This case involved Timothy Duckett, an employee at Memphis Light Gas and Water Division, who sought medical and temporary disability benefits after inhaling sulfur hexafluoride gas from an exploding canister at work on March 31, 2025, leading to symptoms like shortness of breath and a diagnosis of sarcoidosis. The employer disputed that the work exposure primarily caused his condition. At an expedited hearing, the court denied the requested benefits, finding that Duckett was unlikely to prevail at a full compensation hearing. The court reasoned that the opinions of two physicians failed to establish to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the work injury contributed more than 50% to his need for treatment, as one doctor was uncertain about any causal link and the other stated it was impossible to determine the correlation with the occupational exposure.
This case involved an employee, Jakobe Pace, who alleged work-related injuries to his neck and back occurring in early August 2024 while working for United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS). UPS moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, as Pace filed his petition for benefit determination on October 9, 2025. The court granted the motion and dismissed the claim with prejudice, reasoning that under Tennessee law, when no benefits have been paid, a petition must be filed within one year of the accident, and the filing here was untimely regardless of the exact date in August or when the claim was denied.
In this workers' compensation case, employee Bobby Williams claimed head and brain injuries, including strokes, after becoming dizzy at a truck-stop bathroom on the job for employer HUB Group, Inc. HUB Group moved for summary judgment on the ground that Williams could not prove the required causal connection between his employment and the injury. The Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims granted the motion after finding that the employer's unrebutted facts, including a doctor's testimony that the strokes were not primarily work-related, negated the essential element of causation. The court held that Williams failed to respond with any expert medical opinion showing the injury arose primarily out of and in the course of employment, as required by statute, and that his lay opinion was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.
The case involved employee Lloyd Johnson seeking payment of medical bills and temporary total disability benefits from employer Lifeline to Success after a coworker struck him in the head with a stick at work. The court denied benefits following an expedited hearing, holding that Johnson was not likely to prevail at a merits hearing. The core reasoning was that Johnson provided no medical records or bills to establish the reasonableness or necessity of treatment (with his out-of-pocket costs shown as zero), failed to prove he became disabled from working due to the injury or the duration of any disability (noting he returned to work and later stopped due to his boss's arrest), and did not meet additional requirements such as proving Tennessee residency or other eligibility criteria for the Uninsured Employers Fund.
The case involved Clifford Montrell Hicks's claim for workers' compensation benefits for alleged work-related injuries to his neck, shoulders, and back sustained while employed by Fullen Dock and Warehouse on June 21, 2022. Fullen Dock moved for summary judgment on the ground that Hicks could not establish the required causal link between his employment and his condition. Hicks did not respond to the motion, did not appear at the hearing, and offered no medical evidence to rebut the employer's expert testimony. The court granted summary judgment, holding that the unrebutted evidence from the sole medical expert showed the employment did not contribute more than 50 percent to the injury, failing to meet the statutory requirement under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(12) that the injury arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.
The case involved Kristina Andrew, a phlebotomist at Accu Reference Medical, seeking expedited workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained when a coworker assaulted her during a workplace argument about a urine sample disposal. The employer contested the claim on grounds that Andrew failed to provide timely and proper notice of the injury. Following an expedited hearing, the court denied the request for benefits, finding that Andrew was unlikely to prevail on the merits because her communications about the incident did not convey that she had been injured or that the matter involved a potential workers' compensation claim. The court noted that even if the recipient was considered a supervisor, the casual texts and later vague references to "drama" did not satisfy the statutory requirements for notice of an accident resulting in injury under Tennessee law, and actual employer knowledge was not shown until months afterward.