Judy Minutella v. Ford Motor Credit Company

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 5- 6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee sought post-judgment medical care for a knee injury after the trial court approved a settlement agreement wherein Employer agreed that it would be responsible for medical expenses related to the injury. Employer declined to authorize the original treating physician to provide additional care and instead offered Employee a choice from a panel of three physicians. The first physician Employee chose declined her as a patient. The second physician she chose opined that her need for treatment was unrelated to her work injury and did not treat her. Employee then sought and received further treatment from her original treating physician. At the same time, Employee petitioned the trial court for an order authorizing Employee's original physician to act as her treating physician, requesting that Employer be held in contempt for failing to comply with the order of settlement, and requiring that Employer pay for all of Employee's past and future medical treatment for her injury, along with all attorney fees and costs. The trial court ordered that Employer pay only a portion of Employee's attorney fees, denied Employee's request that Employer be held in contempt, and otherwise granted Employee's petition in full. We reverse the judgment of the trial court as to the award of attorney fees and remand for further proceedings in that regard but otherwise affirm the judgment in full. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (28) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and Remanded E. RILEY ANDERSON, SP. J., in which SHARON G. LEE, J., and ALLEN W. WALLACE, SR. J., joined. Colin M. McCaffrey, Nashville, Tennessee for the appellant, Ford Motor Credit Company. Robert P. Gritton, Murfreesboro, Tennessee for the appellee, Judy Minutella. MEMORANDUM OPINION FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY On September 19, 25, Judy Minutella ("Employee") fell in the parking lot of her employer Ford Motor Credit ("Employer") and injured her right knee. Employer offered her a panel of three physicians for treatment, but she declined medical treatment at that time and, therefore, did not select a physician from the panel. However, the injury apparently worsened, and Employee sought medical treatment from Dr. Roderick Vaughan, who was not on the Employer's panel. On February 23, 26, Dr. Vaughan, an orthopedic surgeon, performed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, partial medial and lateral meniscectomies and a chondroplasty on Employee's right knee. Dr. Vaughan's medical records indicate that he administered a steroid injection to Employee's right knee on June 19, 26, and Visco supplement injections on July 24, 26; July 31, 26; and August 11, 26. He informed Employee that this injection series could be repeated at six month intervals, and additional surgery was discussed as a "last resort." In November of 26, while under the care of Dr. Vaughan, Employee pursued a workers' compensation claim with respect to her fall and resulting injuries. The parties eventually settled this claim, as approved by order entered August 2, 27, the pertinent language of which provides as follows: The Defendant employer and the Defendant insurer have agreed to pay any authorized, reasonable and necessary future medical expenses incurred by the employee caused by this injury in accord with the Workers' Compensation Law of the State of Tennessee for a period of life, pursuant to statute, from the date of this settlement, provided that the employer and/or insurer has granted permission for future medical treatment prior to said treatment being rendered, but they will not be liable for any unauthorized, unreasonable or unnecessary past, present, or future medical expenses caused by this injury. The settlement agreement does not specify an authorized treating physician. After the settlement was approved, Employee began experiencing additional problems with her right knee. On September 4, 27, Employee wrote Employer a letter advising that Dr. Vaughan had been administering injections to her right knee "to postpone inevitable knee replacement surgery" and requesting that Employer approve Employee's return to Dr. Vaughan for "another round of injections." Employer refused to authorize Dr. Vaughan as Employee's treating physician and instead, presented Employee with the option of selecting her treating physician from a panel of physicians, consisting of Dr. James Renfro, Dr. Michael LaDouceur, and Drs. David Moore and Burton Elrod, who practice medicine in the same office. When Employee selected Drs. Moore and Elrod, Dr. Elrod declined to accept her as a patient and Employer instructed Employee to select one of the two remaining physicians on the panel. On November 28, 27, Employee selected Dr. James Renfro from the proffered list, and 2 ****** Document Outline ****** * Page_1 * Page_2 * Page_3 * Page_4 * Page_5 * Page_6 * Page_7 * Page_8 * Page_9