Spicer Rudstrom, PLLC • Attorneys at Law • Est. 1963  •
Home |

Trial Court Grants Employee Additional Time to Obtain Medical Testimony in Response to Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment: Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Summary, Aliceia Hollis v. Konyo America, et al.

Trial Court Grants Employee Additional Time to Obtain Medical Testimony in Response to Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment: Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Summary, Aliceia Hollis v. Konyo America, et al.

March 14, 2017

By Courtney S. Paterson

Aliceia Hollis v. Komyo America, et al.                    

Docket No. 2016-03-0298

State File No. 23307-2016

Filed March 7, 2017

Posture

This is a case before the Appeals Board on interlocutory appeal filed by the employer, Konyo  America, et al., and the dispute was whether the trial court erred in granting the employee’s motion to delay the hearing on the employer’s motion for summary judgment.

The employee, Ms. Aliceia Hollis, alleged an injury to her low back on January 18, 2016 arising out of her employment with Komyo America as a material handler when a stack of vehicle hoods tipped over and struck her back. The claim was accepted as compensable, and a panel of physicians was provided. Dr. Sanabria, the authorized treating physician, ultimately opined that employee’s symptoms were not primarily caused by the work accident and were instead related to pre-existing, degenerative changes. Ms. Hollis filed a request for an expedited hearing. At that hearing, the trial court denied her request for benefits, concluding that she had not offered sufficient expert medical evidence to support a finding that she was likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in proving that her work accident was the primary cause of her lumbar condition.

Following that hearing, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Ms. Hollis could not establish as a matter of law that she was entitled to further workers’ compensation benefits. Ms. Hollis responded that her physician’s deposition had not yet been taken and that the employer’s motion was premature.

The trial court issued an order granting her motion and continuing the hearing on the employer’s motion for summary judgment in order for the employee to obtain her doctor’s deposition testimony. The employer appealed this order.

 

An associate with Spicer Rudstrom since 2009, Courtney focuses her practice on automobile liability, insurance coverage litigation, insurance defense litigation, insurance subrogation, premises liability, products liability and workers’ compensation. She is admitted to practice in all trial and appellate state courts in Tennessee, as well as the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

 

Related Articles

Employee Not Entitled to Hip Replacement Surgery after Compensable Fall Causing Left Hip Injury Due to Pre-Existing Condition

Five-Employee Threshold

How Untimely Submission of Evidence Affected Case of Injured Truck Driver


ABOUT SPICER RUDSTROM PLLC

Spicer Rudstrom PLLC was founded in 1963 and currently has more than 35 attorneys with offices in Memphis, Nashville, Chattanooga, Knoxville, Little Rock and Texarkana. We offer representation across industries, including construction, real estate, employment, medical malpractice, retail and hospitality, trucking and transportation, and business. Our clients range from local and national businesses to international companies seeking business, legal and litigation services. The firm’s commitment to its clients and its entrepreneurial spirit drives Spicer Rudstrom to be the premier litigation firm in the South. For more information, visit www.spicerfirm.com.


© 2017 Spicer Rudstrom PLLC | Disclaimer | Site Map

The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.


Spicer Rudstrom is a member of the International Society of Primerus Law Firms.
Spicer Rudstrom Celebrating Our 50th Anniversary.