Wheetley v. State
| Decision Date | 25 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. M2013-01707-WC-R3-WC,M2013-01707-WC-R3-WC |
| Parties | MARY WHEETLEY v. STATE OF TENNESSEE |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court — Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel |
Appeal from the Claims Commission of the State of Tennessee
This appeal involves a claim for workers' compensation benefits filed by a nurse employed at the Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute. The nurse filed a claim with the Tennessee Claims Commission because she believed that she had contracted tuberculosis when her hand came into contact with a patient's blood. The claims commissioner dismissed the nurse's claim on the basis that she failed to produce expert medical evidence that she had tuberculosis, and the nurse sought judicial review under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 51. We affirm the judgment of the Claims Commission.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e) (2008) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Claims
Commission Affirmed
Mary Wheetley, for the appellant, pro se.
Robert Cooper, Attorney General; William E. Young, Solicitor General; and Mary M. Bers, Senior Counsel, for the appellee, the State of Tennessee.
Mary Wheetley began working as a registered nurse at the Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute in 2003. She was taking a blood sample from a patient on March 23, 2006 but was not wearing gloves because she was in a hurry. According to Ms. Wheetley, thepatient became unruly and a drop of the patient's blood landed on a small wound on her ungloved finger.
Ms. Wheetley says the patient was diagnosed with tuberculosis three weeks later, and says she also began experiencing unpleasant symptoms. Ms. Wheetley sought a tuberculosis skin test, which she insists confirmed that she had contracted tuberculosis.1 Ms. Wheetley has visited many medical clinics, hospitals, and physician's offices, including specialists in Boston, Cleveland, and Denver. None of the physicians Ms. Wheetley consulted has conclusively diagnosed her with tuberculosis.
On May 1, 2010, Ms. Wheetley filed a workers' compensation claim with the Tennessee Division of Claims Administration. Ms. Wheetley asserted that she has tuberculosis and that her infection arose out of the course of her employment with the State. In a letter dated July 30, 2010, the Tennessee Claims Examiner denied Ms. Wheetley's claim "[d]ue to lack of medical documentation." On August 3, 2010, Ms. Wheetley requested a benefit review conference with the Department of Labor. That request was denied on August 12, 2010, on the basis that the Department of Labor lacks jurisdiction over state employees. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(K) (1999 & Supp. 2006).
Ms. Wheetley then hired an attorney who helped her file a workers' compensation claim directly with the Claims Commission. On April 20, 2012, Ms. Wheetley's attorney asked to withdraw from representing Ms. Wheetley due to "the difference in [their] opinions." The claims commissioner granted the attorney's withdrawal motion on May 9, 2012.
Ms. Wheetley represented herself at the April 26, 2013 hearing. She failed to produce any admissible evidence from a physician that she had tuberculosis. There was no record of the tuberculosis test that she says rendered a positive result. She submitted no affidavits from physicians, and no physicians testified. Ms. Wheetley testified about her symptoms and voiced her frustration with the numerous physicians she had consulted, none of whom had diagnosed her with tuberculosis. She also submitted a collection of her own medical records, along with excerpts from textbooks, treatises, and websites - documents she claims support her self-diagnosis. When the State objected to the admission of this collection of documents, the claims commissioner marked them as a collective exhibit for identification purposes only.
In an order dated June 24, 2013, the claims commissioner dismissed Ms. Wheetley's workers' compensation claim. The commissioner stated:
The Tribunal has considered her testimony in its most favorable light to determine whether she was, in fact, infected with tuberculosis and has suffered with the disease. However, there is simply no independent or competent medical evidence to show the Claimant was infected with tuberculosis or is suffering from it now. The Tribunal sympathizes with the Claimant and realizes that she carries an honest belief that she is infected. However, in view of the lack of evidence that an injury or illness occurred, this claim must be respectfully dismissed.
When we review a workers' compensation decision, we review the facts de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the trial court's factual findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(2) (2005); Whirlpool Corp. v. Nakhoneinh, 69 S.W.3d 164, 167 (Tenn. 2002). We give particular deference to the lower court's findings concerning the credibility of witnesses and the weightiness of their testimony. Vandall v. Aurora Healthcare, LLC, 401 S.W.3d 28, 33 (Tenn. 2013). When we consider documentary evidence such as expert witness depositions, we review that evidence de novo, without any deference to the trial court's findings. Krick v. City of Lawrenceburg, 945 S.W.2d 709, 712 (Tenn. 1997). Likewise, we review a trial court's legal conclusions de novo without a presumption of correctness. Seiber v. Reeves Logging, 284 S.W.3d 294, 298 (Tenn. 2009).
To obtain workers' compensation benefits, a claimant must prove by the preponderance of the evidence that she suffered an injury that arose out of her employment and occurred in the course of her employment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 50-6-102(12), 103(a) (2005); Dixon v. Travelers Indem. Co., 336 S.W.3d 532, 537 (Tenn. 2011). The phrase "arising out of" refers to the cause or origin of the injury; the phrase "in the course of" refers to the time, place, and circumstances of the injury. Vandall v. Aurora Healthcare, LLC, 401 S.W.3d at 31; Dixon v. Travelers Indem. Co., 336 S.W.3d 532 at 537. Except in "the most obvious, simple and routine cases," a workers' compensation claimant must establish by expert medical testimony that she is injured and that there exists a causal relationship between the injury and the claimant's employment activity. Excel Polymers, LLC v. Broyles, 302 S.W.3d 268, 274 (Tenn. 2009); Cloyd v. Hartco Flooring Co., 274 S.W.3d 638, 643 (Tenn. 2008).
Because tuberculosis is a communicable bacterial disease, this case can not be fairly characterized as an "obvious, simple, or routine" case. See Bass v. Barksdale, 671 S.W.2d 476, 479 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984) (). The law, therefore, required Ms. Wheetley to prove with expert medical testimony that she suffered an injury and that the injury arose out of her employment and during the course of her employment. See, e.g., Combustion Eng'g Co. v. Blanks, 210 Tenn. 233, 357 S.W.2d 625 (1962) (); Smith v. Tennessee Furniture Indus., Inc., 208 Tenn. 608, 610, 348 S.W.2d 290, 291 (1961) (); General Shale Prods. Corp. v. Casey, 202 Tenn. 219, 220, 303 S.W.2d 736, 737 (1957) (); Housley v. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 197 Tenn. 38, 40, 270 S.W.2d 349, 350 (1954) ().
The claims commissioner correctly found that Ms. Wheetley did not present any expert medical testimony that she contracted tuberculosis in the course and scope of her employment. Although Ms. Wheetley is a nurse, the claims commissioner properly held that her self-diagnosis is not admissible as evidence.2
Because Ms. Wheetley presented no expert medical testimony that she was infected with or carried tuberculosis, she did not establish a workers' compensation claim by the preponderance of the evidence. Courts simply are not equipped or authorized to diagnose a litigant in the absence of admissible medical testimony.
Although Ms. Wheetley's collective exhibit and the additional papers she submitted to this Court do not count as substantive evidence, we have read the material in detail.3 Wehave also read her briefs and considered her complaints that her doctors treated her with disrespect and failed to properly diagnose her. Although Ms. Wheetley's documents are informative, they do...
To continue reading
Request your trial