Hardy, Tracy v. Hershey Co. , 2019 TN WC 157 ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • FILED
    Oct 31, 2019
    12:02 PM(CT)
    TENNESSEE COURT OF
    WORKERS' COMPENSATION
    CLAIMS
    TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
    IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
    AT MEMPHIS
    TRACIE HARDY, ) Docket No. 2019-08-0120
    Employee, )
    V. )
    HERSHEY CoO., ) State File No. 7237 2019
    Employer, )
    and )
    XL INSURANCE AMERICA, INC., ) Judge Amber Luttrell
    Carrier. )
    COMPENSATION HEARING ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    This Court heard Hershey’s Motion for Summary Judgment on October 16, 2019,
    and for the reasons below holds it is entitled to summary judgment.
    Procedural History
    Ms. Hardy alleged she suffered a respiratory illness diagnosed as asthma and
    chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from her work exposure to chemicals,
    mold, and asbestos. This is her second workers’ compensation claim for the same
    condition.
    In 2017, Ms. Hardy filed a Petition for Benefit Determination for Settlement
    Approval Only alleging an October 2, 2016 injury date, which this Court approved on
    May 18, 2017. On January 30, 2019, Ms. Hardy filed a second Petition for Benefit
    Determination seeking benefits for COPD but alleged an injury date of September 7,
    2016. Hershey denied the claim and asserted multiple defenses, including accord and
    satisfaction and res judicata.
    Following an, expedited hearing, the Court found that Hershey offered sufficient
    evidence to satisfy its accord and satisfaction defense and to establish that res judicata
    barred Ms. Hardy’s claim. Based on those findings, the Court held Ms. Hardy was not
    likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in her claim for workers’ compensation
    1
    benefits.
    Hershey later filed this Motion for Summary Judgment. In response, Ms. Hardy
    filed numerous documents, which she captioned as follows:
    e “Pro Se Employee’s Opposition of Employer’s Motion for Summary
    Judgment with Factual Statements of Undisputed Facts In Support of
    Opposition”
    e “Factual Findings of Facts and Conclusions to Deny Employer
    Summary Judgment Request”
    e “Factual Findings and Valid Conclusions to Deny Employer/Carrier
    Summary Judgment Request.”
    Law and Analysis
    Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, 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.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 (2018).
    As the moving party, Hershey must do one of two things to prevail on its motion:
    (1) submit affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of Ms. Hardy’s claim,
    or (2) demonstrate that Ms. Hardy’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential
    element of her claim. Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-16-101 (2018); see also Rye v. Women’s
    Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 
    477 S.W.3d 235
    , 264 (Tenn. 2015). If Hershey is
    successful in meeting this burden, Ms. Hardy must then establish that the record contains
    specific facts upon which the Court could rule in her favor. Rye, at 265.
    In addition to these requirements, Rule 56.03 provides specific filing requirements
    for both Hershey and Ms. Hardy. Hershey must file a statement of undisputed material
    facts with its motion, ensuring that each fact is accompanied by a citation to the record.
    Likewise, Ms. Hardy must respond to this statement of undisputed facts, indicating she
    agrees the fact is undisputed or demonstrating that the fact is disputed by providing a
    citation the record. Jd.
    Hershey filed a Statement of Undisputed Facts containing thirteen statements with
    citations to the record in compliance with Rule 56.03.
    Ms. Hardy’s response captioned “Pro Se Employee Opposition of Employer’s
    Motion for Summary Judgment with Factual Statements of Undisputed Facts in Support
    of Opposition” listed twenty-one numbered statements followed by some additional
    statements numbered one through eleven. Ms. Hardy’s two other filings did not contain
    any numbered statements. Instead, those responses contained argument, allegations, case
    ps
    law citations, and various exhibits introduced at the expedited hearing or excluded from
    evidence at the expedited hearing on hearsay grounds.
    The Court considers Ms. Hardy’s twenty-one numbered statements in “Pro Se
    Employee Opposition of Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment with Factual
    Statements of Undisputed Fats in Support of Opposition” as her response to Hershey’s
    Statement of Undisputed Facts. Upon review, the Court finds Ms. Hardy agrees with
    Hershey’s statement number one to the extent that she was employed by Hershey. Ms.
    Hardy also appears to agree with Hershey’s statement number three that she was
    previously represented by attorney Monica Rejaei. The Court finds the additional
    statements Ms. Hardy provided in numbers one and three contain no citation to the record
    and are not material to the issue before the Court on summary judgment.
    As for the remainder of Ms. Hardy’s twenty-one responses, the Court finds the
    statements do not respond to Hershey’s statements of undisputed facts as required under
    Rule 56.03. Instead, the statements are Ms. Hardy’s arguments or allegations of fact
    without citations to the record. Our Appeals Board has stated, ““The requirements of Rule
    56 are not mere suggestions. The use of the words ‘must’ and ‘shall’ in Rule 56.03 to
    describe the necessary elements of a motion for summary judgment and any response
    thereto are plain and unambiguous.” Thomas v. Zipp Express, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App.
    Bd. LEXIS 22, at *11 (Mar. 15, 2017). Because Ms. Hardy failed to properly respond to
    the statements, the Court considers Hershey’s thirteen facts undisputed and turns to
    whether summary judgment is “appropriate” under Rule 56.
    The Court finds Hershey affirmatively negated an essential element of Ms.
    Hardy’s claim because the doctrines of accord and satisfaction and res judicata bar Ms.
    Hardy’s cause of action.
    In support of this finding, the undisputed facts show that on May 4, 2017, Ms.
    Hardy, through counsel, filed a Petition for Benefit Determination Settlement Approval
    Only concerning an alleged date of injury of October 2, 2016. She alleged she suffered
    asthma and pulmonary problems caused by her employment at Hershey. Dr. Suzette
    Panton diagnosed Ms. Hardy with COPD in 2016. Following the diagnosis, Ms. Hardy’s
    attorney sent Dr. Panton a causation letter, to which Dr. Panton responded “no” when
    asked if Ms. Hardy’s COPD arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her
    employment. Dr. Panton’s causation opinion prompted Ms. Hardy to enter into a
    settlement agreement with Hershey on a doubtful and disputed basis, and as part of the
    settlement, Hershey paid Ms. Hardy $6,000.
    The undisputed facts further indicate that following an approval hearing attended
    by Ms. Hardy and her counsel, this Court approved the settlement on May 18, 2017,
    finding that Ms. Hardy reached a compromised settlement of her doubtful and disputed
    claim that was in her best interest. Hershey then tendered to Ms. Hardy a $6,000 check as
    3
    “satisfaction and extinction” of Ms. Hardy’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits.
    Ms. Hardy received the settlement proceeds of $6,000 less the amounts deducted by her
    attorney under the terms of representation between Ms. Hardy and her counsel. Ms.
    Hardy further signed Hershey’s Release of Workers’ Compensation Claim and released
    and waived all claims against Hershey for workers’ compensation benefits relative to her
    COPD and asthma condition.
    On January 30, 2019, Ms. Hardy, now self-represented, filed a second Petition for
    Benefit Determination claiming her COPD was work-related and listing a September 7,
    2016 date of injury.
    At the hearing, Hershey correctly noted that the doctrine of accord and satisfaction
    is governed by Tennessee Code Annotated section 47-3-311 (2018). The statute provides:
    (a) If a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that (i) that person
    in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction
    of the claim, (ii) the amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to
    a bona fide dispute, and (iii) the claimant obtained payment of the
    instrument, the following subsections apply.
    (b)... [T]he claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is
    asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written
    communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the
    instrument was tendered as full satisfaction of the claim.
    Hershey argued that the undisputed facts establish the defense of accord and satisfaction,
    so Ms. Hardy must “demonstrate the existence of specific facts in the record which could
    lead a rational trier of fact to find in his favor|.]” Rye, at 265. Further, she must do more
    than simply offer hypothetical evidence; she must produce evidence at this summary
    judgment stage of the case that is sufficient to establish the essential elements of his
    workers’ compensation claim. Jd.
    Here, Ms. Hardy produced no material facts with citations to the record to lead the
    Court to find in her favor. Instead, she noted inaccuracies or typographical errors on the
    Statistical Data Form (SD1) or other documents filed with the 2017 settlement
    documents; she argued that her condition was caused by her work; she argued she was
    mistreated by Hershey; and she expressed dissatisfaction with the attorney who
    represented her in the settlement. She further argued that the October 2, 2016 date of
    injury listed in her settlement documents was incorrect because she stated Dr. Panton
    verbally informed her of her COPD diagnosis one month earlier, on September 7, 2016.
    The Court holds Hershey proved the affirmative defense of accord and
    satisfaction. Without restating the undisputed facts, the Court finds they complied with
    the requirements of section (a) of the statute and that Ms. Hardy’s execution of Hershey’s
    4
    Release of Workers’ Compensation Claim served as the “conspicuous statement” under
    section (b) that the $6,000 was paid as full satisfaction of her claim.
    Further, the Court holds the undisputed facts established Ms. Hardy’s claim is also
    barred by res judicata, which the Appeals Board explained as follows:
    The doctrine of res judicata, also referred to as claim preclusion, bars a
    second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of
    action with respect to all issues which were or could have been litigated in
    the former suit. Courts rely on this doctrine to promote finality in litigation,
    prevent inconsistent or contradictory judgments, conserve legal resources,
    and protect litigants from the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits. The
    doctrine is grounded in public policy which requires an eventual end to
    litigation. Indeed, the doctrine has been described as a “rule of rest.”
    Johnson v. Pilgrim’s Pride, Inc., 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 18, at *3-4 (Feb.
    13, 2017) (internal citations omitted).
    Here, the Court finds its May 18, 2017 Order Approving Workers’ Compensation
    Settlement Agreement was a final order that fully resolved Ms. Hardy’s original claim,
    and both Hershey and Ms. Hardy were parties to that suit. In the present case, it is
    undisputed that Ms. Hardy asserted the same claim—that her COPD diagnosed in 2016
    arose out of her employment at Hershey. Thus, the Court holds Hershey negated an
    essential element of Ms. Hardy’s claim based on the doctrine of res judicata and is
    entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
    For these reasons, Hershey’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and Ms.
    Hardy’s claim is dismissed with prejudice.
    The costs of this case are taxed to Hershey under Tennessee Compilation Rules
    and Regulations 0800-02-21-.06 (August 2019), to be paid to the Court Clerk within five
    business days of this order becoming final. Hershey shall prepare and submit an SD-2
    within ten days of the date of this order. Absent appeal, this order shall become final
    thirty days after entry.
    IT IS ORDERED.
    ENTERED October 31, 2019.
    JUDGE AMBER E. LUTTRELL
    Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
    5
    Exhibits
    —
    ao toe
    APPENDIX
    Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment
    Employer’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Summary Judgment
    Employer’s Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Summary Judgment
    Pro Se Employee’s Opposition of Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment
    with Factual Statements of Undisputed Facts in Support of Opposition
    5. Employee’s Factual Findings of Facts and Conclusions to Deny Employer
    Summary Judgment Request
    6. Employee’s Factual Findings and Valid Conclusions to Deny Employer/Carrier
    Summary Judgment Request
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on October 31 , 2019.
    Name
    USPS
    Email | Service sent to:
    Tracie Hardy, Employee
    xX
    »4 traciehardy49@gmail.com
    5264 Millbranch Rd., Memphis, TN 38116
    Matthew Macaw, Esq.,
    Stephen Miller, Esq.,
    Employer’s Attorneys
    xX smiller@mckuhn.com
    mmacaw(@mckuhn.com
    {if
    SL tyre { J A Ada
    Penny /Shrum, Clerk of Court
    Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
    Compensation Hearing Order Right to Appeal:
    If you disagree with this Compensation Hearing Order, you may appeal to the Workers’
    Compensation Appeals Board or the Tennessee Supreme Court. To appeal to the Workers’
    Compensation Appeals Board, you must:
    |. Complete the enclosed form entitled: “Compensation Hearing Notice of Appeal,” and file
    the form with the Clerk of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims within thirty
    calendar days of the date the compensation hearing order was filed. When filing the
    Notice of Appeal, you must serve a copy upon the opposing party (or attorney, if
    represented).
    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 filing fee. You must file the fully-
    completed Affidavit of Indigency with'n 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 your 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. A licensed court
    reporter must prepare a transcript and file it with the court clerk within fifteen calendar
    days of the filing the Notice of Appeal. Alternatively, you may file a statement of the
    evidence prepared jointly by both parties within fifteen calendar 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
    of the evidence before the record is s-hmitted 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. After the Workers’ Compensation Judge 2pproves the record and the court clerk transmits
    it to the Appeals Board, a docketing notice will be sent to the parties. The appealing
    party has fifieen calendar days after the date of that notice to submit a brief to the
    Appeals Board. See the Practices and Procedures of the Workers’ Compensation
    Appeals Board.
    To appeal your case directly to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Compensation Hearing
    Order must be final and you must comply with the Tennessee Rules of Appellate
    Procedure. If neither party timely files an appeal with the Appeals Board, the trial court’s
    Order will become final by operation of law thirty calendar days after entry. See Tenn.
    Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(7).
    For selj-represented litigants: Help from an Ombudsman is available at 800-332-2667.
    Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
    220 French Landing Drive, I-B
    Nashville, TN 37243-1002
    800-332-2667
    AFFIDAVIT G¥ INDEGENCY
    I, , Naving 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 All Dependents:
    Relationship:
    meationship:
    Reiattionship:
    Relationship:
    6. lam employed by:
    My employer's address is:
    My employer's phone number is:
    7. My present monthly household income, after federal insarna and social security taxes are deducted, is:
    $
    8. | receive or expect to receive money from the following scurces:
    AFDC $ per month beginning -
    SSI $ per month beginning
    Retirement $ per month beginning
    Disability $ per month beginning
    Unemployment $ per month dagiesing .
    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 S$ 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 $ __ (Flv)
    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
    LB-1103
    COMPENSATION HEARING NOTICE OF APPEAL
    Tennessee Division of Workers’ Compensation
    wav. tr pov/labarwid/weomp.shtnil
    wc.courtclerk@tn.gov
    1-800-332-2667
    Docket #:
    State File #/YR:
    Employee
    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:
    List of Parties
    Appellant (Requesting Party): __At Hearing:|_JEmployerL_ Employee
    Address:
    Party’s Phone: __Emai!:
    Attorney’s Name: BPR#:
    Attorney’s Address: Phone:
    Attorney’s City, State & Zip code:
    Attorney’s Email:
    * Attach an additional sheet for gach additional Appellant *
    rev, 10/18 Page 1 of 2 RDA 11082
    Employee Name: SF#: DOI:
    Appellee(s)
    Appellee (Opposing Party):__ At Hearing:[_Employer__lEmployee
    Appetlee’s Address:
    Appellee’s Phone: Email:
    Attorney’s Name: BPR#:
    Attorney’s Address: Phone:
    Attorney’s City, State & Zip code:
    Attorney’s Ernail:
    * Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellee *
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I, , certify that | have forwarded a true and exact copy of this
    Compensation 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 onthisthe —s_ day of , 20
    [Signature of appellant or attorney for appellant]
    Attention: This form should only be used when filing an appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals
    Board. If you wish to appeal a case to the Tennessee Stspreme Court, please utilize the form provided by
    the Court which can be found on their website at the following address:
    http://www. tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/docs/notice of appeal - civil or criminal.pdf
    LB-1103 rev. 10/18 Page 2 of 2 RDA 11082
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2019-08-0120

Citation Numbers: 2019 TN WC 157

Judges: Amber E. Luttrell

Filed Date: 10/31/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/10/2021