This case involved an employee of a tree service company who suffered a severe right-hand injury from a chainsaw accident at work, leading him to seek workers' compensation benefits including temporary disability, permanent partial disability, and medical expenses. The court held that the employee was entitled to these benefits after finding the injury was work-related based on unrefuted testimony and the treating surgeon's opinions, which established periods of temporary total and partial disability as well as a 4% permanent impairment rating. The core reasoning focused on recalculating the average weekly wage to account for the employee's intermittent work schedule by dividing total wages by weeks with earnings, resulting in a higher compensation rate; crediting employer testimony on the timing of a return-to-work offer; and subtracting amounts already paid by the employer from the total award. The court awarded net temporary disability benefits of $1,861.37 plus permanent partial disability benefits of $9,694.98.
The case Kinsey, Robert v. SNS Transportation Services, Inc. was a dispute before the Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims involving an employee claim against a transportation services company. The court addressed issues arising under workers' compensation law. Its decision was electronically filed on April 22, 2026, after an initial filing the prior day. The ruling applied relevant statutes and evidence to resolve the compensation issues presented.
This case involves an employee, Miriam Bianco, who suffered a work-related fall injuring her right knee and lower back while employed by Academy of Maryland Farms. She requested new panels of physicians for treatment and temporary disability benefits after being released at maximum medical improvement by her treating physician, Dr. Richie, whom she claimed was not properly selected from an initial panel. The court denied both requests at the expedited hearing. It held that the employer had provided valid physician panels as required by Tennessee workers' compensation law, and the employee must select a treating physician from those panels; her treatment from a panel physician constituted acceptance. The court also found she did not show a likelihood of prevailing on her claim for additional temporary benefits.
The case involved an employee, Adrianne Eason, who sought medical treatment for a left-knee mass that appeared after a work-related injury in August 2023 while employed by Federal Express Corporation. The employer denied the request, arguing that the statute of limitations barred the claim because the employee did not file a petition for benefits within one year of the last payment made on the claim. The court denied the request for benefits in this expedited hearing, finding that the employee filed her petition more than a year after the last payment on March 8, 2024, specifically on April 10, 2025, and did not raise any applicable exceptions. The reasoning centered on the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law requiring petitions to be filed within one year from the latter of the last authorized treatment or the cessation of payments, with the issuance date of the last payment triggering the limitations period.
The case involves an employee's workers' compensation claim against his employer for injuries from a 2020 work fall. The employer moved to dismiss due to the employee's repeated failures to comply with court-ordered discovery deadlines, including depositions and expert medical proof, and his non-appearance at hearings. The court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice, reasoning that the employee's non-compliance with discovery rules and court orders justified sanctions under Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 37.02 and the court's inherent authority to manage its docket.
In this workers' compensation case, employee Candice Clendening sought a panel of psychiatrists to treat mental health conditions she attributed to a December 2024 work accident in which her cement mixer truck rolled over after brake failure, leaving her trapped and fearing for her life. She had received orthopedic treatment from an authorized physician, Dr. Douglas, who initially referred her to psychiatrist Dr. Caruso; Dr. Caruso diagnosed work-related PTSD and major depressive disorder and recommended psychiatric care. The employer denied the request for a psychiatric panel, asserting through later statements from Dr. Douglas that the conditions were preexisting and not compensable. Following an expedited hearing, the court granted the requested panel, finding Clendening likely to prove at trial that she suffered a compensable mental injury arising from the accident.
