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. 2015-01-0281
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2018

Tucker, David E. v. Star Transportation

David Tucker, an employee of Star Transportation, sought to change his treating physician for a shoulder injury sustained on July 1, 2015. He expressed a loss of confidence in Dr. Mejia due to perceived ineffectual treatment, improper impairment assessment methodology, and the physician's refusal to complete a Physician Certification Form. The Court, citing precedents like Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions and Baker v. Electrolux, found no legal basis to compel the employer to provide a new panel of physicians. The Court ruled that Mr. Tucker's subjective dissatisfaction and the alleged inadequacies of Dr. Mejia did not warrant a change in treating physician.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryTreating PhysicianMedical TreatmentImpairment RatingAMA GuidesTennessee LawRight to Control Medical TreatmentPhysician Certification FormMMI (Maximum Medical Improvement)
References
3
Case No. 01-14-00767-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Shirley Lenoir, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shana Lenoir and Christopher McKnight , Individually and as Next Friend of Nayla McKnight v. U.T. Physicians

This is a health care liability appeal where Shirley Lenoir and Christopher McKnight, individually and as representatives of the Estate of Shana Lenoir and Nayla McKnight, challenge the trial court's decision to grant U.T. Physicians' plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The appellants allege that U.T. Physicians' negligence in treating Shana Lenoir’s twin pregnancy, specifically the administration of a medically unnecessary and contraindicated progesterone injection by Nurse Matthews, proximately caused her death. U.T. Physicians claimed sovereign immunity as a governmental unit. Appellants argue that U.T. Physicians is a private non-profit corporation and an independent contractor, not entitled to sovereign immunity, and that a waiver of immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act was sufficiently pled due to the use of tangible physical property.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental UnitIndependent ContractorTexas Tort Claims ActHealth Care LiabilityMedical MalpracticeNegligenceProgesterone InjectionTwin PregnancyWrongful Death
References
16
Case No. 2021-08-1017
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2021

Hwes, James v. McLane Co., Inc.

James Hawes, an employee, requested an expedited hearing to compel his employer, McLane Co., Inc., to provide a panel of physicians for a back injury sustained on December 8, 2020, while lifting a box. McLane denied the claim, asserting the injury did not arise out of employment, relying on an Electrodiagnostic Functional Assessment (EFA) that showed no acute pathology. The Court found that McLane failed to comply with statutory requirements by referring Hawes to a single physician for the EFA instead of providing a panel. Therefore, the Court ordered McLane to provide a panel of physicians. The Court denied attorney's fees but referred McLane for a penalty for non-compliance with statutory requirements regarding the provision of a physician panel.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingPanel of PhysiciansBack InjuryElectrodiagnostic Functional Assessment (EFA)Employer LiabilityEmployee RightsStatutory ComplianceAttorney's Fees
References
4
Case No. 2018-01-0036
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2020

Swafford, Carl v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc

Carl Swafford, an employee, filed for an expedited hearing after sustaining a right hip injury while working for Wal-Mart. He sought a valid panel of physicians and penalty assessment against Wal-Mart for an initially invalid panel. The Court found Wal-Mart's first panel, which included a physician sixty-seven miles away, to be invalid under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(i). However, the Court determined that Wal-Mart subsequently remedied the defect by offering a new panel with physicians reasonably within Mr. Swafford's community (Chattanooga and Cleveland). Consequently, the Court denied Mr. Swafford's request for another panel and declined to impose penalties on Wal-Mart.

Medical PanelExpedited HearingHip InjuryOrthopedicPhysician SelectionEmployer ObligationsTennessee LawChattanoogaStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Claims
References
0
Case No. 2022-08-0195
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2022

Evans, Antron v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.

Mr. Antron Evans requested a panel of psychiatrists, attorney's fees, and payment of a medical bill following a store robbery where he sustained a head injury. Family Dollar, the employer, contended he was not entitled to a psychiatric panel without a referral from an authorized physician, disputed the medical bill, and denied wrongfully denying the claim for attorney's fees. The Court denied Mr. Evans's requests for a psychiatric panel and payment of the emergency room bill, citing the statutory requirement of a panel physician's referral for psychiatric services and lack of proof for the medical bill. However, the Court granted his request for attorney's fees due to Family Dollar's five-month delay in timely initiating medical benefits. Additionally, Family Dollar was referred to the Compliance Program for potential penalties concerning the late filing of the First Report of Injury and the untimely provision of a panel of physicians.

Workers' CompensationMedical Benefits DenialAttorney's Fees GrantEmployer PenaltiesExpedited HearingPsychiatric ReferralStatutory InterpretationLate Claim ProcessingFirst Report of Injury DelayPost-Traumatic Stress
References
6
Case No. 2022-02-0286
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2023

Roy, David v. Kenan Advantage Group

David Roy, the employee, injured his right arm and shoulder in August 2020. Although Kenan Advantage Group, the employer, initially provided medical treatment, Mr. Roy's authorized physician later declined to continue care. Despite Kenan sending multiple panels of physicians, all selected doctors refused to treat Mr. Roy after reviewing his medical records. Mr. Roy sought a court order compelling Kenan to provide a new panel of physicians, citing persistent pain and concern over his previous surgery. Kenan did not dispute Mr. Roy's entitlement to treatment but acknowledged difficulty in finding a willing physician. The Court ruled in favor of Mr. Roy, ordering Kenan to supply a panel of physicians willing to treat his injuries as per Tennessee Code Annotated sections 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(i) and 50-6-204(a)(3)(B).

Workers' CompensationMedical TreatmentPhysician PanelRight Arm InjuryShoulder InjuryEmployer ObligationEmployee RightsTennesseeCourt OrderPanel of Physicians
References
0
Case No. 2022-08-1404
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2026

BRITT, BREEAHNA v. CENTER FOR YOUTH MINISTRY TRAINING

Breeahna Britt, an employee, sought medical benefits for a head, neck, and upper-body injury, specifically requesting her physical therapist to be named as her authorized treating physician. The employer, Center for Youth Ministry Training, initially disputed the lack of a valid physician panel but later conceded, offering a Colorado neurologists' panel during the expedited hearing. The Court denied Ms. Britt's request for the physical therapist to be authorized, citing her failure to establish a doctor/patient relationship with a physician, specifically a neurologist. However, the Court affirmed Ms. Britt's entitlement to a new panel of neurologists in Colorado and referred the employer to the compliance program for penalties due to their delay in providing a valid panel.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsPhysician PanelAuthorized Treating PhysicianEmployee RelocationEmployer ObligationNeurologyPenalty AssessmentExpedited HearingTennessee Law
References
3
Case No. 2021-08-0170
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2021

Hawes, James v. McLane Company, Inc.

The case concerns James Hawes, an employee who reported a back injury and sought a panel of physicians from his employer, McLane Company, Inc. The employer initially refused, citing an electrodiagnostic functional assessment (EFA) that found no acute work-related injury. The trial court ordered the employer to provide a physician panel, a decision McLane Company appealed. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's ruling, emphasizing that an employer's investigation or assertion of no medical causation does not relieve its statutory duty to provide a panel of physicians for a reported work accident. The Board clarified that while employers can direct employees to employer-sponsored medical providers, this does not replace the obligation to provide a statutory panel. The case was ultimately affirmed and remanded.

Workers' Compensation AppealPanel of PhysiciansMedical Treatment EntitlementElectrodiagnostic Functional Assessment (EFA)Employer ObligationStatutory ComplianceWork-Related InjuryMedical CausationExpedited HearingAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. 2017-01-0228
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2017

Ducros, James v. Metro Roofing and Metal Supply Co.

James Ducros, an employee of Metro Roofing and Metal Supply Co., Inc., filed a request for an expedited hearing to have Dr. Woody Kennedy designated as his authorized treating physician after a wrist injury. Initially, Metro Roofing authorized Dr. Kennedy but delayed in offering a panel of physicians for a month, from which Ducros ultimately selected Dr. Peter Lund. Ducros argued coercion regarding the late-offered panel. The Court denied Ducros' request, finding that despite the employer's delay in providing a panel, which could incur a penalty, Ducros had a statutory duty to accept the offered medical benefits and had treated with Dr. Lund for almost a year. The Court referred Metro Roofing to the Penalty Unit for investigation due to its failure to timely offer a panel of physicians.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsPhysician AuthorizationPanel of PhysiciansExpedited HearingPenalty AssessmentEmployer ObligationsDelayed Panel OfferTreating PhysicianWrist Injury
References
3
Case No. 2016-01-0471
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2016

Nunley, George David v. Sequatchie Farmers Cooperative

George David Nunley, an employee of Sequatchie Farmers Cooperative, injured his lumbar spine while lifting tires and subsequently underwent two back surgeries. Following persistent symptoms, his authorized treating physician, Dr. Timothy Strait, referred him to Dr. Joseph Miller, within the same practice group, for consideration of spinal fusion surgery. Mr. Nunley filed a Request for Expedited Hearing, seeking a panel of physicians from which to select a surgeon for the recommended procedure. The Workers' Compensation Judge, Thomas Wyatt, denied Mr. Nunley's request, referencing Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204. The Court clarified that employers have the right to accept a specific physician referral without providing a new panel, and that panels offered for second opinions do not alter the designation of the authorized treating physician.

Medical Benefits DenialPhysician Referral RightsSpinal Injury ClaimAuthorized Treating Physician SelectionSecond Medical OpinionExpedited Hearing DecisionWorkers' Compensation StatutesEmployer Medical ChoiceEmployee Medical RightsJudicial Interpretation
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,727 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