McWherter, Jacquet v. Centurion Stone Products , 2017 TN WC 144 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •            TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
    IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
    AT NASHVILLE
    JACQUET MCWHERTER,                         )
    Employee,                          )   Docket No. 2015-06-0093
    )
    v.                                         )
    )
    CENTURION STONE PRODUCTS,                  )   State File No. 16559-2015
    Employer,                          )
    and                                        )
    )
    AMERISURE,                                 )   Judge Joshua Davis Baker
    Insurance Carrier.                  )
    )
    COMPENSATION HEARING ORDER GRANTING
    MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    This matter came before the Court on July 24, 2017, upon the Motion for
    Summary Judgment filed by Centurion Stone Products under Rule 56 of the Tennessee
    Rules of Civil Procedure. The determinative legal issue is whether Centurion is entitled
    to summary judgment as a matter of law because Mr. McWherter did not suffer an injury
    in the course and scope of his employment. Mr. McWherter did not file a response to
    Centurion’s Motion and did not attend the hearing. The Court grants the Motion for
    Summary Judgment.
    History of Claim
    Mr. McWherter alleged a tow motor ran over his right foot while working at
    Centurion. Centurion initially provided medical treatment but later denied the claim. Mr.
    McWherther then requested an expedited hearing seeking medical treatment and
    temporary disability benefits. Following an evidentiary hearing, this Court denied Mr.
    McWherter’s request for temporary disability and medical benefits upon finding his
    testimony lacked credibility:
    Here, Mr. McWherter was hesitant, evasive, defensive, and argumentative.
    He interrupted both defense counsel and witnesses and continually
    mumbled his responses in cross examination, directing defense counsel to
    “move on” when he did not want to answer. Other times, his recalcitrant
    demeanor and unresponsiveness motivated defense counsel to move on
    voluntarily. Many of Mr. McWherter’s answers were unreasonable, such
    as claiming to see a tire track on his foot and forgetting facts inconvenient
    to his claim.
    Mr. McWherter appealed the denial and the Appeals Board upheld this Court’s decision.
    Thereafter, Centurion moved for summary judgment citing the following material facts:1
    1. Mr. McWherter alleged a tow motor weighing between seven and eight thousand
    pounds ran over his right foot while he worked at Centurion on March 25, 2015.
    2. Mr. McWherter received treatment from Concentra, which he chose from a panel.
    3. Concentra’s examination revealed some pain and mild swelling but no other
    apparent injury; x-rays were normal.
    4. Despite allegedly having been run over by a tow motor, Mr. McWherter slept in
    the exam room and lobby. The medical provider determined he needed no further
    testing and no additional treatment.
    5. The attending physician diagnosed a minor injury but offered no treatment other
    than ibuprofen and a cold pack.
    6. After this initial visit with Centurion, providers placed him at maximum medical
    improvement, assigned no impairment and recommended no further care for his
    alleged work place injury.
    7. (Omitted.)
    8. Mr. McWherter returned to work for four weeks after March 25, 2015, and
    exhibited no signs of injury while doing his job. Centurion terminated Mr.
    McWherter.
    9. After his termination, Mr. McWherter returned to Centurion on two occasions
    requesting that he be allowed to return to work.
    10. Mr. McWherter had a foot x-ray on May 11, 2015. The results were normal.
    In its motion, Centurion argued Mr. McWherter cannot prove that he suffered an injury
    arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment at a compensation
    hearing.
    Legal Principles and Analysis
    Motions for summary judgment are governed by Tennessee Rule of Civil
    Procedure 56.04, which provides for entry of summary judgment when “the pleadings,
    1
    For brevity, the Court summarized the statements and omitted several not pertinent to its ruling on this motion.
    2
    depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
    affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
    moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Further, the Tennessee
    General Assembly codified the burden of proof in summary judgment motions as
    follows:
    In motions for summary judgment in any civil action in Tennessee, the
    moving party who does not bear the burden of proof at trial shall prevail on
    its motion for summary judgment if it:
    (1) Submits affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the
    nonmoving party’s claim; or
    (2) Demonstrates to the court that the nonmoving party’s evidence is
    insufficient to establish an essential element of the nonmoving party’s
    claim.
    Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-16-101 (2016); Payne v. D and D Elec., 2016 TN Wrk. Comp.
    App. Bd. LEXIS 21, at *7-8 (May 4, 2016).
    If the moving party meets its burden of negating an essential element or
    demonstrating evidence is insufficient, then the injured employee, as the nonmoving
    party, must “demonstrate the existence of specific facts in the record which could lead a
    rational trier of fact to find in [his or her] favor[.]” Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of
    Memphis, MPLLC, 
    477 S.W.3d 235
    , 265 (Tenn. 2015). Thus, if Centurion meets its
    burden of proof, Mr. McWherter must do more than simply show some “metaphysical
    doubt” as to the material facts. In other words, the Court must focus on any evidence Mr.
    McWherter presents at the summary judgment stage, “not on hypothetical evidence that
    theoretically could be adduced [by him] . . . at a future trial.”
    Id. The Court holds
    that
    Centurion met its burden of proving Mr. McWherter cannot establish an essential element
    of his case—the occurrence of an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and
    scope of his employment. The Court further holds that Mr. McWherter failed to present
    evidence sufficient to support rebut this holding.
    Under the Workers’ Compensation Law, an “injury” means “an injury by accident
    . . . arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, that causes death,
    disablement, or the need for medical treatment of the employee[.]” To constitute a viable
    claim for workers’ compensation benefits the injury must be “by a specific incident, or
    set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.”
    Further, “[a]n injury arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment
    only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment
    contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes[.]”
    3
    See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2016). The material facts cited by Centurion show
    that Mr. McWherter did not suffer a workplace injury.
    In its statement of material facts, Centurion noted that Mr. McWherter claimed
    that a tow motor, a machine weighing between seven and eight thousand pounds, ran over
    his foot. Despite this extremely heavy machine having run over his foot, Mr. McWherter
    showed no signs of distress while being transported for medical attention at Concentra
    and even fell asleep in the waiting room. When Concentra providers examined Mr.
    McWherter, they found no signs of physical injury other than mild swelling of the right
    forefoot. All x-rays were normal, and the medical staff determined Mr. McWherter
    needed no further treatment. As the Court stated in its expedited hearing order denying
    benefits, “the Court finds it difficult to believe that a machine estimated to weigh more
    than seven thousand pounds caused only mild swelling upon running over Mr.
    McWherter’s foot.” Based on these material facts, which are undisputed, the Court finds
    that Centurion carried its burden of negating an essential element of Mr. McWherter’s
    claim. In this Court’s opinion, the facts show that Mr. McWherter did not suffer an
    injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. In order to
    avoid summary judgment, Mr. McWherter now must provide some evidence to rebut this
    finding.
    Mr. McWherter, however, failed to respond to Centurion’s motion. In fact, the
    only evidence the Court has seen tending to prove that Mr. McWherter suffered an injury
    came from his own testimony at the expedited hearing. For completeness, the Court
    refers to its original order cited above for its impression of Mr. McWherter’s testimony.
    Accordingly, the Court did not place any weight on his testimony from the expedited
    hearing and declines to give that testimony any weight in this motion hearing.
    Centurion complied with Rule 56’s requirements. It also complied with this
    Court’s rule by providing a copy of Rule 56 to Mr. McWherter. He failed to respond and
    failed to provide any evidence that he suffered an injury that arose primarily out of and in
    the course and scope of his employment. As noted in Rye, “[t]he focus is on the evidence
    the nonmoving party comes forward with at the summary judgment stage, not on
    hypothetical evidence that theoretically could be adduced…at a future trial.”
    Id. at 265
    (emphasis added). Therefore, the Court holds Mr. McWherter failed to “demonstrate the
    existence of specific facts in the record which could lead a rational trier of fact to find in
    [his] favor.”
    Id. Accordingly, the Court
    grants Centurion’s Motion.
    IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:
    1. Centurion’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
    2. Mr. McWherter’s claim is dismissed with prejudice.
    4
    3. The Court assesses the $150 filing fee to Centurion pursuant to Tennessee
    Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.07 (2017), for which
    execution may issue as necessary.
    4. Absent an appeal of this order by either party, the order shall become final
    thirty days after its issuance.
    ENTERED ON THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2017.
    ____________________________________
    Judge Joshua Davis Baker
    Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
    5
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Order was sent to the
    following recipients by the following methods of service on this the ___  28th day of July,
    2017.
    Name                  Certified    Via    Via   Addresses
    Mail         Fax    Email
    Jacquet                                     X   215 Tanglewood Ct.
    McWherter                                       Nashville, TN 37211
    Fredjones182@gmail.com
    Stephen Morton,                             X   Stephen.morton@mgclaw.com
    Attorney for
    Employer
    _____________________________________
    Penny Shrum, Clerk
    Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
    WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2015-06-0093

Citation Numbers: 2017 TN WC 144

Judges: Joshua Davis Baker

Filed Date: 7/28/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/10/2021