Benjamin Howard v. Centurion

Howard, 2024 TN WC 90 (Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims 2024) · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · December 17, 2024 · No. 2022-03-0560

Summary

This Compensation Order from the Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims dismisses Benjamin Howard’s workers’ compensation claim against his employer, Centurion, with prejudice. The court granted Centurion’s motion to dismiss under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02, citing Howard’s failure to timely disclose an expert witness and the lack of medical expert testimony proving that his head injury arose primarily out of his employment. As a result, the court denied Howard’s request for benefits.

Court
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Writing for the Court
Pamela B. Johnson
Jurisdiction
Tennessee
Decision date
December 17, 2024
Docket number
2022-03-0560
Procedural posture
At the compensation hearing, Centurion moved to dismiss under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02(1) and (2), based on Howard's failure to disclose an expert witness and failure to present expert medical evidence establishing medical causation. The Court granted the motion and dismissed the workers' compensation claim with prejudice.
Standard of review
Under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02, dismissal may be granted only when the court determines that reasonable minds could not differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence.
Precedential value
Published
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

workers compensationmotions to dismissexpert testimonycivil procedureevidence

Practice areas

workers compensationcivil procedureevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether dismissal was warranted under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02(1) because Howard failed to disclose an expert witness by the deadline in the scheduling order.
  2. Whether dismissal was warranted under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02(2) because Howard failed to present evidence establishing that his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.
  3. Whether a claimant's lay opinion, without expert medical evidence, is sufficient to establish medical causation in a Tennessee workers' compensation claim.

Holdings

  1. Dismissal was warranted because Howard failed to disclose any expert witness by the expert-disclosure deadline required by the scheduling order.
  2. Howard failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment because he presented no expert medical opinion establishing causation.
  3. Howard's lay opinion alone was legally insufficient to prove the essential element of medical causation.

Key quotations

Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Court holds that Dr. Howard did not prove that he suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment and dismisses his case with prejudice. (at 1)
Although the Court is aware of Dr. Howard’s sincerely-held belief that his current conditions and need for treatment arose primarily out of his work injury, his lay opinion alone is legally insufficient to prove the essential element of medical causation. (at 3)

Factual background

Benjamin Howard, a dentist employed by Centurion, testified that he fell while walking from the parking lot into work on February 1, 2022, and struck his head. He underwent two surgeries for bilateral intracranial subdural hematomas, participated in occupational rehabilitation, and missed work for approximately four months. Court-deemed admissions established that he had recently filled a new blood-pressure medication with a lightheadedness warning, and no medical doctor had opined that his injury was caused by his employment.

Procedural history

Howard sought workers' compensation benefits after falling and sustaining bilateral intracranial subdural hematomas. Centurion moved to dismiss after Howard failed to disclose an expert by the scheduling deadline and failed to respond timely to requests for admission. The Court initially held the motion in abeyance for determination at the compensation hearing. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated that order and instructed the Court to consider both subdivisions of Rule 41.02. Following the hearing, the Court granted dismissal with prejudice.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…