Shannon v. Roane Med. Ctr., E2011-02649-WC-R3-WC

• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GARY R. WADE
• Decision Date: 13 March 2013
• Docket Number: No. E2011-02649-WC-R3-WC,E2011-02649-WC-R3-WC
• Citation: Shannon v. Roane Med. Ctr., No. E2011-02649-WC-R3-WC (Tenn. Mar 13, 2013)
• Parties: TINA SHANNON v. ROANE MEDICAL CENTER

TINA SHANNON v. ROANE MEDICAL CENTER

No. E2011-02649-WC-R3-WC

SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT KNOXVILLE

October 22, 2012 Session

Mailed January 2, 2013

Filed March 13, 2013

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Roane County

No. 2011-3

Frank V. Williams, III, Chancellor

The employee, a surgical technician, worked full-time for the employer at a hospital. In addition to her regular hours, the employee worked on-call shifts on a rotating basis subject to specific rules and restrictions. During an on-call shift, the employee was required to return to the hospital during the early morning hours for emergency surgery. After leaving the hospital to drive home but while still subject to call, the employee was seriously injured in an automobile accident. The employee filed suit for workers' compensation benefits. The trial court denied recovery, and the employee appealed. In accordance with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, the appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Because the evidence establishes that the employee falls within an exception to the "coming and going rule," the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for an award of benefits.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e) (2008 & Supp. 2012) Appeal as of Right; Judgment

of the Trial Court Reversed

GARY R. WADE, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which E. RILEY ANDERSON, SP. J., and J. S. "STEVE" DANIEL, SP. J., joined.

Patrick C. Cooley, Kingston, Tennessee, for the appellant, Tina Shannon.

R. Kim Burnette, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Roane Medical Center.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. Facts and Procedural Background

Tina Shannon (the "Employee"), a surgical technician employed by the RoaneMedical Center (the "Employer") in Harriman, Tennessee, worked a regular schedule from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. In addition, the Employee worked on-call shifts on a rotating basis. On April 19, 2010, the Employee, while still on call as she returned to her residence after assisting with emergency surgery, was injured in an automobile accident when another driver crossed over the center line into the path of her vehicle. As a result of the collision, the Employee suffered several injuries, including a splinter fracture to her tibia that required three separate surgeries over a period of time. Because of her injuries, the Employee missed thirty-seven weeks of work.

On January 7, 2011, after the benefit review process had been exhausted as provided by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-203(a) (2008), the Employee filed suit seeking workers' compensation benefits. In response, the Employer denied compensability, maintaining that the Employee was not injured in the course and scope of her employment.

At trial, the Employee, then forty-nine years of age, testified that after graduating high school she had worked at a factory for twenty-one years before it closed. Afterward, she received training as a surgical technician and was hired by the Employer. In addition to working 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, her employment included on-call shifts as scheduled by the nurse supervisor. As a matter of policy, up to four employees were subject to being called in by the Employer for emergency room duty at any given time. During her regular hours, the Employee was paid just over $12.00 per hour. While on call but not on duty, she received $2.00 per hour, which increased to 1.5 times her regular pay for the time she was called into the hospital for surgery. Her on-call shifts were subject to Operating Room On-Call System Rules established by the Employer. Among other things, the rules required that the Employee be available for contact either by telephone or by pager at all times during her on-call shift, that she stay within thirty minutes' travel time to the emergency room, that she refrain from using alcohol or drugs during this time, and that she otherwise remain alert and able to perform the responsibilities of her job.

The Employee testified that on April 19, 2010, she worked her normal shift until 3:00 p.m. Thereafter, she immediately clocked back in to begin an on-call shift and went into surgery. The Employee clocked out again at 9:10 p.m. and drove to her residence in Sunbright before being paged shortly after midnight on April 20 for a second on-call shift. She clocked back in and assisted in a surgery, following which she clocked out at 2:26 a.m. and left the hospital. While driving toward her residence, the Employee was seriously injured in an automobile accident when another driver crossed into her lane of traffic. She was knocked unconscious as a result of the collision. Her injuries included a compound fracture of the fibula and tibia and broken ribs on both sides. She bruised her liver and lung and required surgery to remove her spleen. Because her tibia had splintered, she underwent three surgical procedures over a period of time and was unable to work for the succeedingthirty-seven weeks. Her employment was terminated in September of 2010, but she was told that she would be eligible for rehire when she was physically able to do her former job. In February of 2011, the Employee accepted a part-time position with Complete RX, a pharmacy at the hospital that operated independently of the Employer. During the trial, Sherman Shannon, the Employee's husband, attested to the limitations on the Employee's physical activities as a result of her injuries.

Sandra Giguere, the Director of Pharmacy for Complete RX, was called as a witness for the Employer. She acknowledged that she had hired the Employee on February 7, 2011, as a pharmacy technician. She testified that the Employee walked with a limp but did not complain about her physical condition. According to Giguere, the Employee's new job did not require any significant lifting.

Sherry Holt, the former human resources director for the Employer, was also called as a witness for the Employer. She testified that the Employee was removed from the hospital payroll on September 10, 2010, explaining that the Employee had exhausted her twelve weeks of family medical leave and more. She stated that the Employee was terminated because there was no indication of when she would be able to return to her former job. On cross-examination, Holt acknowledged that the Employer did not have a full second or third surgical shift at its hospital and that the Employer benefitted financially by developing an on-call system during those times. She confirmed that the Employee and others who were on call were required to carry a pager, be alert, and report to the hospital within thirty minutes of any call made by the Employer during the shift.

Sharon McBay, a registered nurse and manager of surgery for the Employer, testified that the Employee performed capably as a surgical technician. She stated that an on-call system had also been developed for employees in departments besides surgery. McBay offered as an exhibit a copy of the rules governing on-call employees in effect at the time the Employee was injured. She confirmed that the Employee had clocked out from her 1.5 times hourly rate just prior to the accident, indicating that the lower hourly rate was in effect at the time of the Employee's injury.

At the conclusion of the proof, the trial court found in favor of the Employer and denied benefits, holding that an injury sustained while merely traveling to or from a place of employment was not compensable, despite the on-call status of the Employee. After observing that the case presented a compensability issue of first impression, the trial court concluded that the Employee would have been entitled to a 70% impairment for the injury to her leg had she qualified for benefits.

II. Standard of Review

Initially, the trial court's findings of fact are subject to "de novo [review] upon the record . . . accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(2). "'This standard of review requires us to examine, in depth, a trial court's factual findings and conclusions.'" Williamson v. Baptist Hosp. of Cocke Cnty., Inc., 361 S.W.3d 483, 487 (Tenn. 2012) (quoting Galloway v. Memphis Drum Serv., 822 S.W.2d 584, 586 (Tenn. 1991)). When the trial court has seen and heard the witnesses, considerable deference must be afforded to the trial court's findings of credibility and the weight that it assessed to those witnesses' testimony. Tryon v. Saturn Corp., 254 S.W.3d 321, 327 (Tenn. 2008) (citing Whirlpool Corp. v. Nakhoneinh, 69 S.W.3d 164, 167 (Tenn. 2002)). On questions of law, such as the issue before us, our standard of review is de novo with no presumption of correctness. Wilhelm v. Krogers, 235 S.W.3d 122, 126 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Perrin v. Gaylord Entm't Co., 120 S.W.3d 823, 826 (Tenn. 2003)).

III. Analysis

The sole issue in this case is whether being injured while on call under these particular circumstances constitutes an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment. In order for a workers' compensation claim to be compensable, the injury giving rise to the claim must arise out of and occur in the course of employment. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 50-6-102(12), 50-6-103(a) (Supp. 2012); Cunningham v. Shelton Sec. Serv., Inc., 46 S.W.3d 131, 135 (Tenn. 2001). The burden of proof is on the employee to prove that her injuries not only arose out of the employment but also occurred in the course of the employment. Crew v. First Source Furniture Grp., 259 S.W.3d 656, 664 (Tenn. 2008). The Workers' Compensation Act, however, should be liberally construed in favor of compensation, and any reasonable doubts should be resolved in the employee's favor. Id.; Wait v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Ill., 240 S.W.3d 220, 224 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Knox v. Batson, 399...