Shaterra Reed Marion

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.

labor & employment

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

labor & employment

The case involved Dexter M. Elsberry, who claimed workers' compensation benefits from his employer FedEx after injuring his back at work on August 7, 2025. He sought additional medical treatment and temporary disability benefits beyond what had been provided. The court decided that Elsberry was not likely to prevail on the merits, denying the requests for further benefits. The reasoning centered on the authorized physician's opinion that the ongoing symptoms were not caused by the work injury and that maximum medical improvement had been reached with no impairment rating.

labor & employment

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Yonny Perez Hernandez against his employer PR Marine Constr., LLC, and its insurer for medical benefits following a July 2023 workplace injury in which a large post fell on him, causing back and jaw injuries that required surgery and hospitalization. After initial treatment and some temporary disability benefits, Hernandez sought additional medical care but was deported to Mexico in 2024; the employer denied further benefits, arguing lack of medical proof linking his symptoms to the work injury and that his immigration status and location abroad barred recovery. Following an expedited hearing, the Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims ruled that Hernandez was likely to prevail on the merits and ordered the employer to provide a panel of physicians. The court reasoned that the injury was obvious based on the employee's testimony and the accepted claim history, eliminating the need for expert medical causation proof at this stage, and that Tennessee law does not deny benefits due to illegal immigration status or residence outside the country.

labor & employmentimmigration

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Boi Eston Jones against Amazon Fulfillment Center MEM4 for injuries to his back and neck sustained when boxes fell on him at work. Jones sought ongoing medical treatment and temporary disability benefits, while Amazon argued he had reached maximum medical improvement and was not entitled to further temporary benefits. The Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims ruled that Jones is entitled to continued medical treatment from his authorized physicians and ongoing temporary disability benefits. The court reasoned that employees remain entitled to reasonable and necessary medical care related to the work injury unless terminated by court order or settlement, and temporary benefits continue until maximum medical improvement or return to work, which had not occurred here.

labor & employment

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by employee L'Keshia Watson against employer AccentCare, Inc., and its insurer. Watson sought additional medical treatment and temporary partial disability benefits after injuring her back and legs in a June 2025 workplace fall while moving a patient. AccentCare provided initial medical care but terminated Watson shortly after the injury for repeated policy violations, including disruptive conduct, and denied temporary benefits on that basis. The court ruled that Watson is entitled to further medical benefits for her work-related injury but not to temporary disability benefits. The core reasoning was that the employer's decision to terminate was supported by evidence of pre-injury policy violations and an earlier termination request, allowing enforcement of workplace rules even with a compensable injury.

labor & employment

In this workers' compensation case, employee Breeahna Britt sought medical benefits for a head, neck, and upper-body injury from a March 2022 workplace incident involving a power tool. After relocating to Colorado, she requested a new panel of physicians and asked the court to designate her unauthorized physical therapist as her authorized treating physician. The court found that the employer had not provided a valid panel after her move and written request, as required by statute, and thus held that she is entitled to a panel of Colorado neurologists. However, her request regarding the physical therapist was denied because she had not established a qualifying doctor-patient relationship with a neurologist and a physical therapist does not meet the definition of a physician under the applicable rules.

labor & employmentprocedure

This workers' compensation case involved employee Derrick Hands, who fell at work in 2018 and claimed knee and back injuries. The parties agreed the knee injury was compensable with partial permanent disability benefits, but disputed whether the back injury arose primarily from the employment and the extent of overall disability. After reviewing medical evidence from treating physicians and employer-selected experts, including conflicting causation opinions on the back condition, the court found both injuries compensable and awarded benefits for partial permanent disability. The core reasoning centered on the employee's lack of prior back symptoms, the mechanism of the fall, and medical testimony linking the injuries to the work incident despite preexisting degenerative changes.

labor & employment

In this workers' compensation case, employee Erica Lee sought additional medical and temporary disability benefits from employer Amazon after injuring her shoulder when a cart jerked her arm on July 11, 2023. The court denied the benefits, holding that Lee failed to prove her work injury caused more than 50% of her current need for treatment under Tennessee law. The authorized treating physician, Dr. Jones, concluded the rotator cuff tear was primarily degenerative and unrelated to the Amazon incident, and his opinion is presumed correct on causation and medical necessity. Although Lee offered a contrary opinion from Dr. Buechner, the court found it insufficient to rebut the presumption because it lacked explanation for how the work incident primarily caused her symptoms amid noted chronic findings.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Cody Rogers against Mitsubishi Chemical America, Inc., following a 2021 workplace traumatic brain injury that resulted in a settlement providing ongoing medical benefits. The court addressed whether Rogers was entitled to occupational driving therapy recommended by his treating physician, whether he provided timely notice of a subsequent ankle fracture sustained at home, and whether he qualified for attorney's fees. The court granted the requested therapy, ruled that notice of the ankle injury was timely, and awarded fees. It reasoned that the therapy was medically necessary under state law based on the physician's referral and evidence of need, the ankle injury was causally linked to balance issues from the original work injury, and the employer's delay in providing a medical panel supported the fee award.

labor & employment

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Judith Holland against her employer Randstad and its carrier for post-settlement medical benefits following a 2019 work-related lumbar injury. Holland, who had previously undergone an authorized microdiscectomy and lumbar fusion by her treating physician Dr. Schroerlucke, sought approval for a second fusion surgery to address a new disc herniation and radiculopathy above the prior fusion site. The employer denied the request after utilization review found it not medically necessary, but following a compensation hearing the court granted the surgery along with attorney's fees. The court reasoned that the authorized treating physician's recommendation was supported by MRI findings, failed conservative measures including injections and physical therapy, and ongoing symptoms that left no other viable treatment options.

labor & employment

The case was a workers' compensation claim brought by the surviving partner of Baudilio Velasquez, who died from a work-related injury at Brothers Construction, seeking death benefits for their three minor children living in Guatemala. After a compensation hearing, the court found that the sole disputed issue was Mr. Velasquez's average weekly wage and determined it to be $950 based on the employer's testimony that this was the normal weekly pay amount, which aligned with remittances sent to the family. The court granted benefits accordingly, applying Tennessee statutes on calculating wages for employees who worked less than 52 weeks and noting the lack of written wage records. The ruling relied on the preponderance of evidence from conflicting testimony by the employer and witnesses.

labor & employmentfamily law

In this workers' compensation case, employee Musshur Meener sought additional medical and temporary disability benefits after slipping and falling on a cargo roller at work for Federal Express, which injured his neck and shoulder blades. The court denied the requested benefits. The decision rested on Meener's failure to show, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that his work injury contributed more than 50% to his current need for treatment, as required by statute; the treating orthopedist's opinion that it did not was presumed correct, and no contrary medical evidence was presented. The court also noted that the employer had offered and could have accommodated light-duty restrictions.

labor & employment

Martha McCool filed a petition in the Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims seeking a second opinion on surgery recommended by her authorized treating physician, along with attorney's fees for the employer's failure to provide it. The court ordered the second opinion and initially found McCool entitled to fees, but after the Appeals Board vacated that award and remanded for further review under the updated standard in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-226(d)(1), the court denied the fees upon supplemental filings. The court held that subsection (A) does not apply because a second opinion is merely an evaluation, not "treatment or care." It further concluded that subsection (B) does not apply because the employer's denial, though ultimately rejected by the court, was based on a reasonable interpretation of the law and was not unreasonable, irrational, or capricious.

labor & employment

The case involved Bobby Williams, a truck driver for HUB Group, who sought workers' compensation benefits for a head and brain injury after experiencing dizziness at a truck stop during work on March 28, 2022. The court denied the request for benefits at the expedited hearing, finding that Williams was unlikely to prove at a full hearing that his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. The core reasoning was that Williams failed to present medical evidence from a physician establishing, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that his work contributed more than 50% to causing his condition, as required by Tennessee law; both physicians who addressed causation did not support a work-related cause, and his subjective belief alone was insufficient.

labor & employment

This case involved an employee, Deandre Miles, who sought workers' compensation benefits after injuring his back on a malfunctioning forklift while working for Nike Inc. Footwear in March 2023. Miles requested a new authorized treating physician, temporary disability benefits, and payment of unauthorized medical bills from a chiropractor, after his selected panel physician, Dr. Murrell, released him at maximum medical improvement with no impairment rating and no further orthopedic treatment. The court denied the requests for a new physician, temporary disability benefits, and payment of the unauthorized bills, finding that the original physician had not declined to treat him, Nike had not offered a new panel, Miles had been returned to full duty, and he provided insufficient proof for the additional claims. However, the court ruled that Miles could return to Dr. Murrell for any reasonable and necessary treatment related to the work injury since his medical benefits had not been terminated. The court also denied a last-minute motion to compel discovery due to lack of prior requests and good-faith efforts, and admitted certain text and email evidence over a hearsay objection.

labor & employmentprocedure