1

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Charles Lawson ) Docket No. 2021-01-0213

)

v. ) State File No. 56752-2020

)

Amazon.com Services, LLC, et al. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )

Compensation Claims )

Thomas L. Wyatt, Judge )

Affirmed and Remanded

In this interlocutory appeal, the employer asserts the trial court erred in declining to grant 

its pre-hearing motion in limine to exclude the testimony of an expert witness based on the 

alleged unreliability of the information and data on which the expert relied. In denying the 

motion, the trial court concluded the issues noted by the employer impact the weight but 

not the admissibility of the expert’s opinions, and the employer has appealed. Discerning 

no error, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case. 

Presiding Judge Timothy W. Conner delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which 

Judge David F. Hensley and Judge Pele I. Godkin joined.

W. Troy Hart, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellant, Amazon.com Services, 

LLC

G. Brent Burks, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the employee-appellee, Charles Lawson

Memorandum Opinion1

Charles Lawson (“Employee”) worked for Amazon.com Services, LLC 

(“Employer”), as a fulfillment associate at one of its distribution centers in Hamilton 

County. On August 31, 2020, Employee reported experiencing low back pain radiating 

down his left lower extremity while lifting heavy totes at work. He was initially seen at 

1 “The appeals board may, in an effort to secure a just and speedy determination of matters on appeal and 

with the concurrence of all judges, decide an appeal by an abbreviated order or by memorandum opinion, 

whichever the appeals board deems appropriate, in cases that are not legally and/or factually novel or 

complex.” Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-22-.03(1) (2020).

FILED

Dec 27, 2021

10:25 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

APPEALS BOARD
2

Employer’s onsite clinic, then selected Dr. Robert Sass, an osteopathic doctor with Nova 

Medical Centers, from Employer’s panel of physicians. During his initial visit with Dr. 

Sass, which occurred on the date of the accident, Employee reported having experienced 

prior low back problems. According to Dr. Sass’s August 31 report, Employee described 

a “history of back problems including a pinched nerve and has sciatic pain intermittently.” 

Employee also reportedly told Dr. Sass of having “back pain once a month,” which he 

treated with pain medications. According to Dr. Sass’s report, there was “[n]o specific 

incident . . . no slip, trip[,] fall or faulty equipment.”2 As a result of Dr. Sass’s examination, 

he concluded “within a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that Employee “is 

experiencing a flare of back pain” due to a “chronic back issue” and that “no work injury 

has occurred.” Thereafter, Employer denied Employee’s claim.

After leaving Dr. Sass’s office, Employee went to a local emergency room, where 

he reported “low back pain and burning into his left leg and foot.” He also reported a 

“history of spinal stenosis and a disc problem.” With respect to his pre-existing condition, 

Employee “describe[d] having [a] problem years ago [but] never had to have surgery and 

has not been having pain since that time.” He reported the work incident as having 

occurred when he “lifted some Gatorade and felt pain in his low back and down his left 

leg.” A CT of the lumbar spine revealed “spinal stenosis from L3-S1.” Employee was 

diagnosed with a lumbar strain, spinal stenosis, left sided sciatica, and degenerative 

arthritis. A consultation was sought from Dr. Garrick Cason of Comprehensive Spine 

Institute, who recommended Employee take steroidal medication and undergo physical 

therapy.

Thereafter, Employee sought treatment on his own from Dr. Cason, who he first

saw on October 1, 2020. Employee reported that he “was injured at work on 8/31/2020 

picking up an item” and described “immediately [feeling] pain in his lower back and down 

either side of his [left lower extremity].” Dr. Cason noted that the “[c]ausative event at the 

time of symptom onset [was] reported as picking up [an] item at work.” Under “past 

medical history,” Dr. Cason indicated Employee had reported a history of osteoarthritis, 

but there was nothing in his report indicating Employee had described prior low back 

injuries or any significant treatment to the lumbar spine.

Diagnostic scans ordered by Dr. Cason were interpreted as revealing “retrolisthesis” 

at L4 through S1 and “neuroforaminal stenosis” at L4-S1. Dr. Cason described these 

findings as “mild degenerative disc arthritis at L5-S1” and “facet joint degenerative 

arthritis at L4-L5, moderate left and mild right.” Dr. Cason diagnosed degenerative 

changes in the lumbar spine, as well as “[l]umbar [r]adiculopathy on the left.” He opined

that “[b]ased on the patient’s history and clinical evaluation, the current problem is 

2 We note, however, that earlier in the same paragraph of his August 31 report, Dr. Sass noted Employee 

had described an incident on 8/31/2020 at 7:40 a.m. “while moving an item” in which Employee “developed 

low back pain and left leg pain.”
3

consistent with the accident described by the patient.” Dr. Cason also signed a form on 

October 1 indicating that Employee “is temporarily and totally disabled from any gainful 

employment at the present time.” Later, Dr. Cason signed an affidavit in which he stated, 

“within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and considering all causes, that Mr. 

Lawson’s lumbar injuries and the aggravation of his pre-existing lumbar spine conditions, 

which he suffered while lifting and moving a large . . . box on August 31, 2020, arose 

primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment.”

Employee filed a request for hearing and attached medical records, Employee’s 

affidavit, and the affidavit from Dr. Cason. Prior to the hearing, Employer filed a motion 

in limine seeking to exclude from evidence Dr. Cason’s records and affidavit. In support 

of its motion, Employer asserted Dr. Cason’s medical opinions were “fundamentally 

untrustworthy” because Employee had failed to explain to Dr. Cason the extent and nature 

of his prior injuries and pre-existing condition, as well as his chronic, intermittent low back 

symptoms and his use of medications to treat those symptoms.

In its order denying Employer’s motion, the trial court noted that rules governing 

the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims provide that medical records and “letters or 

written statements addressing medical causation signed by a physician” are admissible at 

an expedited hearing. See Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-21-.15(2) and -.16(2)(b). The 

trial court then determined that the objections raised by Employer go to the weight but not 

the admissibility of the evidence in question. We agree.3

It is well settled that the admissibility of evidence is within the discretion of the trial 

judge. Mercer v. Vanderbilt Univ., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 121, 131 (Tenn. 2004); Majors v. 

Randstad Inhouse Servs., L.P., No. M2010-01975-WC-R3-WC, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 970, 

at *10 (Tenn. Worker’s Comp. Panel Oct. 19, 2011). A trial court abuses its discretion 

when it causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by 

(1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, 

or (3) basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. State v. Ostein, 

293 S.W.3d 519, 526 (Tenn. 2009).

Rule 703 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence provides that “[t]he court shall 

disallow testimony in the form of an opinion or inference if the underlying facts or data 

indicate lack of trustworthiness.” Tenn. R. Evid. 703. A pre-trial motion to exclude expert 

testimony was addressed by the Supreme Court’s Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals 

Panel in Franklin v. Duro Standard Products, No. W2011-01212-WC-R3-WC, 2012 Tenn. 

LEXIS 485 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel July 30, 2012). In that hearing loss case, the 

employer had filed a pre-trial motion to exclude the testimony of an otolaryngologist on 

3 On the first page of its brief on appeal, Employer indicated it had requested oral argument, though no 

motion for oral argument has been filed pursuant to Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-22-.08(1). We deny 

the request for oral argument.
4

the grounds that the physician testified he was unfamiliar with certain OSHA standards for 

noise exposure and that his testimony was inconsistent with an earlier written report. Id.

at *9. In rejecting the employer’s arguments, the Appeals Panel explained:

Trial courts’ decisions concerning the admission or exclusion of evidence are 

generally accorded a wide degree of latitude and will only be overturned on 

appeal where there is a showing of abuse of discretion. This standard of 

review is applicable to decisions concerning questions pertaining to the 

qualifications, admissibility, relevancy, and competency of expert testimony.

Id. at *10 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Appeals Panel then concluded 

the trial court had “correctly found that the questions raised by [Employer] concerning [the 

physician’s] testimony affected its weight, rather than its admissibility.” Id. at *11.

Here, as noted by the trial court, Dr. Cason indicated in his affidavit he had reviewed 

the medical records containing what Employer asserts are pertinent discrepancies in the 

histories provided by Employee. We conclude any such discrepancies impact the weight

of Dr. Cason’s testimony, not its admissibility. The trial court will be tasked with weighing 

Dr. Cason’s statements and opinions against those offered by Dr. Sass in light of 

Employee’s testimony, documentary evidence, and the presumption of correctness on the 

medical causation issue in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(E). In short, 

we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying Employer’s motion in 

limine.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case. 

Costs on appeal are taxed to Employer.
 

 

 

 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD 

Charles Lawson ) Docket No. 2021-01-0213 

) 

v. ) State File No. 56752-2020 

)

Amazon.com Services, LLC, et al. ) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ ) 

Compensation Claims ) 

Thomas L. Wyatt, Judge ) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Appeals Board’s decision in the referenced 

case was sent to the following recipients by the following methods of service on this the 27th day 

of December, 2021. 

Name Certified 

Mail

First Class 

Mail

Via 

Fax

Via 

Email

Sent to: 

W. Troy Hart

Megan Jones

X wth@mijs.com

majones@mijs.com

G. Brent Burks

Lew Belvin

X brentburks@mcmahanlawfirm.com

lew@mcmahanlawfirm.com

Thomas L. Wyatt, Judge X Via Electronic Mail

Kenneth M. Switzer, Chief Judge X Via Electronic Mail

Penny Shrum, Clerk, Court of 

Workers’ Compensation Claims

X penny.patterson-shrum@tn.gov

 

Olivia Yearwood

Clerk, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board

220 French Landing Dr., Ste. 1-B 

Nashville, TN 37243 

Telephone: 615-253-1606 

Electronic Mail: WCAppeals.Clerk@tn.gov