CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2015-08-0292
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2015

Sirkin, Shawn v. Trans Carriers, Inc.

Shawn Sirkin, a 55-year-old resident of Toledo, Ohio, allegedly sustained a shoulder injury while working as a truck driver for Trans-Carriers, Inc., which subsequently denied her claim. Ms. Sirkin filed a Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) and later a Request for Expedited Hearing (REH) seeking temporary disability and medical benefits. The Court's primary focus was to determine if Ms. Sirkin complied with procedural requirements, specifically the filing of a sufficient supporting affidavit with her REH. The Court found that her submitted 'affidavit' was unsigned and unsworn, thus failing to meet the legal requirements outlined in the Court's rules and Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 72. Consequently, the Court denied Ms. Sirkin's Request for Expedited Hearing on procedural grounds.

Expedited HearingAffidavit RequirementsProcedural ComplianceTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsShoulder InjuryTruck DriverWorkers' Compensation LawBurden of ProofStatutory Construction
References
7
Case No. 2016-01-0139
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2016

Brown, Bonnie v. Whole Foods Markets, Inc.

Employee Bonnie Brown filed a Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) alleging a compensable spinal injury sustained on July 22, 2015, in the course and scope of her employment as a food preparer for Whole Foods Markets, Inc. The disputed issues included the employer's failure to provide a proper panel of back specialists/neurosurgeons and to provide requested discovery documents. Ms. Brown subsequently filed a Request for Expedited Hearing, seeking to resolve these discovery issues based on a review of the file without an evidentiary hearing. However, the Workers' Compensation Judge, Thomas Wyatt, denied the expedited hearing request. The Court determined that Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law, specifically Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239, does not permit discovery disputes to be addressed through an expedited hearing. Instead, discovery disputes must be adjudicated upon the review of written motions and affidavits, and Ms. Brown was advised to utilize standard discovery procedures and potentially file a motion to compel if necessary. A Status Conference was set for June 7, 2016.

Expedited Hearing RequestDiscovery DisputesWorkers' Compensation LawSpinal InjuryPetition for Benefit DeterminationDenial of RequestProcedural RulesStatus ConferenceAppeals BoardTennessee Law
References
2
Case No. 2017-05-0721
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2018

Robertson, Beverly vs. Edwards Oil Of Lawrenceburg

Beverly Robertson filed a claim against Edwards Oil of Lawrenceburg and Accident Fund Gen. Ins. Co. An Expedited Hearing was held on March 20, 2018. During the hearing, Ms. Robertson's counsel acknowledged that no medical or temporary disability benefits were in dispute; instead, the employee sought a determination of her correct average weekly wage. The Court, citing Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(1), found it could only conduct expedited hearings regarding temporary disability or medical benefits, which were not in dispute. Therefore, the Court denied Ms. Robertson's claim at this time and ordered her to file a Request for Scheduling Hearing or a valid Request for Expedited Hearing within thirty days.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingAverage Weekly WageClaim DenialProcedural RulingTennessee LawDisability BenefitsMedical BenefitsJurisdiction
References
1
Case No. 2022-06-1720
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2023

Garlock, Autumn v. O’Reilly Wooten 2000, LLC, d/b/a O’Reilly Auto Parts,

Autumn Garlock sustained a back injury while lifting an object at O’Reilly Auto Parts. The employer denied the claim, asserting a willful misconduct defense due to alleged improper lifting procedures. The Court conducted an expedited hearing and determined that the employer failed to present sufficient evidence for its defense, concluding that Ms. Garlock is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. Consequently, the Court ordered O’Reilly to authorize medical treatment with Dr. Ryan Snowden for Ms. Garlock’s back injury. However, requests for past medical bills and temporary disability benefits were denied at this time. The case was also referred to the Compliance Program for investigation into potential statute and rule violations by O’Reilly.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsWillful Misconduct DefenseLifting InjuryBack PainEmployer LiabilityCausationMedical Treatment AuthorizationPenalty Referral
References
10
Case No. 2018-02-0051
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2018

Hoss, Timothy v. ASR Metals

Timothy Hoss, an employee, filed an expedited hearing request seeking medical benefits for a back injury sustained on October 29, 2014, while working for ASR Metals. The central issues were the causal relationship between his need for treatment and the injury, and the medical necessity of proposed spinal surgery and facet injections. After an initial denial of decompression surgery recommended by Dr. Morgan Lorio, Mr. Hoss was evaluated by neurosurgeon Dr. Jim Brasfield. Dr. Brasfield recommended an L2-L3 MIS decompressive hemilaminectomy and L5-S1 percutaneous facet injections, citing stenosis and radiculopathy. ASR Metals' utilization review physician, Dr. Kimberly Terry, denied these procedures, attributing findings to pre-existing degenerative disc disease. The Court, however, found that ASR Metals failed to overcome the presumption of correctness of the authorized panel physician, Dr. Brasfield, regarding both causation and medical necessity. Consequently, the Court granted Mr. Hoss's requested relief, ordering ASR Metals to schedule the recommended surgical procedures.

Workers' CompensationBack InjurySpinal SurgeryFacet InjectionsMedical NecessityCausationUtilization ReviewPresumption of CorrectnessExpedited HearingMedical Benefits
References
1
Case No. 2021-07-1559
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2024

Jenkins, Dennis v. TYSON FOODS, INC.

This is an Expedited Hearing Order regarding Dennis Jenkins's claim for benefits against Tyson Foods, Inc. Mr. Jenkins sought an order for Tyson to pay benefits for injuries allegedly sustained after a forklift struck him on April 7, 2022. The Court dismissed Mr. Jenkins’s motion because he failed to submit an expert medical opinion demonstrating that his alleged injuries primarily arose out of and in the course of employment, thus making it unlikely he would prevail at a hearing on the merits. This was the second expedited hearing, with a previous denial in January 2023 due to credibility issues and lack of medical support. The Court reaffirmed that causation requires an expert medical opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

forklift accidentcausationexpert medical opinionexpedited hearingdismissalfailure to prosecuteworkers' compensation claimsemployment injuryself-insured employerRule 41 motion
References
1
Case No. 2015-06-0510
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2016

Pool, Ronald v. Jarmon D&Q Transport

Ronald Pool filed a Request for Expedited Hearing, alleging an occupational disease primarily caused by mold exposure while employed by Jarmon D&Q Transport. This was Mr. Pool's second expedited hearing, focusing on the compensability of his claim. The Court examined the medical evidence, particularly the opinion of Dr. Jane Choi, the authorized treating physician, who found no significant mold sensitivity or clear explanation for Mr. Pool's symptoms. The Court ruled that Mr. Pool failed to demonstrate that his alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. Consequently, his requests for additional medical and temporary disability benefits were denied, and an Initial (Scheduling) Hearing was set for September 6, 2016.

Occupational DiseaseCompensabilityMold ExposureAllergic RhinitisWorkers' Compensation BenefitsExpedited HearingCausationMedical EvidenceBurden of ProofRespiratory Problems
References
3
Case No. 2016-01-0268
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2016

Gentry, Billy v. Purdy Brotthers Trucking

Billy Gentry, an over-the-road truck driver, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking medical and temporary disability benefits for a right-knee injury he claimed occurred on March 24, 2015, while inspecting trailers. The employer, Purdy Brothers Trucking, argued Mr. Gentry lacked credibility due to numerous discrepancies in his statements regarding the date, time, and mechanism of injury to various company representatives and medical providers. The Court found Mr. Gentry failed to establish he was likely to prevail on the merits, citing contradictions in his testimony and lack of medical proof linking the knee injury to his employment. Consequently, the Court denied his request for benefits and denied Purdy Brothers' motion for involuntary dismissal, noting the interlocutory nature of the Expedited Hearing Order.

Knee InjuryExpedited HearingCredibility AssessmentBurden of ProofMedical Benefits DenialTemporary Disability BenefitsInjury Reporting DiscrepanciesInterlocutory OrderTennessee Workers' Compensation LawMotion to Dismiss
References
8
Case No. 2016-06-0832; 33590-2016
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2016

Gilbert, Thomas v. United Parsel Service, Inc.

This Expedited Hearing Order addresses the workers' compensation claim of Thomas Gilbert against United Parcel Service, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Mr. Gilbert, a UPS driver, suffered a left knee injury in 2011, settled for lifetime medical benefits. In 2015, he experienced an aggravation, leading to a recommended total knee replacement. The Court found Mr. Gilbert likely to prove a new, gradually-occurring injury, entitling him to medical benefits for the knee replacement. However, his requests for temporary total disability benefits and statutory penalties for delayed payments were denied, as he was not medically restricted from work and failed to meet criteria for penalties at the expedited hearing stage. The Court referred the employer and carrier to the Bureau's Compliance Unit for potential penalties regarding delays in filing the First Report of Injury and Notice of Denial.

Expedited HearingKnee Injury AggravationRepetitive Motion TraumaGradual Onset InjuryMedical Benefits AwardedTemporary Disability DeniedPenalties for Filing DelaysCausation DeterminationPreexisting Condition AggravationArthroplasty
References
7
Case No. 2018-02-0214
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2022

Mendez, Jose v. Eskola Roofing

Jose Mendez requested an expedited hearing seeking additional medical and temporary disability benefits for physical and mental injuries sustained from a fall at work on April 2, 2018. Eskola Roofing contended that it had met its obligation in providing medical benefits and that Mr. Mendez was not entitled to further temporary benefits due to a presumption of maximum medical improvement. The Court, holding an expedited hearing on February 4, 2022, denied Mr. Mendez’s requests for temporary total disability benefits and additional neuropsychological testing. However, the Court allowed Mr. Mendez to return to the authorized treating physician, Dr. Smith, for treatment and recommendations under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-204, noting that valid neuropsychological testing had not been completed and reviewed by Dr. Smith. A status conference for the case is scheduled for April 6, 2022.

expedited hearingmedical benefitstemporary disabilitymaximum medical improvementneuropsychological evaluationpsychiatric injury claimtreating physician recommendationsemployer examinationlanguage barrier challengesappellate process
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 7,286 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational