Chavez, Raul Morelos v. Jesus Morelos Chavez , 2023 TN WC App. 20 ( 2023 )

FILED
May 12, 2023
02:28 PM(CT)
TENNESSEE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
APPEALS BOARD
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
Raul Morelos Chavez ) Docket No. 2020-05-0797
)
v. ) State File No. 11082-2020
)
Jesus Morelos Chavez, et al. )
)
)
Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )
Compensation Claims )
Dale A. Tipps, Judge )
Affirmed and Remanded
In this interlocutory appeal, the employee asserts he is entitled to additional medical and
temporary disability benefits. The employee fell at work and sustained a left clavicle
fracture. The employer accepted the claim as compensable and provided authorized
treatment for his condition, including surgery, physical therapy, and referrals to other
specialists for evaluation of complaints of dizziness and back pain. After being placed at
maximum medical improvement, the employee sought additional medical treatment on
his own and requested that he be given a new authorized physician. Following an
expedited hearing, the trial court concluded that the employee failed to identify a legal
basis that would justify changing his authorized physician and that, as a result, he did not
prove he is likely to prevail at trial on his claim for additional medical benefits. The
employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s
decision and remand the case.
Judge Pele I. Godkin delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which Presiding
Judge Timothy W. Conner and Judge Meredith B. Weaver joined.
Raul Morelos Chavez, La Vergne, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se
Neil M. McIntire, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, Jesus Morelos
Chavez
1
Memorandum Opinion 1
Raul Chavez (“Employee”) was injured after he lost his balance and fell while
working for his brother, Jesus Morelos Chavez (“Employer”). He was evaluated at
Stonecrest Medical Center that same day and diagnosed with a fractured left clavicle.
The claim was accepted as compensable, and Employee saw Dr. William Mayfield, an
orthopedic surgeon, who performed surgery to repair his fracture. Dr. Mayfield placed
Employee at maximum medical improvement and released him to full duty work on June
25, 2020. Dr. Mayfield assigned a 2% impairment to the body as a whole and noted
Employee did not need follow-up care.
While receiving treatment for his clavicle injury, Dr. Mayfield referred Employee
to two different specialists: a neurologist for complaints of dizziness and another
orthopedist for complaints of back pain. Employee selected Dr. Richard Rubinowicz
from an Employer-provided panel of neurologists. On March 2, Dr. Rubinowicz
evaluated Employee and provided an assessment of dizziness and mild closed head
injury. He noted Employee presented with “posttraumatic dizziness following a head
injury that has resolved.” Dr. Rubinowicz discussed Employee’s symptoms and
“ongoing management” noting that, “[n]o additional intervention [is] required at this
time.”
Employee saw Dr. Christopher Kauffman due to his complaints of cervical,
thoracic, and lumbar pain. Dr. Kauffman diagnosed an acute cervical sprain, lumbar
sprain, and thoracic sprain. He ordered MRIs and, upon review, noted the studies
revealed “no evidence of acute injury and minimal degenerative changes,” which Dr.
Kauffman determined to be “consistent with a pre-existing condition.” Dr. Kauffman
placed Employee at maximum medical improvement on June 17 and released him to full
duty work.
Thereafter, Employee sought unauthorized medical treatment on his own with
certain medical providers who treated him for depression and anxiety, as well as Dr.
Darian Reddick, a neurologist. Dr. Reddick diagnosed Employee with chronic low back
pain and spasm.
At a February 2, 2023 expedited hearing, Employee testified that he was released
from medical care by his providers even though he believed he still needed treatment.
Employee stated that he continued to have severe pain that limited his ability to work and
caused severe depression. He requested another doctor who could provide treatment for
his condition so that he could return to work. Employer responded that Employee was
1
“The appeals board may, in an effort to secure a just and speedy determination of matters on appeal and
with the concurrence of all judges, decide an appeal by an abbreviated order or by memorandum opinion,
whichever the appeals board deems appropriate, in cases that are not legally and/or factually novel or
complex.” Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-22-.03(1) (2020).
2
provided medical treatment with three authorized treating physicians and had received all
workers’ compensation benefits to which he was entitled. In addition, Employer argued
that all treating doctors had released Employee from their care. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the trial court determined Employee had not identified any legal basis that would
justify changing his authorized treating physician and had therefore not established he
would likely prevail at trial on his claim for additional medical benefits. Employee has
appealed.
On his notice of appeal, Employee states “[b]ecause they do not accept the
doctor’s medical recommendations and care they provide to me currently because of the
discomfort, aches, and limitations that I experience after my accident at work. Yes [sic]
the Workers’ Comp Director told me to get medical attention on my own and then
present it [sic].” 2 Employee did not file a brief or offer any argument addressing his issue
on appeal. Moreover, Employee offered no legal explanation of how he believes the trial
court erred. As such, we are unable to discern any factual or legal issues for review. As
stated by the Tennessee Supreme Court, “[i]t is not the role of the courts, trial or
appellate, to research or construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her.” Sneed v.
Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010).
Indeed, were we to search the record for possible errors and raise issues and arguments
for Employee, we would be acting as his counsel, which the law clearly prohibits. See
Webb v. Sherrell, No. E2013-02724-COA-R3-CV, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645, at *5
(Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2015). As mandated by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-
6-239(c)(7), we must presume the trial court’s factual findings are correct unless the
preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.
The court reviewed Employee’s medical records, sworn statements offered into
evidence, and considered Employee’s hearing testimony. The court noted that Employer
furnished authorized medical treatment to Employee and that no proof was offered that
Employee’s authorized physician ever refused to see Employee or that the physician’s
treatment was deficient. Moreover, no provider offered an opinion that Employee’s
condition or current complaints were primarily caused by the work accident. As such, we
discern no error by the trial court.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court and remand the
case. Costs on appeal have been waived.
2
Employee’s Notice of Appeal was submitted in Spanish and translated by the Tennessee Language
Center.
3
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
Raul Morelos Chavez ) Docket No. 2020-05-0797
)
v. ) State File No. 11082-2020
)
Jesus Morelos Chavez, et al. )
)
)
Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )
Compensation Claims )
Dale A. Tipps, Judge )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Appeals Board’s decision in the referenced
case was sent to the following recipients by the following methods of service on this the 12th day
of May, 2023.
Name Certified First Class Via Via Sent to:
Mail Mail Fax Email
Raul Morelos Chavez X morelos96patron@gmail.com
Frederick Hodge X fhodge@howell-fisher.com
nmcintire@howell-fisher.com
Dale A. Tipps, Judge X Via Electronic Mail
Kenneth M. Switzer, Chief Judge X Via Electronic Mail
Penny Shrum, Clerk, Court of X penny.patterson-shrum@tn.gov
Workers’ Compensation Claims
Olivia Yearwood
Clerk, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
220 French Landing Dr., Ste. 1-B
Nashville, TN 37243
Telephone: 615-253-1606
Electronic Mail: WCAppeals.Clerk@tn.gov