Chad Conatser v. Metro Ready Mix,

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-6-225(e)(3), for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Plaintiff alleged a cervical injury apparently owing to two separate events, including an injury sustained while exercising on the job, and another injury occurring when the truck he was driving ran into a hole and bounced him upward, jamming his neck. A number of medical physicians found no basis for his complaint. A chiropractic physician, by a range of motion study, opined that he retained a 26 percent impairment. The trial court found that the Plaintiff retained percent disability as a result of his work related injury on July 22, 2, and we affirm. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed WILLIAM H. INMAN, SR. J., in which CORNELIA A. CLARK, J., and ROBERT E. CORLEW III, SP. J., joined. Robert L. Huskey, Manchester, Tennessee, attorney for Appellant, Chad Conatser. Bree A. Taylor, Nashville, Tennessee, attorney for Appellee, Metro Ready Mix and Lumberman's Underwriting Alliance. MEMORANDUM OPINION This complaint was filed on March 15, 21, alleging that the Plaintiff sustained a compensable injury to his neck and cervical spine on or about April 1, 2 during the course and scope of his employment as a truck driver. It appears that the Plaintiff first injured his neck while doing on-the-job exercises at a gym provided by the Employer. The Plaintiff was not treated for any injuries occurring as a result of this incident. Testimony revealed that while driving a ready-mix concrete truck on July 22, 2, the Plaintiff ran into a depression which jolted him vertically, with his head striking the roof of the cab resulting in a cervical injury1 of a disputed nature. A supervisor took the Plaintiff to the emergency room immediately following this incident, where he was treated and released. About six weeks after the described incident occurred, the Plaintiff sought medical attention from Dr. Thomas O'Brien, an employer-approved orthopedic specialist2. Dr. O'Brien sent the Plaintiff to physical therapy and placed him on light duty from October 23, 2 until November 1, 2, when he was released at maximum medical improvement. Dr. O'Brien opined that the Plaintiff retained a percent permanent partial impairment rating. He saw Dr. O'Brien a total of three times, and asked to see a different physician. He then saw Dr. J. Keith Nichols, also an orthopedic specialist, on two occasions. Dr. Nichols treated the Plaintiff with injections and physical therapy, but declined to impose any work restrictions on him. Dr. Nichols released the Plaintiff on December 5, 2, noting subjective complaints with no objective findings of abnormality. He released the Plaintiff at maximum medical improvement, gave him a permanent partial impairment rating of percent, and testified that he could continue in his normal job activities. Both doctors indicated that the Plaintiff's neurological exams were normal, and that any problem he was having would resolve over time. The Plaintiff continued to drive a concrete redi-mix truck, and began to have "little accidents" as he described, like backing into a guy wire and into a tree because he was unable to turn his head, owing to stiffness in his neck. He was fired on August 1, 21, apparently due to his inability to continue to drive a concrete truck safely. The Plaintiff, of his own volition, then saw Dr. Jeffrey McKinley, a chiropractor, on February 28, 21. He performed a range of motion study on the Plaintiff, using the Fourth Edition of the Guidelines, because he did not have the Fifth Edition, which was then current.3 Dr. McKinley testified that the Plaintiff never mentioned the July 2 or July 21 injuries during the course of his treatment, that his opinion was based exclusively on the April 1, 2 incident, and has nothing to do with subsequent injuries. He admitted that had he known about the subsequent injuries, it would have "had an impact". He last saw the Plaintiff on September 13, 21. Dr. McKinley opined 1 The Plaintiff filed another complaint, docket 2-32, which is not in the record. We are able to deduce, however, that he alleged back injuries sustained in an accident which occurred in July 21, four months after the complaint was filed in the case at bar. The cases were consolidated for trial. Judgment was entered in docket 2-32, dismissing the complaint and holding that the Plaintiff was not newly injured, and suffered no aggravation of a pre- existing injury. The judgment was not appealed. In point of fact, the Plaintiff testified that he was not injured, and the record does not explain why the suit was filed. See, Tenn. R. Civil P. Rule 11. 2 Although the Plaintiff contends that he was not afforded the opportunity to choose from a panel of physicians, his signature appears on a page listing three authorized physicians from which to choose, including Dr. O'Brien. 3 Dr. McKinley later compared the Fourth and Fifth Editions, and concluded that there is no difference in the ratings assigned based upon the range of motion model between the two editions of the AM A guides. -2-