David Simmons v. Konrad Construction, et al.

Simmons, 2026 TN WC App. 25 (Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board 2026) · Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board · June 2, 2026 · No. 2025-80-6051

Summary

The Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed and remanded an expedited hearing order denying David Simmons temporary disability benefits while allowing ongoing medical treatment for compensable finger injuries. The Board deferred to the trial court’s credibility findings and concluded that the record contained no evidence of continuing work restrictions or other error warranting reversal.

Court
Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
Writing for the Court
Pele I. Godkin; Timothy W. Conner; Meredith B. Weaver
Jurisdiction
Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
Decision date
June 2, 2026
Docket number
2025-80-6051
Procedural posture
Interlocutory appeal from an expedited hearing order of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims denying temporary disability benefits but awarding ongoing medical treatment for compensable finger injuries.
Standard of review
Factual findings are presumed correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise, and considerable deference is given to credibility findings based on in-court testimony. When medical proof is presented by deposition, the appellate panel may draw its own conclusions regarding the weight and credibility of expert testimony. Statutory and regulatory interpretation are reviewed de novo without a presumption of correctness.
Precedential value
Published opinion of the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.
Parties
David Simmons v. Konrad Construction, et al.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

workers compensationappellate procedurestandard of reviewevidencepreservation of error

Practice areas

workers' compensationemployment lawappellate procedureevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court erred in denying temporary disability benefits.
  2. Whether the appellate court could review alleged evidentiary and discovery errors when the record contained neither a transcript of the hearing nor a statement of the evidence.
  3. Whether the trial court clearly and convincingly erred in its credibility determinations.
  4. Whether the trial court erred in determining that Simmons remained entitled to ongoing medical treatment for his compensable finger injuries.
  5. Whether the appeal was frivolous and warranted an award of fees or costs.

Holdings

  1. When an appellant provides neither a transcript of the hearing nor a statement of the evidence, the appellate court must presume that the trial court's factual findings and action were supported by sufficient evidence and will not speculate about the proof presented below.
  2. A trial court's credibility determinations based on in-court testimony will not be reevaluated absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
  3. The trial court did not err in denying Simmons's request for temporary disability benefits because he failed to present sufficient evidence indicating that he was likely to prevail at trial, including evidence of ongoing work restrictions or an inability to work caused by the compensable injury.
  4. The trial court properly determined that Simmons remained entitled to ongoing medical treatment for his compensable finger lacerations with the authorized treating provider.
  5. Although the appeal lacked merit, the Board declined to award fees or costs because it exercised its discretion not to deem the appeal sanctionable under the circumstances.

Key quotations

In the absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence, “the totality of the evidence introduced in the trial court is unknown, and we decline to speculate as to the nature and extent of the proof presented to the trial court.” (at 3)
“Appellate courts will not re-evaluate a trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.” (at 4)
“[P]arties should not be required to endure the hassle and expense of baseless litigation. Nor should appellate courts be required to waste time and resources on appeals that have no realistic chance of success.” (at 5)

Factual background

On August 11, 2025, a bundle of steel fell on David Simmons's right hand while he was working as a welder for Konrad Construction, causing lacerations to his middle and ring fingers. He received authorized treatment and initially had temporary restrictions against heavy lifting, but no restrictions were assigned after his sutures were removed on August 22. Simmons continued working for the employer after his welding contract ended, sought temporary disability and additional medical benefits, and later claimed that his injuries limited his ability to work. The trial court found his testimony inconsistent and not credible, while the record contained no evidence of ongoing work restrictions.

Procedural history

Simmons injured fingers on his right hand while working as a welder for Konrad Construction. After an expedited hearing, the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims found Simmons's testimony not credible, determined that he had not shown a likelihood of prevailing on his claim for temporary disability benefits, and ordered ongoing medical treatment with the authorized provider. Simmons appealed. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed and remanded.

Remand instructions

The case is remanded following affirmance of the trial court's order. The opinion does not specify additional substantive instructions.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…