Summary
This Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision reviews an interlocutory appeal concerning an employee's claim for medical benefits following an alleged workplace assault. The Appeals Board reversed the trial court's order compelling the employer to authorize specialist treatment, concluding that the self-represented employee failed to meet his burden of proving at this interlocutory stage that his shoulder injury arose primarily from the work incident. The case is remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the employee bears the burden of producing evidence that a left‑shoulder injury is likely compensable at the interlocutory stage
- Whether the trial court erred in ordering the employer to authorize specialist treatment absent sufficient causation evidence
Holdings
- The employee must come forward with sufficient evidence indicating a likelihood of prevailing on causation and injury at the expedited hearing stage; the employee failed to meet that burden.
- The trial court’s order was erroneous because the employee had not produced evidence that the shoulder injury was caused by the work incident; the order is reversed and the case remanded.
Key quotations
“We conclude Employee has not met his burden of proof at this interlocutory stage of the case.” (at *9)
“Employee’s testimony regarding the alleged physical altercation was unrefuted, and the court ordered Employer to provide a panel of physicians.” (at *3)
Factual background
Employee Damon Curry Morris alleged his supervisor grabbed his left arm during a confrontation, causing bruising and later a partial rotator cuff tear. The employer denied the assault and the causal link to the shoulder injury. Multiple physicians evaluated the injury, none offering a definitive causation opinion. The trial court ordered the employer to provide a specialist referral, which the employer appealed.
Procedural history
The trial court ordered the employer to authorize a specialist referral despite lacking expert causation evidence. The employer appealed to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, which reversed the trial court’s order and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
Remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, requiring the parties to address the employee’s evidentiary burden at the next expedited hearing.