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. 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. 2015-01-0101
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2016

Smith, Timeka v. Chattanooga Area Regional Transit Authority

This expedited hearing order addresses a dispute between employee Timeka Smith and employer CARTA regarding the interpretation of a prior medical benefits award. Ms. Smith asserted her right to select an authorized treating physician from a panel, while CARTA argued it had the discretion to choose. The Court clarified its August 26, 2015 order, affirming Ms. Smith's right to select. The Court found CARTA's revised physician panel, which included occupational medicine specialists and a neurologist, compliant with Dr. Terry Smith's treatment recommendations. Consequently, Ms. Smith's requests for penalties against CARTA and attorney's fees were denied, and she was ordered to select a physician from the panel CARTA proffered on November 23, 2015.

Medical BenefitsPhysician ChoiceExpedited HearingFee Schedule ComplianceWorkers' Compensation LawMedical PanelOccupational MedicineNeurology ConsultAttorney Fees DeniedPenalty Assessment
References
1
Case No. 2017-06-0070
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2017

Baker, Tonya v. Electrolux

This interlocutory appeal addresses an employee's right to a second authorized treating physician after expressing dissatisfaction with her initial selection from a panel. The employer contended it fulfilled its statutory obligation by providing the first physician. While the trial court ordered the employer to provide a new panel, the Appeals Board reversed this decision. The Board found no evidence that the initial physician refused further treatment or that the employee attempted to continue care with him. Consequently, the employee was deemed to still have an authorized treating physician, negating the need for a new selection.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsTreating PhysicianPanel of PhysiciansEmployee RightsEmployer ObligationsStatutory InterpretationAppealLumbar StrainSciatica
References
5
Case No. 2014-02-0022
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2015

Smithee, Shelia v. Goodwill Industries

Shelia Smithee, a 60-year-old employee, suffered a back injury while working for Goodwill Industries on August 25, 2014. She reported the injury, but encountered delays in receiving a physician panel and was subsequently terminated for an incomplete urine drug screen (UDS) at an authorized clinic on October 3, 2014. Despite her explanation for being unable to provide a sample, Goodwill denied medical care, asserting non-compliance. However, Ms. Smithee passed an independent UDS later that same day with negative results. The Court found her injury compensable and granted medical benefits, allowing her to select a treating physician from the original panel, thereby overturning Goodwill's denial of benefits.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsUrine Drug ScreenCompensabilityBack InjuryEmployer LiabilityPhysician PanelExpedited HearingEmployee TerminationTennessee Workers' Compensation Law
References
3
Case No. 2020-08-0327
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2024

Hardy, Michelle v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc.

Michelle Hardy, an employee, suffered an arm injury leading to complex regional pain syndrome. She selected Dr. Greg Kyser for psychiatric treatment, but her care was terminated due to the carrier, PA Manufacturers Indem. Co., failing to pay bills and refusing an updated agreement. Hardy requested continued treatment with Dr. Kyser, but the Court denied this, ruling it lacked authority to compel the carrier to meet Kyser's demands. The Court ordered Hardy to choose a new physician from a panel offered by Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc. in June 2024. Furthermore, the Court referred Ollie's for penalties due to delayed payment and failure to timely offer a new physician panel, also granting attorney's fees to Hardy's counsel.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsPhysician PanelTreatment DenialUnpaid Medical BillsPenaltiesAttorney's FeesExpedited HearingComplex Regional Pain SyndromePsychiatric Treatment
References
4
Case No. 2015-06-0860
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2016

Young, David v. Young Electric Co.

Employee David Young appealed the denial of temporary disability benefits and limitations on medical expenses from a trial court order, stemming from a neck injury sustained at Young Electric Co. The employer initially denied the claim and delayed providing a panel of physicians, later refusing to schedule an appointment with the selected doctor. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's finding of a work-related accident and ordered reimbursement for all causally-related medical expenses incurred after May 20, 2015, modifying the order to authorize Dr. Lanford for ongoing treatment instead of the employer-selected physician. However, the Board upheld the denial of temporary disability benefits, citing the employee's failure to provide sufficient medical proof of work restrictions. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the modified decision.

Workers' CompensationNeck InjuryCervical Spine InjuryMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsExpedited HearingCredibility AssessmentPhysical Facts RuleCausationMedical Reimbursement
References
11
Case No. 2022-08-1069
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2025

Morris, Damon Curry v. Select Services

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee claimed he suffered arm and shoulder injuries due to an alleged workplace assault committed by his supervisor. The employer denied the assault occurred and denied the employee sustained any work-related injuries. Pursuant to a prior expedited hearing order, the employer provided a panel of physicians and authorized limited medical treatment. Thereafter, an MRI revealed a small partial tear in the left rotator cuff. The employer declined to approve additional treatment recommended by the authorized physician and declined to approve the authorized physician’s referral to a specialist. As a result, the employee requested another expedited hearing, after which the trial court ordered the employer to authorize the referral to a specialist for evaluation and treatment of the left shoulder despite acknowledging the lack of any expert medical evidence indicating that the employee’s left shoulder condition was primarily caused by the alleged workplace assault. Upon careful consideration of the record, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case.

Workplace InjuryShoulder InjuryRotator CuffMedical CausationExpedited HearingEmployer LiabilityEmployee Burden of ProofInterlocutory AppealRemandSubsequent Injury Fund
References
8
Case No. 2015-02-0057
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2015

Gilbert, Michael v. Pike Electric, LLC

Michael Gilbert, an employee of Pike Electric, LLC, sustained a neck and shoulder injury on October 15, 2014, for which his claim was accepted as compensable. Following a disagreement with his treating physician, Dr. Merrill White, regarding his diagnosis, Mr. Gilbert sought a second opinion. Pike Electric initially scheduled an appointment with Dr. Thomas Koenig, which Mr. Gilbert did not attend, arguing he was entitled to a panel selection for a second opinion. The Court determined that Mr. Gilbert is indeed entitled to a second opinion on diagnosis and may choose a physician from the two remaining specialists on the original panel provided by Pike, specifically Dr. Hauge or Dr. Johnson, as per Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(3)(C). No new panel selection is required.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsSecond OpinionPhysician PanelDiagnosis DisputeExpedited HearingEmployee RightsEmployer ObligationsMedical Treatment AccessTennessee Law
References
1
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
Showing 1-10 of 5,680 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