By Ben Norris | Tennessee Associate

Lindsay v. State Industries, LLC, et al. (January 19, 2023) Appellate Court: Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board       Issue: Employee’s Lack of Medical Proof Summary: Despite his lack of medical proof to refute the opinions of two physicians who opined his work accident did not cause his back injury, the employee continued to pursue his claim. After the trial court issued a Scheduling Order, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment asking the trial court to dismiss the claim without an evidentiary hearing due to the employee’s complete lack of medical proof to support his claim. The trial court granted this motion and dismissed the claim. The Appeals Board then affirmed the trial court based on the employee’s lack of medical proof. Key Takeaway: In situations where an employee is unreasonable and refuses to settle despite not having a causation opinion from a doctor to support their claim, employers can pursue a motion for summary judgment that allows for a quick and cost-effective resolution of the claim.   Acevedo v. Crown Paving, LLC (February 13, 2023) Appellate Court: Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board       Issue: Whether a Medical Provider Can Become a Party to a Workers’ Compensation Claim Summary: A hospital asked the trial court to allow it to become a party to a workers’ compensation claim filed by the spouse of a deceased employee who incurred medical expenses at the hospital prior to his death. Prior to the hospital’s request to become a party, the claim was denied on the basis that the employee’s injuries and death did not arise primarily from his employment. In asking the trial court to become a party, the hospital hoped to influence the outcome of the workers’ compensation claim and obtain a favorable judgment from the trial court that required the employer to pay the deceased employee’s hospital bills. The trial court allowed the hospital to become a party and the employer appealed. On appeal, the Appeals Board reversed the trial court and held that the hospital was unable to join the claim as a party. Key Takeaway: Medical providers have to stay on the sidelines in Tennessee workers’ compensation claims. Even if a medical provider potentially has a financial interest in a workers’ compensation claim, it cannot join the claim as a formal party and try to influence the outcome of the claim in its favor.     Ernstes v. Printpack, Inc. (June 6, 2023) Appellate Court: Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board       Issue: Requirements for Notice Defense Summary: The trial court awarded the employee benefits for noise-induced hearing loss over the course of 33 years after it found that, even though the employee did not have an excuse for failing to provide timely notice of her injury, the employer failed to show prejudice stemming from the lack of timely notice. On appeal, the Appeals Board reversed the trial court and held that the employee’s lack of excuse for failing to provide timely notice meant her claim was not compensable. Key Takeaway: The Notice Defense is now a viable defense for employers. If the employee failed to give timely notice of their injury (15 days in acute injury claims), the employer was otherwise unaware of the injury, and the employee does not have a “reasonable excuse” for failed to give timely notice, the claim is barred—even if the employer does not show prejudice. Whether an excuse offered by an employee is “reasonable” is a fact-intensive analysis for the trial court.     Edwards-Bradford v. Kellogg Company, et al. (September 5, 2023) Appellate Court: Supreme Court of Tennessee       Issue: Whether an Employee is Entitled to Permanency for an Increase in Pain/Symptoms Summary: After a trial where three physicians testified, the trial court found the evidence showed the employee’s work incident made the employee’s pre-existing condition symptomatic. However, the trial court found the medical evidence did not show a permanent anatomic change or progression of the pre-existing condition. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the trial court and emphasized that an increase in pain alone is not enough to justify an award of permanency. Key Takeaway: For an employee to be entitled to permanency benefits, the work accident must cause a permanent anatomic change or a permanent advancement of a pre-existing condition. An employee is not entitled to permanency benefits when the work accident only causes a previously asymptomatic condition to become symptomatic.