John Sands v. Murray Outdoor Products, Inc.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Worker's Compensation Panel of the Supreme Court inaccordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e) for a hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff has appealed contending that the trial court erred in granting the defendant a motion to dismiss his complaint pursuant to Rule 41, Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, for a work-related injury occurring on October 6, 1998. After a review of the entire record, briefs of the parties and applicable law, judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court is Reversed and Remanded. L. TERRY LAFFERTY, SR. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., joined. Ricky L. Boren, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant, John Sands. J. Arthur Crews, II and Michael A. Carter, for the appellee, Murray Outdoor Products, Inc. MEMORANDUM OPINION The plaintiff, age forty (4), testified that on April 29, 1997, while pulling a load of engines, he twisted his back and it popped. The plaintiff reported his injury and he was treated by Dr. John Holancin, but Workers' Compensation sent the plaintiff to see Dr. David Johnson who ran an MRI. The plaintiff lost no work and was on light duty for six (6) weeks. Between his return to work and October 1998, the plaintiff's back would lock up and his legs would tingle from prolonged standing about three to four times a month. The plaintiff stated that on October 6, 1998, he was picking up a unit off the floor to set it on the line, when his back went out and he hit the floor in pain. The plaintiff saw Dr. Holancin, who ordered a CT scan. At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff was referred to Dr. John Brophy. The plaintiff stated that he was restricted in his ability to do any lifting or bending while on light duty. The plaintiff testified that he saw Dr. Robert Barnett and that Dr. Barnett's nurse took down his history. When asked if he told the nurse about the October 1998 injury, the plaintiff stated, "I believe I did." In several parts of his testimony, the plaintiff is sure that he told the nurse about his October injury and cannot explain why such event is not recorded in her intake notes. The plaintiff admitted that while talking to Dr. Barnett he did not tell Dr. Barnett about the October injury. In his deposition, Dr. John D. Brophy, a neurosurgeon, testified that he first saw the plaintiff on January 6, 1999. Dr. Brophy obtained the plaintiff's historyin which the plaintiff injured his back in April 1997, while pulling a load of engines at work. An MRI was within normal limits. After conservative treatment, the plaintiff described approximately a twenty percent (2%) improvement from his injury. In October 1998, the plaintiff re-injured his back from lifting a lawn mower. Dr. Brophy reviewed the films of a CAT scan which revealed a bulging disc at L-5 S- 1. Dr. Brophy would not call this bulge a "ruptured disc." It was Dr. Brophy's opinion that the clinical exam of the plaintiff was a myofascial pain syndrome, with no evidence of radiculopathy. Dr. Brophy permitted the plaintiff to return to work full time without any restrictions on January 18, 1999. Dr. Brophy recommended to the plaintiff that he commence a physical exercise program, which consisted of walking and other activities. Dr. Brophy saw the plaintiff on March 17, 1999, with a complaint of no improvement in his pain syndrome. Dr. Brophy recommended that he continue his walking exercises. An evaluation of AP and lateral spine thoracic films demonstrated multi-level spondylosis. On October 6, 1999, the plaintiff returned with a complaint of continuing pain to his back and leg. Dr. Brophy's physical overall exam found the plaintiff's strength, gait, sensory, and symmetric reflexes normal. As of October 6, 1999, Dr. Brophy opined that the plaintiff had a zero permanent partial impairment rating, with no permanent restrictions. When asked about the differences in the MRI of 1997 and the CAT scan of 1998, the question was: Q. Doctor, certainly a lifting incident is capable of causing a bulging disc, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And - - A. - - And the most common hist ory I get is I just woke up with it, Doctor, I don't understand. Q. But that's not the history you got in this case? A. No. -2-