Leah Sullivan v. Petree Arbor Lawn & Landscape, Inc., et al.
Appeal from the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
Affirmed and Remanded
The significance of this Appellate Board decision is that it shows that an injured worker that fails to identify all her work-related injuries at the beginning of her claim may be able to identify other injuries later.
This claimant was successful in later identifying her injuries. She had medical documentation of tenderness in the area she later identified in medical records found 11 days after the work accident.
This case involves an appeal related to an employee’s (Leah Sullivan) request for medical treatment for a condition she claims was caused by a work-related injury. This accident was accepted as compensable under Tennessee workers’ compensation law, and she was provided with authorized medical treatment for her neck, chest, and right shoulder.
Sullivan, however, later sought medical treatment for her left shoulder, claiming that she was experiencing pain in both shoulders after the accident. The employer, Petree Arbor, declined to provide treatment for the left shoulder, asserting that it was not part of the compensable injury.
Sullivan requested an expedited hearing, arguing that the employer should be required to provide medical treatment for her left shoulder. The trial court ruled in her favor, ordering the employer to authorize an evaluation and treatment for her left shoulder by Dr. Brian Holloway, an orthopedic specialist who had previously treated her right shoulder. The employer appealed this decision.
On July 19, 2021, Sullivan slipped while unloading mulch, resulting in pain to her chest, neck, and right shoulder. Medical reports from American Family Care (AFC) noted chest pain, neck pain, and right shoulder issues.
While Sullivan’s right shoulder and neck conditions were treated, she also complained of left shoulder pain shortly after the accident. On July 30, 2021, AFC documented left shoulder tenderness, though it did not immediately link the left shoulder pain to the accident.
Despite continuing complaints of shoulder pain, including the left shoulder, Sullivan did not receive further treatment for the left shoulder.
Dr. Holloway, who treated Sullivan for her right shoulder, found signs of a right shoulder condition (adhesive capsulitis, or frozen shoulder), but did not evaluate her left shoulder. He later commented that there was “no apparent left shoulder injury” based on the limited scope of his examination.
Dr. Holloway diagnosed a combination of a shoulder injury and an underlying condition of diabetes contributing to the frozen shoulder, noting that the injury likely triggered the shoulder issues. However, he did not provide a clear causation opinion about the left shoulder.
In January 2023, Sullivan’s symptoms persisted, and she sought further evaluation from Dr. David Robbins, who diagnosed a cervical sprain and recommended physical therapy. However, Sullivan’s complaints regarding the left shoulder were not fully addressed, and Dr. Robbins noted no improvement despite therapy.
During the expedited hearing, Sullivan sought authorization for additional treatment for her left shoulder, but the employer contested this request. The trial court, after reviewing the evidence, ruled that Sullivan had sufficiently demonstrated that her left shoulder condition was related to the work accident.
The court emphasized that an employee need not fully understand the extent of their injuries at the time of reporting the accident and that symptoms arising after the accident triggered the employer’s obligation to provide medical treatment.
On appeal, the employer argued that no physician had linked Sullivan’s left shoulder condition to the work accident, and that Dr. Holloway’s statement that there was “no apparent left shoulder injury” should have been dispositive.
The employer cited a previous case (Berdnik v. Fairfield Glade Community Club) where a physician’s opinion regarding causation was deemed to outweigh the employee’s claims.
The Appeals Board, however, distinguished this case from Berdnik. Unlike the doctor in Berdnik, Dr. Holloway had not evaluated Sullivan’s left shoulder. His comment about no apparent injury was not a definitive medical opinion on causation.
Moreover, Sullivan had complained of left shoulder symptoms soon after the accident, which triggered the employer’s obligation to provide treatment. The court emphasized that workers’ compensation laws require the employer to provide medical treatment for all injuries that are reasonably related to the work accident, even if the employee cannot fully identify all injuries at the time of reporting.
The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that Sullivan had sufficiently established the need for medical treatment for her left shoulder. The employer’s appeal was denied, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The costs of the appeal were assessed against the employer.
Employers in Tennessee Workers’ Compensation claims frequently deny injured workers access to medical care. Consider hiring an attorney for help.
Get in touch with a Mount Juliet workers’ compensation lawyer if you need legal assistance with a workers’ compensation case.
