Breeahna Britt v. Center for Youth Ministry Training, et al.

Summary

The Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed and remanded an expedited hearing order concerning an employee’s entitlement to a panel of neurologists after moving out of state and her request to designate a physical therapist as her authorized treating physician. The Board held that the interlocutory appeal was limited in scope, that a physical therapist was not among the providers authorized for inclusion on a statutory medical panel, and that the employee’s proposed statements of the evidence were improper. The Board also declined to consider additional materials and arguments outside the expedited hearing issues.

Holdings

1. An expedited-hearing order is interlocutory and addresses only the limited issues properly raised and presented during the pendency of the claim; it may be revised, amended, or reversed before entry of a final order, but the interlocutory appeal itself is not a vehicle to reopen proof.
2. A doctor of physical therapy is not among the providers identified by Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(i) who may be included on a panel from which an injured worker selects an authorized treating physician.
3. A statement of the evidence must accurately summarize in-person testimony presented during the hearing and may not include background and argument that belong in an appellate brief.
4. An interlocutory appeal is limited to the issues addressed by the trial court in the expedited-hearing order.
5. When an appellant fails to provide a transcript or proper statement of the evidence and fails to offer a cogent factual or legal argument demonstrating error, the Appeals Board cannot conduct meaningful review and will affirm absent a showing of error.
6. Self-represented litigants are entitled to fair and equal treatment but must comply with the same substantive and procedural rules as represented parties.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the interlocutory appeal could be used to reopen proof or present additional evidence concerning the expedited hearing.
2. Whether a doctor of physical therapy could be designated as Britt's authorized treating physician under Tennessee's workers' compensation medical-panel statute.
3. Whether the trial court properly declined to certify Britt's proposed statements of the evidence because they included background, factual summaries, and argument rather than an accurate summary of in-person testimony.
4. Whether the trial court erred in its expedited hearing order when Britt supplied no transcript, proper statement of the evidence, or cogent factual or legal argument demonstrating error.

Disposition

affirmed