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

2026 TN WC App. 2 (Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board 2026) · Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board · January 6, 2026 · No. 2024-50-8550

Summary

The Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed an interlocutory order denying medical benefits for an alleged right shoulder injury. The Board held that the employee failed to provide timely written notice of the alleged accident, the employer lacked actual knowledge, and the employee did not establish a reasonable excuse for the delay. The case was remanded to the trial court, with appellate costs taxed to the employee.

Court
Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
Writing for the Court
Timothy W. Conner; Pele I. Godkin; Meredith B. Weaver
Jurisdiction
Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
Decision date
January 6, 2026
Docket number
2024-50-8550
Procedural posture
Employee appealed from an interlocutory order of the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims denying medical benefits for an alleged right shoulder injury after an expedited hearing.
Standard of review
Factual findings are presumed correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise, with considerable deference given to findings based on live testimony and witness demeanor. Findings based on documentary evidence receive no similar deference. Statutory and regulatory interpretation are reviewed de novo without a presumption of correctness. Credibility determinations are upheld absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Wayne Freeman v. United Road Services, Inc., et al.
Disposition
other

Topics

workers compensationstatutory interpretationstandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

workers compensationemployment lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Freeman was likely to prove at trial that he sustained a compensable gradual right shoulder injury primarily caused by work.
  2. Whether Freeman provided timely written notice of the alleged April 6, 2024 sudden right shoulder injury.
  3. If timely notice was not provided and the employer lacked actual knowledge, whether Freeman was likely to prove a reasonable excuse for failing to provide timely notice.
  4. Whether the trial court properly denied medical benefits at the expedited-hearing stage.

Holdings

  1. Freeman was not likely to prevail in proving a compensable gradual right shoulder injury because he did not timely report an overuse injury, seek medical treatment for one, or present medical evidence supporting that theory.
  2. Freeman did not provide timely written notice of the alleged April 6 accident, and the employer did not have actual knowledge of it.
  3. Freeman was not likely to prove a reasonable excuse for failing to provide timely written notice.
  4. The trial court properly denied Freeman's request for right shoulder medical benefits because the evidence presented did not establish a likelihood that he would prevail at trial on timely notice or reasonable excuse.

Key quotations

The standard we apply in reviewing a trial court’s decision presumes that the court’s factual findings are correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. (at 2)
Did the employee provide timely written notice of the alleged work-related injury? (at 3)
Thus, we agree with the trial court that the evidence Employee presented to date is insufficient to support a finding that he had a reasonable excuse for the failure to provide timely notice of the right shoulder accident. (at 4)

Factual background

Freeman, a vehicle-hauler driver, had a previously accepted compensable left shoulder injury and underwent left shoulder surgery on April 9, 2024. Three days earlier, while closing upper-deck extensions on a vehicle hauler, he experienced acute right shoulder pain but did not report the incident when it occurred. He notified the employer approximately twenty-five days later, after which the employer denied the right shoulder claim for untimely notice. Freeman attributed the delay to his hope that the condition would improve and later asserted that postoperative medication made notice impracticable, but he presented no supporting evidence regarding the medication or its effects.

Procedural history

Freeman filed a petition for benefit determination seeking authorized medical treatment for his right shoulder. After an expedited hearing, the trial court determined that he was not likely to prevail in proving timely notice of the alleged accident or a reasonable excuse for failing to provide timely notice, and denied benefits. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order and remanded the case.

Remand instructions

The trial court's interlocutory order was affirmed, and the case was remanded. Costs on appeal were taxed to Freeman.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…