In Delta Everett v. Lifestyle Staffing, The Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board finds that trial courts may apply work restrictions retroactively.
Link to Appellate Board Decision:
Significance of Case:
This case shows that an injured worker can collect temporary total disability after getting her doctor to backdate her work restrictions. Temporary total disability is the money that the employee receives while recovering from her work-related injury.
Background:
In this interlocutory appeal, the employer, Lifestyle Staffing, challenged the trial court’s decision to award temporary disability benefits to the employee, Delta Everett, following a work-related injury. The central issue was whether the trial court properly relied on the medical opinion of Dr. Patrick Bolt, the employee’s authorized treating physician, who concluded that Everett was unable to work due to the injury. The employer argued that Dr. Bolt’s opinion was contradicted by earlier medical assessments and that Everett should not have been entitled to benefits since she did not return to work after being offered light-duty employment.
Factual Background:
Delta Everett sustained a work-related injury on January 26, 2023, while lifting and twisting to re-stack pallets. She was initially seen by Dr. Bryan Thompson, who diagnosed her with neck and back pain and imposed work restrictions, including no driving and limited standing or walking. Based on these restrictions, the employer offered Everett light-duty work, which she accepted. However, Everett did not return to work, claiming that she needed transportation assistance due to her driving restriction, but the employer did not accommodate this request.
Most Significant Facts:
Subsequent medical evaluations included an MRI and referrals to specialists, with Everett ultimately seeing Dr. Patrick Bolt, an orthopedic surgeon selected from a panel provided by the employer. Dr. Bolt opined that Everett should have been completely restricted from working from the date of the accident until his examination in January 2024, and that she should follow light-duty restrictions thereafter. Despite the employer’s position that Everett had failed to return to the offered light-duty work, Everett filed a claim for temporary disability benefits, relying on Dr. Bolt’s unrefuted opinion.
Legal Issues:
The central issue on appeal was whether the trial court correctly relied on Dr. Bolt’s opinion in awarding temporary disability benefits to Everett. Specifically, the employer contested the unrefuted nature of Dr. Bolt’s opinion, citing prior medical opinions and arguing that the employee’s failure to return to work should affect her eligibility for benefits.
Legal Analysis and Court’s Ruling:
Temporary Disability Benefits Criteria:
Under Tennessee workers’ compensation law, to qualify for temporary disability benefits, an employee must prove that:
- She became disabled from working due to a compensable injury.
- There is a causal connection between the injury and her inability to work.
- The duration of the disability is established (Jones v. Crencor Leasing and Sales, 2015).
Dr. Bolt, as the employee’s authorized treating physician, concluded that Everett should have been completely restricted from work from the date of the accident through January 19, 2024, and on light-duty restrictions thereafter. The trial court accepted Dr. Bolt’s opinion as credible and unrefuted, particularly since the employer did not take steps to challenge it, such as by deposing Dr. Bolt or offering rebuttal testimony.
Employer’s Failure to Challenge Dr. Bolt’s Opinion:
The Appeals Board rejected the employer’s argument that Dr. Bolt’s opinion was contradicted by Dr. Thompson’s earlier assessments. While Dr. Thompson had assigned certain work restrictions, Dr. Bolt, an orthopedic surgeon, was considered more qualified to assess the employee’s condition. The employer did not challenge Dr. Bolt’s conclusions by requesting a deposition or submitting additional expert testimony. As the authorized treating physician, Dr. Bolt’s opinion carried substantial weight, and the trial court had discretion to favor his assessment (Moore v. Beacon Transport, 2021).
Expedited Hearing Standard:
In expedited hearings, the standard of proof is not as stringent as at trial. The court only needs to determine whether the employee is likely to prevail at a full trial (McKim v. Stansell Electric Co., 2023). The trial court’s decision to award temporary disability benefits was based on Dr. Bolt’s unrefuted opinion, meeting the standard of likelihood for success at trial. The Appeals Board found no error in the trial court’s application of this standard.
Employer’s Duty to Provide Evidence:
The employer offered light-duty work consistent with the restrictions provided by Dr. Thompson. However, the court ruled that Dr. Bolt’s more restrictive opinion superseded Dr. Thompson’s earlier recommendations. The employer failed to offer evidence that would undermine Dr. Bolt’s assessment, leading the court to conclude that the employee was likely entitled to the requested benefits.
Frivolous Appeal:
Everett argued that the employer’s appeal was frivolous and requested attorneys’ fees and costs. The Appeals Board disagreed, finding that the appeal, although unsuccessful, was not without merit or solely intended for delay. As such, the request for attorneys’ fees was denied (Yarbrough v. Protective Servs. Co., 2016).
Outcome:
The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court’s decision to award temporary disability benefits to Delta Everett. The case was remanded for further proceedings, and costs on appeal were taxed to the employer.
This case underscores that a court may take new work restrictions and apply those restrictions backward in time to provide an injured worker temporary benefits.
Reach out to a Knoxville workers’ compensation attorney or a Knoxville workplace injury lawyer from The Lawyers of Brown & Roberto for legal assistance with your particular case.