Stephens, Tonya Lynn v. Quality Private Care d/b/a Volunteer Staffing, Inc. , 2019 TN WC 85 ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • FILED
    May 24, 2019
    08:50 AM(CT)
    TENNESSEE COURT OF
    WORKERS' COMPENSATION
    CLAIMS
    TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
    IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
    AT KNOXVILLE
    TONYA LYNN STEPHENS, ) Docket No.: 2018-03-1494
    Employee, )
    V. )
    QUALITY PRIVATE CARE d/b/a ) State File No. 59534-2016
    VOLUNTEER STAFFING, INC., )
    Employer, )
    And )
    BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY ) Judge Lisa A. Lowe
    INSURANCE COMPANY, )
    Carrier. )
    EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER GRANTING BENEFITS
    DECISION-ON-THE-RECORD
    This matter came before the Court on Ms. Stephens’s Request for Expedited
    Hearing (REH). She asked that the Court issue its decision based on a review of the
    record without convening an in-person hearing. Quality Private Care (QPC) objected to a
    record review and requested an in-person hearing. Based on the limited medical issues
    involved, the Court overruled the objection, issued a Docketing Notice, and gave the
    parties until May 7 to file objections and/or position statements.
    When Ms. Stephens filed her REH, she sought various treatments ordered by her
    authorized treating physician, Dr. David Newman, including: medial branch blocks;
    spinal cord stimulator; right shoulder injection; G.I. evaluation; and compounded creams.
    After she filed the REH, QPC agreed to authorize all of the treatments except the
    compound creams. Therefore, the legal issue is whether Ms. Stephens is likely to prevail
    at a hearing on the merits in proving entitlement to the compounded creams. For the
    reasons set forth below, the Court holds Ms. Stephens would likely prevail and orders
    QPC to provide the compound creams.
    History of Claim
    QPC provided in-home nursing for homebound patients and employed Ms.
    Stephens as a Licensed Practical Nurse. While transferring a patient to a bed in August
    2016, Ms. Stephens felt a pop in her left shoulder and experienced pain shooting down
    her left arm into her wrist and fingers. She also felt pain in her neck, back, left hip, and
    pain and numbness down her left lower extremity. Ms. Stephens notified her supervisor
    and wrote a statement that day. She also completed QPC’s Statement of Injured
    Worker’s Form.
    Ms. Stephens initially underwent conservative treatment, but after continued pain
    and an MRI, QPC provided a panel of orthopedic surgeons. Ms. Stephens chose Dr.
    William Hovis, who diagnosed her with a rotator cuff tear and SLAP lesion. He
    recommended surgery, which he performed in November. Due to Ms. Stephens’s post-
    surgery pain complaints, Dr. Hovis ordered a left shoulder arthrogram and performed
    another surgery after reviewing the arthrogram results.
    After the second surgery, Ms. Stephens experienced sensitivity symptoms, and Dr.
    Hovis diagnosed possible complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). He recommended a
    stellate ganglion block, and Ms. Stephens underwent two of those without much
    improvement. After Dr. Hovis recommended a third block, Ms. Stephens refused and
    elected to concentrate on physical therapy. She last saw Dr. Hovis in November 2017,
    and he referred her for evaluation with a shoulder specialist, Dr. Sean Grace.
    Dr. Grace, sent Ms. Stephens for another shoulder MRI. After the MRI, Dr. Grace
    diagnosed Ms. Stephens with CRPS and recommended evaluation with Dr. Robert
    Lavelle for possible sympathetic nerve blocks.
    Instead of scheduling an appointment with Dr. Lavelle, QPC circulated another
    panel of physicians. Ms. Stephens chose Dr. David Newman, a pain management
    specialist, as her authorized physician. Dr. Newman evaluated Ms. Stephens and
    confirmed her diagnoses of CRPS, lumbar facet syndrome, and dysthymic disorder. As
    part of his treatment plan, he prescribed various things, including the following
    compounded creams: Gabapentin, 3%; Ketoprofen, 2%; Lidocaine, 2.5%; Bupivicaine,
    2.5%; and Ketamine, 15%.
    On April 18, 2018, QPC submitted Dr. Newman’s orders to Utilization Review
    (UR) with Dr. Mahajan, who denied the recommended treatment based on his opinion
    that Ms. Stephens did not have CRPS. Concerning the compounded creams, Dr. Mahajan
    noted that topical analgesics are largely experimental and have few trials to determine
    efficacy and safety. Further, he stated that the compounded creams are primarily
    recommended when trials of antidepressants and anticonvulsants have failed and there
    was no indication that the Gabapentin and Cymbalta Ms. Stephens took had failed. On
    2
    September 18, 2018, QPC submitted the compounded creams to UR for a second time.
    Again, Dr. Mahajan found the compounded creams not medically necessary.
    Dr. Neman somewhat disagreed with the effectiveness of the Cymbalta. In
    response to a letter, he wrote that Ms. Stephens’s Cymbalta helped with anxiety and sleep
    but not her pain and that the compounded cream plus her Cymbalta is an effective
    medication combination for CRPS.
    Later, Dr. Newman again recommended a spinal cord stimulator trial, right-
    shoulder steroid-injection, compounded creams and GI evaluation. QPC submitted the
    spinal cord stimulator treatment to UR on January 2, 2019, and this time Dr. Mahajan
    said Ms. Stephens had symptoms consistent with CRPS and that the previously denied
    spinal cord stimulator trial was now medically necessary and appropriate. Dr. Mahajan’s
    report did not address the medical necessity of Dr. Newman’s other recommended
    treatment.
    Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
    Ms. Stephens need not prove every element of her claim by a preponderance of the
    evidence to obtain relief. McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk.
    Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015). Instead, she must present
    sufficient evidence to prove she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. Jd.; Tenn.
    Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2018).
    Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(1)(A) provides that “[t]he
    employer or the employer’s agent shall furnish, free of charge to the employee, such
    medical and surgical treatment . . . made reasonably necessary by accident as defined in
    this chapter.” Moreover, “treatment recommended by a physician . . . selected pursuant
    to [§ 50-6-204(a)(3)] or by referral, if applicable, shall be presumed to be medically
    necessary for treatment of the injured employee Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-204(a)(3)(H). . .
    and shall be rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence that the recommended
    treatment substantially deviates from the guidelines[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-
    204(a)(3)(1); see also Morgan v. Macy’s, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. ADB: Bd. LEXIS 39, at
    *17 (Aug. 31, 2016).
    Here, the panel-selected physician, Dr. Newman, recommended compounded
    creams to treat Ms. Stephens’s symptoms. The UR physician, Dr. Mahajan, originally
    denied all of Dr. Newman’s treatment recommendations, including the compounded
    creams, because he did not think Ms. Stephens had CRPS, despite the CRPS diagnosis
    from Drs. Newman, Hovis, and Grace. Upon resubmission, Dr. Mahajan changed his
    mind and found Ms. Stephens did have CRPS. While he agreed that certain treatments
    were medically necessary, he did not address the compounded creams.
    The Court faces conflicting medical opinions from Dr. Mahajan and Dr. Newman.
    A trial judge “has the discretion to conclude that the opinion of one expert should be
    accepted over that of another expert.” Bass v. The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2017 TN
    Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 36, at *9 (May 26, 2017). As stated by the Tennessee
    Supreme Court, “When faced . . . with conflicting medical testimony . . . it is within the
    discretion of the trial judge to conclude that the opinion of certain experts should be
    accepted over that of other experts and that it contains the more probable explanation.”
    Thomas v. Aetna Life and Cas. Co., 
    812 S.W.2d 278
    , 283 (Tenn. 1991) (internal
    quotation marks omitted).
    Dr. Mahajan reviewed Ms. Stephens’s medical records and consulted treatment
    guidelines but never personally evaluated her. In contrast, Dr. Newman has been treating
    Ms. Stephens since April 13, 2018. Moreover, as the panel-selected authorized treating
    physician, Dr. Newman’s treatment recommendations enjoy a presumption of being
    medically necessary. The Court concludes Dr. Newman is in the better position to make
    treatment recommendations for Ms. Stephens and that Dr. Mahajan’s April 18, 2018 UR
    report fails to rebut those recommendations by clear and convincing evidence. In fact,
    QPC did not ask Dr. Mahajan’s opinion about the compounded creams after he concluded
    that Ms. Stephens does in fact have CRPS.
    A UR denial decision remains effective for six months, which means Dr.
    Mahajan’s second September 18, 2018 denial was in effect until March 18, 2019, under
    Rule 0800-02-06.06 (7)(a) of the Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations. On
    April 1, 2019, it appears that Dr. Newman again prescribed the compounded creams.
    QPC did not provide a UR decision following that order. Therefore, Dr. Newman’s
    compounded cream treatment-recommendation is presumed medically necessary.
    Based on this, this Court concludes Ms. Stephens presented sufficient evidence
    that she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in proving entitlement to the
    recommended compounded creams.
    IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:
    1. Quality Private Care:shall provide Ms. Stephens with the compounded creams
    recommended by Dr. David Newman.
    2. This matter is set for a Scheduling Hearing on July 8, 2019, at 10:30 a.m.
    Eastern Time. The parties must call (865) 594-0109 or (toll-free) (855) 383-0003
    to participate in the Scheduling Hearing. Failure to appear by telephone may
    result in a determination of the issues without your further participation.
    3. Unless interlocutory appeal of the Expedited Hearing Order is filed, compliance
    with this Order must occur no later than seven business days from the date of entry
    4
    a eS be -
    7.
    8.
    9.
    of this Order as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(3).
    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 seventh business day after entry of this Order. Failure to submit the
    necessary confirmation within the period of compliance may result in a penalty
    assessment for non-compliance.
    ENTERED on May 24, 2019.
    uae A Ws\u/
    LISA A. LOWE, JUDGE
    Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
    APPENDIX
    The Court reviewed the following documents:
    Petition for Benefit Determination
    First Report of Work Injury
    Dispute Certification Notice
    Request for Expedited Hearing
    Tonya Lynn Stephens’s Exhibit List
    Affidavit of Tonya L. Stephens with handwritten statement and Summit’s
    Statement of Injuries Form
    Medical Records of Dr. William Hovis
    Medical Records of Dr. Sean Grace
    Medical Records of Dr. David Newman
    10. Utilization Review Determination of Dr. Nakal Mahajan, dated April 18, 2018
    11. Questionnaire to Dr. David Neman, dated November 7, 2018
    12. Opinion of Dr. David Newman, dated December 5, 2018
    13. Correspondence of Attorney Kohlbusch
    14. January 3, 2019 Utilization Review Determination of Dr. Nakal Mahajan
    15. Affidavit of Attorney Jay Kohlbusch
    16. QPC’s Objection to Request for Decision on the Record
    17. Order Overruling Objection to On-The-Record Determination
    18. QPC’s Amended Objection to On-The-Record Determination
    19. Response to QPC’s Amended Objection, including Ms. Stephens’s Request for
    Attorney’s Fee
    20. Order Overruling Amended Objection to On-The-Record Determination
    21.QPC’s Response to Expedited Hearing Brief
    22. Table of Contents for and various medical records provided by QPC
    23. Amended Docketing Notice for On-The-Record Determination
    5
    24.Employee’s Response to Employer’s Expedited Hearing
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I certify that a true and correct copy of the Expedited Hearing Order was sent to
    the following recipients by the following methods of service on May 24, 2019.
    Amy Brown,
    Employer’s Attorneys
    Name Certified | Fax | Email | Service sent to:
    Mail
    Jay Kohlbusch, Xx Kohlbuschlaw@hotmail.com
    Employee’s Attorney
    Nicholas J. Peterson, x nick.peterson@petersonwhite.com
    amy.brown@petersonwhite.com
    Ling ll eames
    PENNY %FiRUM, Court Clerk
    WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov
    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: “Expedited Hearing 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.
    LB-1099
    EXPEDITED HEARING NOTICE OF APPEAL
    Tennessee Division of Workers’ Compensation
    www. tn.gov/labor-wid/weomp.shtml
    wce.courtclerk@tn.gov
    1-800-332-2667
    Docket #:
    State File #/YR:
    Employee
    Vv.
    Employer
    Notice
    Notice is given that
    [List name(s) of all appealing party(ies) on separate sheet if necessary]
    appeals the order(s) of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims at
    to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals
    Board. [List the date(s) the order(s) was filed in the court clerk’s office]
    Judge
    Statement of the Issues
    Provide a short and plain statement of the issues on appeal or basis for relief on appeal:
    Additional Information
    Type of Case [Check the most appropriate item]
    L] Temporary disability benefits
    L] Medical benefits for current injury
    LC Medical benefits under prior order issued by the Court
    List of Parties
    Appellant (Requesting Party): At Hearing: LJEmployer LJEmployee
    Address:
    Party’s Phone: Email:
    Attorney's Name: BPR#:
    Attorney’s Address: Phone:
    Attorney's City, State & Zip code:
    Attorney’s Email:
    * Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellant *
    rev. 10/18 Page 1 of 2 RDA 11082
    Employee Name: SF#: DOI:
    Appellee(s)
    Appellee (Opposing Party): At Hearing: L]JEmployer LJEmployee
    Appellee’s Address:
    Appellee’s Phone: Email:
    Attorney’s Name: BPR#:
    Attorney’s Address: Phone:
    Attorney’s City, State & Zip code:
    Attorney’s Email:
    * Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellee *
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I,
    Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal by First Class, United States Mail, postage prepaid, to all parties
    and/or their attorneys in this case in accordance with Rule 0800-02-22.01(2) of the Tennessee Rules
    of Board of Workers’ Compensation Appeals on this the day of , 20
    , certify that | have forwarded a true and exact copy of this
    [Signature of appellant or attorney for appellant]
    LB-1099 rev. 10/18 Page 2 of 2 RDA 11082
    Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
    220 French Landing Drive, I-B
    Nashville, TN 37243-1002
    800-332-2667
    AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY
    I, , having been duly sworn according to law, make oath that
    because of my poverty, | am unable to bear the costs of this appeal and request that the filing fee to appeal be
    waived. The following facts support my poverty.
    1. Full Name: 2. Address:
    3. Telephone Number: 4. Date of Birth:
    5. Names and Ages of Ail Dependents:
    Relationship:
    Relationship:
    Relationship:
    Relationship:
    6. lam employed by:
    My employer’s address is:
    My employer’s phone number is:
    7. My present monthly household income, after federal income and social security taxes are deducted, is:
    $
    8. | receive or expect to receive money from the following sources:
    AFDC $ per month beginning
    ssl $ per month beginning
    Retirement $ per month beginning
    Disability $ per month beginning
    Unemployment $ per month beginning
    Worker's Comp.$ per month beginning
    Other $ per month beginning
    LB-1108 (REV 11/15) RDA 11082
    9. My expenses are:
    Rent/House Payment $ permonth Medical/Dental $ per month
    Groceries $ per month Telephone $ per month
    Electricity $ per month School Supplies $ per month
    Water $ per month Clothing $ per month
    Gas $ per month Child Care $ per month
    Transportation $ per month Child Support $ per month
    Car $ per month
    Other $ per month (describe: )
    10. Assets:
    Automobile $ (FMV)
    Checking/Savings Acct. $
    House $ __ (FMV)
    Other $ Describe:
    11. My debts are:
    Amount Owed To Whom
    | hereby declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing answers are true, correct, and complete
    and that I am financially unable to pay the costs of this appeal.
    APPELLANT
    Sworn and subscribed before me, a notary public, this
    day of , 20
    NOTARY PUBLIC
    My Commission Expires:
    LB-1108 (REV 11/15) RDA 11082
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2018-03-1494

Citation Numbers: 2019 TN WC 85

Judges: Lisa A. Lowe

Filed Date: 5/24/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/10/2021