CompFox AI Summary
This interlocutory appeal stems from the denial of an employer's motion to deny the employee's request for an independent medical examiner from the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation’s Medical Impairment Rating Registry (MIRR). Employee Donna Davis sustained a knee injury, and her treating physician, Dr. James Rungee, found no permanent impairment but imposed permanent restrictions based on a functional capacity evaluation. Employer Amazon.com, Inc. argued against an MIRR examination, contending that the restrictions stemmed from a pre-existing condition, thus negating a dispute over impairment. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims denied the employer's motion, concluding that a dispute existed given the physician's restrictions without an impairment rating. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed this decision, disagreeing with the employer's interpretation and remanding the case.
Davis, Donna v. Amazon.com, Inc. is a workers' compensation case decided in Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This interlocutory appeal stems from the denial of an employer's motion to deny the employee's request for an independent medical examiner from the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation’s Medical Impairment Rating Registry (MIRR). Employee Donna Davis sustained a knee injury, and her treating physician, Dr. James Rungee, found no permanent impairment but imposed permanent restrictions based on a functional capacity evaluation. Employer Amazon.com, Inc. argued against an MIRR examination, contending that the restrictions stemmed from a pre-existing condition, thus negating a dispute over impairment. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims denied the employer's motion, concluding that a dispute existed given the physician's restrictions without an impairment rating. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed this decision, disagreeing with the employer's interpretation and remanding the case.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.