Roddy v. Spring

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee alleged injury to her back when she lifted a bolt of cloth at work. The trial court found that her back condition was caused by a work related accident and awarded 45 percent permanent partial vocational disability and medical expenses, including those of the treating surgeon, which were unauthorized. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. On Saturday, August 8, 1992, the employee, Robbin Roddy, was inspecting rolls of fabric at work when a co-worker brought her an unusually heavy roll to work with. When she threw the roll up in a bin, her back "just popped." She reported the injury to her supervisor, James Hood, who went with her to the office where they completed an injury report. Hood then sent her home. She was aware that the company posted at the work site a list of three doctors from whom she could choose. On the following Monday she went to the Family Medical Center, to the office of one of those doctors, Dr. Richard R. Jost, where she and her family had been seen in the past for routine medical care. It is uncontested that the employee never saw Dr. Jost for examination, evaluation, treatment or assessment of disability for this injury. For all of her treatment she saw Mr. Robert Wayne Harrison, a certified physician's assistant employed and supervised by Dr. Jost. The record indicates that apparently the employee was accustomed to referring to the physician's assistant as "Dr. Rob." In fact, the record shows that counsel for the defendant occasionally referred to him as "Dr. Harrison." When asked about his role in the treatment of the employee, Mr. Harrison testified that he is "permitted to do all aspects of medical care with the exception of write prescriptions. That's actually been changed by statute at the present, but at the time in question, I guess we're dealing with a record of 1992, so at that time the statute did not allow prescription writing." 2