Anderson., Myron v. 84 Lumber Company

FILED
Dec 09, 2024
08:24 AM(CT)
TENNESSEE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
APPEALS BOARD

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Myron Anderson ) Docket No. 2024-80-1427
)
v. ) State File No. 10010-2024
)
84 Lumber Company, et al. )
)
)
Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )
Compensation Claims )
Allen Phillips, Judge )

Affirmed and Remanded

This interlocutory appeal concerns a discovery dispute. After reporting a wrist injury at
work and receiving some authorized care, the employee filed a petition seeking additional
medical treatment and temporary disability benefits. Thereafter, the employer served
written discovery requests on the employee, to which he responded in part. The
employer then filed a motion to compel discovery responses, arguing that the employee’s
responses were deficient in certain ways. Following a status hearing during which this
discovery dispute was discussed, the trial court entered an order granting, in part, the
employer’s motion to compel discovery, and the employee has appealed. Upon
consideration of the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

Presiding Judge Timothy W. Conner delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which
Judge Pele I. Godkin and Judge Meredith B. Weaver joined.

Myron Anderson, Somerville, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se

Kenneth D. Veit and Kate M. Patton, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee,
84 Lumber Company

1
Memorandum Opinion 1

Myron Anderson (“Employee”) worked for 84 Lumber Company (“Employer”).
On February 6, 2024, Employee was helping load rebar onto a forklift when he stepped
backward, tripped, and fell onto his outstretched left arm. As a result, he suffered an
injury to his left wrist. According to Employee’s petition, he was initially seen at an
urgent care clinic, where he underwent x-rays, was diagnosed with a wrist sprain, and
was given a brace. Employee asserted that although the medical provider restricted him
from working, Employer refused to pay any temporary disability benefits. He further
claimed that after being assigned temporary work restrictions, he attempted to return to
work but was told by his supervisor that no “light duty” work was available and that he
should stay home until his next medical appointment.

Employee was seen at Campbell Clinic Orthopedics on February 22, 2024.
Following that visit, the medical provider diagnosed Employee with a left wrist sprain
and restricted him to sedentary work only with no use of the left arm. Thereafter, in late
March 2024, Employee was released to return to full duty work. On July 30, 2024, Dr.
Austin Murphy completed a Form C-30A indicating that Employee was able to return to
work with no restrictions as of May 14, 2024, and that he retained no permanent medical
impairment associated with his work accident.

Meanwhile, in April 2024, Employer filed its own petition, asserting that
Employee had failed to respond to Employer’s written discovery requests and had refused
to execute any releases allowing Employer to obtain Employee’s medical and
employment records. After receiving responses from Employee to the written discovery
requests, Employer filed a motion to compel discovery in August 2024, asserting that
Employee had failed to respond to certain discovery requests or that his responses were
incomplete and/or unclear. Following a status hearing during which Employer’s motion
was discussed, the court entered an order granting the motion in part and instructing
Employee to respond more completely to certain discovery requests and to sign the
releases “without qualification.” Employee has appealed that order.

In his notice of appeal, Employee argued that he responded to the requests seeking
information about his employment history, and he signed and returned the releases
authorizing Employer to obtain medical and employment records. He also sought to
clarify his previous responses to certain interrogatories and asked that Employer’s
attorney be required to “provide a privilege log of all documents sent to him.” In his

1
“The Appeals Board may, in an effort to secure a just and speedy determination of matters on appeal and
with the concurrence of all judges, decide an appeal by an abbreviated order or by memorandum opinion,
whichever the Appeals Board deems appropriate, in cases that are not legally and/or factually novel or
complex.” Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-22-.03(1) (2023).

2
brief, Employee argued that the questions listed on the interrogatories that were attached
to Employer’s motion to compel “are different” from the interrogatories originally served
on him. He asserted that “[w]ords were left off or the questions did not ask the same
question.” He concluded his brief by asserting that Employer’s counsel had “falsified
information on the motion to compel” and had “withheld the original documents of the
interrogatory questions that [do not] match the statements/question[s] on the motion to
compel order.”

In response, Employer asserted in its brief that the written responses Employee
served in June 2024 were originally “deficient or void of a response.” It also alleged that
Employee had declined to sign the releases at that time. However, Employer
acknowledged in its brief that Employee had answered the written discovery requests by
October 8, 2024, and the only remaining unresolved issue is “two outstanding releases”
that Employer claims remain unsigned as of the date its brief was filed.

Based on our review of the record, it appears Employee signed a release allowing
Employer to obtain copies of medical records from his primary care provider, McKnight
Clinic, but Employee limited Employer’s authority to obtain such records to those dated
from February 1, 2024 to April 30, 2024, presumably in an effort to prevent Employer
from seeking medical records predating the work accident.

As we have stated previously, discovery rules are accorded broad and liberal
treatment “for mutual knowledge of all relevant facts gathered by both parties.” Semich
v. AT&T Services, Inc., No. 2021-06-0997, 2023 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 28, at
*7-8 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. June 8, 2023) (quoting Johnson v. Nissan N. Am.,
Inc., 146 S.W.3d 600, 605 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004)). Moreover, it is well settled that trial
courts have discretion to control the pace of litigation through their supervision of cases
and management of their docket. See Smith v. The Newman Group, LLC, No. 2015-08-
0075, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 30, at *9 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd.
Sept. 21, 2015). This discretion extends to addressing discovery disputes. Johnson, 146
S.W.3d at 604. “A trial court abuses its discretion when it causes an injustice by
applying an incorrect legal standard, reaching an illogical decision, or by resolving the
case on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318
S.W.3d 328, 335 (Tenn. 2010) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

Here, there has been no abuse of discretion. The trial court’s order instructed
Employee to fully respond to certain interrogatories, and, based on representations in
Employer’s brief, Employee has apparently complied with this part of the order. The
court also ordered Employee to sign the remaining authorizations “without qualification.”
Employee has offered no argument regarding how the court abused its discretion with
respect to that part of the order. Consequently, we affirm the trial court’s order and
remand the case. Costs on appeal are taxed to Employee.

3
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Myron Anderson ) Docket No. 2024-80-1427
)
v. ) State File No. 10010-2024
)
84 Lumber Company, et al. )
)
)
Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )
Compensation Claims )
Allen Phillips, Judge )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Appeals Board’s decision in the referenced
case was sent to the following recipients by the following methods of service on this the 9th day
of December, 2024.

Name Certified First Class Via Via Sent to:
Mail Mail Fax Email
Myron Anderson X shuwanna.white@yahoo.com
wannawhite483@gmail.com
Kenneth D. Veit X kenny.veit@leitnerfirm.com
teresa.maurer@leitnerfirm.com
Allen Phillips, Judge X Via Electronic Mail
Kenneth M. Switzer, Chief Judge X Via Electronic Mail
Penny Shrum, Clerk, Court of X penny.patterson-shrum@tn.gov
Workers’ Compensation Claims

Olivia Yearwood
Clerk, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
220 French Landing Dr., Ste. 1-B
Nashville, TN 37243
Telephone: 615-253-1606
Electronic Mail: WCAppeals.Clerk@tn.gov