CompFox AI Summary
Bradley Tempel sought medical and temporary disability benefits for injuries sustained from a fall while roofing. His employer, DR Roofing, LLC, and carrier, Amguard, denied the request, alleging he intentionally violated a safety rule by not using a safety harness. The Court found that Mr. Tempel did not make a conscious choice to violate the rule, but rather exhibited a lapse of judgment or negligence, which is not considered a willful violation under relevant case law like Mitchell and Nance. Consequently, the Court held that Mr. Tempel would likely prevail in showing his injury arose out of his employment and ordered DR Roofing, LLC to provide him with a panel of physicians for his foot injuries. The Court, however, could not order payment for medical bills or temporary disability benefits due to a lack of evidence presented by Mr. Tempel.
Tempel, Bradley v. DR Roofing, LLC is a workers' compensation case decided in Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims. 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 Court of Workers' Compensation Claims.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Bradley Tempel sought medical and temporary disability benefits for injuries sustained from a fall while roofing. His employer, DR Roofing, LLC, and carrier, Amguard, denied the request, alleging he intentionally violated a safety rule by not using a safety harness. The Court found that Mr. Tempel did not make a conscious choice to violate the rule, but rather exhibited a lapse of judgment or negligence, which is not considered a willful violation under relevant case law like Mitchell and Nance. Consequently, the Court held that Mr. Tempel would likely prevail in showing his injury arose out of his employment and ordered DR Roofing, LLC to provide him with a panel of physicians for his foot injuries. The Court, however, could not order payment for medical bills or temporary disability benefits due to a lack of evidence presented by Mr. Tempel.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.