Unemployment
6. Notices of Denial
7. Safety Injury Report
8. Dr. Byrnes’s Medical Records
9. Dr. Byram’s Medical Records
10. Williamson County Medical Center Emergency Room Records
11. Causation opinion letters from Dr. Byrnes
12. Dr. Byrnes’s Affidavits
5
13. Audio recordings (for I.D. purposes only)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this order was sent as indicated on September 7, 2022.
Name Certified Via Via Service sent to:
Mail Fax Email
Patrick Williams X X 445 Courtnea Lane
Manchester, TN 37355
Patrickwilliams14@gmail.com
John Rucker, III X rrucker@ruckerlaw.com
_____________________________________
Penny Shrum, Clerk
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov
6
Expedited Hearing Order Right to Appeal:
If you disagree with this Expedited Hearing Order, you may appeal to the Workers’
Compensation Appeals Board. To appeal an expedited hearing order, you must:
1. Complete the enclosed form entitled: “Notice of Appeal,” and file the form with the
Clerk of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims within seven business days of the
date the expedited hearing order was filed. When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must
serve a copy upon all parties.
2. You must pay, via check, money order, or credit card, a $75.00 filing fee within ten
calendar days after filing of the Notice of Appeal. Payments can be made in-person at
any Bureau office or by U.S. mail, hand-delivery, or other delivery service. In the
alternative, you may file an Affidavit of Indigency (form available on the Bureau’s
website or any Bureau office) seeking a waiver of the fee. You must file the fully-
completed Affidavit of Indigency within ten calendar days of filing the Notice of
Appeal. Failure to timely pay the filing fee or file the Affidavit of Indigency will
result in dismissal of the appeal.
3. You bear the responsibility of ensuring a complete record on appeal. You may request
from the court clerk the audio recording of the hearing for a $25.00 fee. If a transcript of
the proceedings is to be filed, a licensed court reporter must prepare the transcript and file
it with the court clerk within ten business days of the filing the Notice of
Appeal. Alternatively, you may file a statement of the evidence prepared jointly by both
parties within ten business days of the filing of the Notice of Appeal. The statement of
the evidence must convey a complete and accurate account of the hearing. The Workers’
Compensation Judge must approve the statement before the record is submitted to the
Appeals Board. If the Appeals Board is called upon to review testimony or other proof
concerning factual matters, the absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence can be
a significant obstacle to meaningful appellate review.
4. If you wish to file a position statement, you must file it with the court clerk within ten
business days after the deadline to file a transcript or statement of the evidence. The
party opposing the appeal may file a response with the court clerk within ten business
days after you file your position statement. All position statements should include: (1) a
statement summarizing the facts of the case from the evidence admitted during the
expedited hearing; (2) a statement summarizing the disposition of the case as a result of
the expedited hearing; (3) a statement of the issue(s) presented for review; and (4) an
argument, citing appropriate statutes, case law, or other authority.
For self-represented litigants: Help from an Ombudsman is available at 800-332-2667.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
www.tn.gov/workforce/injuries-at-work/
wc.courtclerk@tn.gov | 1-800-332-2667
Docket No.: ________________________
State File No.: ______________________
Date of Injury: _____________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Employee
v.
___________________________________________________________________________
Employer
Notice is given that ____________________________________________________________________
[List name(s) of all appealing party(ies). Use separate sheet if necessary.]
appeals the following order(s) of the Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims to the
Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (check one or more applicable boxes and include the date file-
stamped on the first page of the order(s) being appealed):
□ Expedited Hearing Order filed on _______________ □ Motion Order filed on ___________________
□ Compensation Order filed on__________________ □ Other Order filed on_____________________
issued by Judge _________________________________________________________________________.
Statement of the Issues on Appeal
Provide a short and plain statement of the issues on appeal or basis for relief on appeal:
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
Parties
Appellant(s) (Requesting Party): _________________________________________ ☐Employer ☐Employee
Address: ________________________________________________________ Phone: ___________________
Email: __________________________________________________________
Attorney’s Name: ______________________________________________ BPR#: _______________________
Attorney’s Email: ______________________________________________ Phone: _______________________
Attorney’s Address: _________________________________________________________________________
* Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellant *
LB-1099 rev. 01/20 Page 1 of 2 RDA 11082
Employee Name: _______________________________________ Docket No.: _____________________ Date of Inj.: _______________
Appellee(s) (Opposing Party): ___________________________________________ ☐Employer ☐Employee
Appellee’s Address: ______________________________________________ Phone: ____________________
Email: _________________________________________________________
Attorney’s Name: _____________________________________________ BPR#: ________________________
Attorney’s Email: _____________________________________________ Phone: _______________________
Attorney’s Address: _________________________________________________________________________
* Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellee *
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, _____________________________________________________________, certify that I have forwarded a
true and exact copy of this Notice of Appeal by First Class mail, postage prepaid, or in any manner as described
in Tennessee Compilation Rules & Regulations, Chapter 0800-02-21, to all parties and/or their attorneys in this
case on this the __________ day of ___________________________________, 20 ____.
______________________________________________
[Signature of appellant or attorney for appellant]
LB-1099 rev. 01/20 Page 2 of 2 RDA 11082