The case involved Sarah Bivens, a receptionist at Acadia Healthcare Management, Inc., who sought workers' compensation benefits after tripping and falling in a hallway at work on April 22, 2025, resulting in a head injury and knee fracture requiring surgery. The employer denied the claim, arguing the fall was idiopathic with no work-related hazard, supported by video footage showing a level floor. The court denied the request for benefits at the expedited hearing stage, finding that Bivens failed to provide evidence beyond her assertion that the floor was uneven, as the video indicated no visible hazard, making it unlikely she would prevail on the merits under Tennessee workers' compensation law.
This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Terry Painter against his employer Hollingshead Development, LLC, and its insurer, stemming from a 2024 workplace fall that caused a right hip fracture. Painter sought a court order authorizing evaluation by a specific hip specialist, Dr. Mark Freeman, and additional temporary disability benefits starting in May 2025. The court denied both requests, holding that Painter failed to establish a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. The ruling rested on findings that the employer properly offered a panel of specialists which Painter did not select from, that treating physician Dr. Yee had released him without restrictions and placed him at maximum medical improvement, and that no medical evidence supported ongoing disability benefits.
Mr. Hudson, a truck driver employed by Coca Cola, injured his right hip on the job in January 2024 when stepping off a ladder, leading the employer to accept the claim and authorize a hip replacement performed by Dr. Grebner in March 2025. He later sought authorization for left-hip treatment, asserting that rehabilitation from the right-hip surgery had aggravated a preexisting avascular necrosis condition in his left hip. The court denied the request for left-hip benefits, holding that Mr. Hudson failed to show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Under Tennessee workers' compensation law, an employee must prove to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the work injury contributed more than 50 percent in causing the need for treatment, but Dr. Grebner's testimony used only speculative terms such as "could have" and "possibly," which did not satisfy the statutory standard.
This case from the Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims involved employee Hunter Meadows's request for an order authorizing all future medical treatment and paying temporary disability benefits starting November 2025 after a July 2025 workplace injury to his head, knees, back, hip, and foot while operating heavy equipment. The employer, Brown Bros., Inc., had accepted the claim, provided a panel leading to treatment by Dr. Sass, and recently offered specialist panels, but disputed the benefits. The court denied the requests, holding that Meadows failed to prove a likelihood of prevailing because no records showed a physician took him off work or that his earnings decreased on restricted duty, he had been working at a higher wage for a new employer since October 2025, and an order on all future treatment would be an improper advisory opinion. The court referred the matter to the Compliance Program for penalties due to the employer's delay in reporting the injury and offering a panel.
This case concerned a workers' compensation claim filed by Frederick Whitson against Express Employment Professionals after he fell and injured his shoulder and wrist at work on August 13, 2024. The employer made its last voluntary payment on September 23, 2024, but Whitson did not file his petition until October 29, 2025. The Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims granted the employer's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claim, finding it time-barred under the statute requiring petitions to be filed within one year of the employer's last payment, as the undisputed evidence negated an essential element of timely filing.
This case involved a workers' compensation claim by employee Markus Valentine against employer Volkswagen of America, Inc., following a June 2024 back injury from pushing heavy racks at work. Volkswagen accepted compensability for a thoracic spine strain but denied further benefits, including for thoracic spondylosis and a cervical condition that required surgery, citing lack of medical causation. The court denied Valentine's requests for a neutral physician appointment and additional temporary disability benefits. The core reasoning was that Valentine failed to prove by a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the work injury caused more than 50% of his ongoing thoracic or cervical conditions, as the authorized treating physicians found the thoracic sprain resolved at maximum medical improvement and no causation for the cervical issues or need for surgery.