Freeman v. United Road Services, Inc., et al.

2026 TN WC App. 5 · Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board · January 28, 2026 · No. 2023-05-6340

Summary

The Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the denial of Wayne Freeman’s request to select a new authorized treating physician and certified the trial court’s order as final. The Board held that any attempt to set aside the 2023 settlement judgment based on alleged fraud was untimely under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02. It further held that Freeman presented no evidence that the employer or authorized physician had failed or refused to provide reasonable and necessary medical care under the court-approved settlement.

Holdings

  1. The employee’s request for relief from the September 2023 judgment was untimely because it was filed more than one year after entry of the judgment, and the employee did not establish a basis for relief under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02.
  2. An employee whose entitlement to future medical care is established by a judgment or court-approved settlement may petition the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims to resolve a dispute over future medical care without being subject to the time limitations in Rule 60.02.
  3. The employee was not entitled to a change of authorized treating physician because he presented no evidence that the current physician had refused or failed to provide reasonable and necessary medical treatment causally related to the work injury.
  4. The Appeals Board could not consider the medical record because it was not shown to have been admitted into evidence or considered by the trial court.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the employee’s attempt to obtain relief from the 2023 judgment approving the settlement was timely under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02.
  2. Whether the employee was entitled to a change of authorized treating physician based on alleged fraud in the physician-selection process or alleged failure by the current physician to provide appropriate medical care.
  3. Whether the Appeals Board could consider a medical record submitted for the first time on appeal.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (8)

  • Madden v. Holland Grp. of Tenn., Inc., 277 S.W.3d 896, 898 (Tenn. 2009)(followed)
  • Edwards v. Peoplease, LLC, No. W2024-01034-SC-R3-WC, 2025 Tenn. LEXIS 514, at *18 (Tenn. Dec. 22, 2025)(followed)
  • Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393, 399 (Tenn. 2013)(followed)
  • Hadzic v. Averitt Express, No. 2014-02-0064, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 14, at *13 n.4 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. May 18, 2015)(followed)
  • Kenney v. HSN, Inc., No. 2020-02-0536, 2024 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 1, at *5-6 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Jan. 5, 2024)(followed)
  • Britt v. Chambers, No. W2006-00061-COA-R3-CV, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 38, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2007)(followed)
  • Holmes v. Ellis Watkins d/b/a Watkins Lawn Care, No. 2017-08-0504, 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 7, at *3-4 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Feb. 13, 2018)(followed)
  • Cosey v. Jarden Corp., No. 2017-01-0053, 2019 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 3, at *8 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2019)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…