Seiber v. Methodist Med

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of theSupreme 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. FACTS: Thelma Seiber (plaintiff), sustained a compensable work-related low back injury on March 28, 1996. She was treated by Dr. Ann Carter, a physician who was authorized by the employer. Dr. Carter referred plaintiff to Dr. Eugenio Vargas, also an authorized physician, who performed two surgeries and sent her back to Dr. Carter for follow-up care. On July 2, 1997, the Court approved the parties' settlement of plaintiff's claim which, among other benefits, provided for continuing medical care by authorized physicians. On July 23, 1997, the employer informed plaintiff's counsel by letter, as pertinent: ". . . As you are aware, Dr. Carter was Mrs. Seiber's family physician even before she sustained an injury at the hospital and Dr. Carter was permitted to continue as the authorized primary care physician in this matter. Mrs. Seiber also continues to see Dr. Carter for her other health problems, and sometimes it is difficult to know exactly what treatment is related to the injury of March 27, 1996, and her other physical and psychological problems. For the above reasons, as well as other reasons of which you are aware,1 I am hereby notifying you on behalf of Methodist Medical Center that Dr. Carter will no longer be recognized as the authorized treating physician for any future medical treatment necessitated by Mrs. Seiber's injury of March 27, 1996. Since the hospital is still responsible for future medical treatment necessitated by her injury, I am giving you the following primary care physicians from which to choose for further medical treatment necessary . . ." Plaintiff's first post-settlement doctor's appointment was scheduled for August 29, 1997. On August 18, 1997, the employer's representative telephoned the employee, told her that Dr. Carter was no longer an authorized 1At oral argument, the employer alluded to another reason for changing physicians but that there were no facts in the record about that reason. 2