MARY DENSON,
v.
VIP HOME NURSING AND REHABILITATION SERVICE, LLC
No. M2019-02145-SC-R3-WC
Tennessee Workers Compensation
Supreme Court of Tennessee, Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel, Nashville
July 21, 2020
Assigned on Briefs May 11, 2020
Mailed
June 18, 2020
Appeal
from the Circuit Court for Putnam County No. 02-N-0010
Jonathan Young, Judge
The
only issue in this workers' compensation appeal is
whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney's
fees. An employee sustained a compensable injury to her back
at work. The settlement agreement resolving her workers'
compensation claim required her employer to pay her future
medical expenses. When her employer refused to pay for
prescribed pain medication, she filed a petition for contempt
and to compel payment. After her employer reversed its denial
of payment, the trial court awarded her $7,500 in
attorney's fees. We affirm the judgment and remand the
case to the trial court for determination of reasonable
attorney's fees to be awarded to the employee for this
appeal.
Tenn.
Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e) (2014) (applicable to
injuries occurring prior to July 1, 2014)
Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit
Court Affirmed; Remanded
Alex
B. Morrison and Tiffany B. Sherrill, Knoxville, Tennessee,
for the appellant, VIP Home Nursing and Rehabilitation
Service, LLC.
Gregory L. Groth, Cookeville, Tennessee, for the appellee,
Mary Denson.
Cornelia A. Clark J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Andy D. Bennett, J., and WilliamB. Acree, Jr., Sr.J.,
joined.
OPINION
CORNELIA A. CLARK, JUSTICE
Factual
and Procedural Background
In
2001, Mary Denson ("Employee") sustained a
compensable injury to her back while working for VIP Home
Nursing and Rehabilitation Service, LLC
("Employer"). In 2004, the parties settled the
workers' compensation claim. The order approving the
settlement required Employer to pay Employee's authorized
future medical expenses. For several years, Employer paid for
pain management treatment by Employee's authorized
treating physician, Dr. Thomas Scott Baker.
On
August 11, 2017, Employee filed a Petition for Contempt and
to Compel Compliance with Court Order, alleging that Employer
had refused to pay for pain medication prescribed by Dr.
Baker. Employer filed an answer to the petition, denying that
it had refused to pay for any reasonable and necessary
medication prescribed by Dr. Baker. On December 12, 2017,
Employer filed a motion to compel an independent medical
evaluation ("IME") of Employee. The trial court
reserved judgment on the motion pending the deposition of Dr.
Baker.
On
October 24, 2019, Employee filed an affidavit from her
attorney, seeking a total of $9,116.69 for attorney's
fees and expenses. That same day, Employer filed a response,
acknowledging that it had reversed its denial of payment for
the pain medication but disputing Employee's entitlement
to attorney's fees and their reasonableness. The next
day, October 25, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on the
petition. No witnesses testified, and no exhibits or
depositions were entered into evidence. The hearing was not
transcribed.
By
order filed November 8, 2019, the trial court awarded
Employee attorney's fees in the amount of $7,500 and
denied Employer's motion for an IME. Employer filed a
statement of the evidence, to which Employee filed
objections. The trial court filed an order on March 25, 2020,
pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(e) and
(f). The trial court described its familiarity with the
underlying workers' compensation case and clarified that
it was undisputed at the hearing that the medication Dr.
Baker had prescribed for Employee was causally related to her
work injury. The trial court also clarified what portions of
the record it had considered when ruling on Employee's
petition for contempt and request for attorney's fees.
The trial court noted that it had considered the affidavit of
Employee's attorney and the arguments Employer made in
its brief in opposition to awarding Employee attorney's
fees. The trial court pointed out that it had not awarded
Employee the full amount of the requested fees. The trial
court also corrected the record to include a finding that
Employer was in contempt.
Analysis
"Review
of the trial court's findings of fact shall be de novo
upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a
presumption of...
