1

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT COOKEVILLE

GERALDINE MANN, ) Docket No 2020-04-0059

Employee, )

v. )

ACA TRANSPORT, LLC, ) State File No. 12853-2020

 Employer, )

And )

U.S. FIRE INS. CO.,

 Carrier.

)

)

Judge Robert Durham

SECOND EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS

This case came before the Court on June 14, 2021 for a second Expedited Hearing. 

Ms. Mann sought benefits for an alleged neck, upper back, and right arm injury. ACA 

Transport argued she failed to prove causation or provide timely notice of her injury. The 

Court holds that Ms. Mann did not provide sufficient evidence to change the Court’s

previous ruling that she is not likely to prove causation. Given this holding, the Court

need not address notice.

History of Claim

On December 29, 2020, the Court entered an Expedited Hearing Order denying 

Ms. Mann’s request for benefits because she did not show a likelihood of proving 

causation.1 Ms. Mann appealed, and the Appeals Board affirmed the Court’s decision. 

At this hearing, the parties stipulated to the admissibility of both the exhibits and the 

transcript of the first hearing. Further, the Court attaches its December 29, 2020 order,

incorporates it by reference, and will summarize only the evidence provided at this 

hearing.

Ms. Mann called ACA’s owner, Aldon Allen, to testify regarding her exchanges 

 1 At the time of the first hearing, Ms. Mann also had a claim pending in Missouri but stated she would 

dismiss it. She has since done so.

FILED

Jun 21, 2021

01:52 PM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS
2

with him and her supervisor, Ron Sias, about the alleged September 11, 2019 injury at 

issue. Mr. Allen agreed that Ms. Mann sent him a text message on September 11 that 

stated she was having difficulty pulling the fifth wheel pin on her trailer; however, he

denied that she told either he or Mr. Sias that she actually hurt herself when doing so. 

Instead, Mr. Allen reiterated his previous testimony that he did not know Ms. Mann was 

alleging a work-related injury until she sent another text on October 31. He specifically 

denied that she told him in-person on October 4 as Ms. Mann alleged, or that he ignored 

her attempts to tell him.

Mr. Allen acknowledged that Ms. Mann asked him about health insurance because 

she needed to see a doctor; however, he asserted he did not know it was because of an 

alleged work injury until October 31. He said he offered her health insurance, but she 

declined it because of the cost.

The parties also disagreed about an incident in Texas where Ms. Mann reported a 

work-related injury to her hand. Mr. Allen testified that when she told him of that

incident, he reported her claim to his carrier and coordinated treatment. He disputed her 

assertions that she had to find the clinic on her own, and that it was not until she told him 

that the clinic would not see her unless authorized by workers’ compensation insurance 

that he turned in the claim to the carrier.

Mr. Allen also agreed that he and Mr. Sias had dinner with Ms. Mann and another 

employee, Jeri Klinefelter, in December 2019. Ms. Mann testified that she told Mr. Allen 

and Mr. Sias that she was still in a lot of pain from her injury, and Ms. Klinefelter 

corroborated this testimony in a Rule 72 statement. Mr. Allen disagreed. 

For his part, Mr. Allen provided text messages between he and Ms. Mann from her 

hire date through October 16, 2019. While Ms. Mann referenced back pain due to 

sleeping on a bad mattress on several occasions, she did not request medical treatment in 

the texts and did not reference a September 11 work injury or any complaints involving 

her neck, upper back, or right arm.

Ms. Mann agreed the texts did not make a specific reference to a work injury, but 

she said that she also spoke regularly with Mr. Allen and Mr. Sias over the telephone and 

these conversations were not reflected in the texts. She maintained that she repeatedly 

told Mr. Sias and Mr. Allen about her work injury and her need for treatment. She only 

asked about health insurance because they refused to acknowledge her work-related 

injury and she needed to see a doctor.

She also addressed the omission of any back or neck complaints from the DOT 

physicals. She testified that when the questionnaire asked about her “general medical 

history” she did not realize that she should include her current medical condition.
3

Ms. Mann entered hundreds of pages of medical records as exhibits, including 

records from before she began working for ACA. None of these records show Ms. Mann 

complaining of neck, upper back, or right arm complaints after she recovered from a 

cervical fusion in 2014.

The records also contain notes regarding her medical treatment with Family Nurse 

Practitioner, Malissa Phillips after ACA denied her claim. Those notes document that 

Ms. Mann underwent extensive conservative treatment, including several weeks of 

physical therapy. Additionally, an EMG showed she suffers from moderate carpal tunnel 

syndrome in her right hand, although this does not correspond to her complaints. She is 

still receiving steroids and other medications from NP Phillips to manage her symptoms.

On April 22, 2021, NP Phillips wrote a letter stating that Ms. Mann continues to 

suffer from neck pain that radiates through both shoulders and into her mid-back. She 

also suffers from decreased grip strength and tingling in her fourth and fifth fingers. NP 

Phillips stated that these symptoms were “directly related” to her job with ACA. 

However, this note was not approved by a medical doctor, and no doctor has found a 

causal relation between Ms. Mann’s symptoms and her alleged work injury.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Ms. Mann must show she would likely prevail at trial on her request for benefits. 

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2020); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 

2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *9 (Mar. 27, 2015). 

Ms. Mann must prove an accidental injury that was “caused by a specific incident, 

or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment[.]” 

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A). She must prove this causal connection by a 

“reasonable degree of medical certainty,” which requires an expert medical opinion.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C).

In its previous order, the Court found that if Ms. Mann showed she was likely to 

prove a work-related injury on September 11, 2019, she would be entitled to a “causation 

specialist” evaluation based on the referral of NP Robertson, which was approved by Dr. 

Wakeman. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(ii). However, the Court held that she

failed to carry this burden due to her lack of credibility regarding the occurrence of the 

alleged accident. At this hearing, Ms. Mann must overcome the inconsistent history that 

led the Court to deny her request. The Court holds she did not.

First, Ms. Mann offered no additional evidence to corroborate her allegation that 

she suffered an injury on September 11. She produced no witnesses confirming her 

account other than Ms. Klinefelter’s Rule 72 Statement, which she submitted at the 
4

original hearing. 

Second, Mr. Allen did not retract his previous testimony that Ms. Mann never 

reported a work-related injury until October 31. In fact, Mr. Allen reinforced his 

testimony by offering numerous text messages between him and Ms. Mann from her hire 

date through October 16. These texts, unchallenged by Ms. Mann, do not mention that 

she suffered a work injury on September 11. Further, while she referred to “back pain” 

due to sleeping on a faulty mattress on several occasions, she never described neck, upper 

back, or right upper extremity pain because of an injury. 

Third, Ms. Mann did not offer evidence to counter or explain why neither her 

October 8 nor January 13 DOT exams mention neck, upper back, or right upper extremity 

symptoms. She said she did not understand the question meant her current problems. The 

Court is not persuaded by this statement. Moreover, Ms. Mann did not explain how she

continued to work regular duty without restrictions until her termination from ACA for 

reasons unrelated to a physical inability to do the job. Ms. Mann also did not explain NP 

Robertson’s statement, approved by Dr. Wakeman, that she could not attribute Ms. 

Mann’s February complaints to an October injury given that she had a normal DOT exam 

in January.

Fourth, though she submitted an April 2021 letter from NP Phillips which stated 

her symptoms were “directly related” to her employment with ACA, nothing in the 

records show whether NP Phillips reviewed Ms. Mann’s history with other providers or 

relied on anything other than her account to support this opinion. More importantly, the 

Appeals Board has held that a nurse practitioner’s opinion, standing alone, is not enough 

to establish causation; a doctor’s expertise is required. Noel v. EAN Holdings, LLC, TN. 

Wrk. Comp. App. Bd., LEXIS 6, at *5, (January 19, 2017).2

The Court is sympathetic to Ms. Mann’s situation, but it cannot find that she is 

likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits, and her claim for benefits is denied.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:

1. Ms. Mann’s claim for additional benefits is denied at this time.

2. This case is set for a Scheduling Hearing on Thursday, July 29, 2021, at 9:30 

a.m. Central Time. The parties must call 615-253-0010 or 855-689-9049 tollfree to participate in the Scheduling Hearing. Failure to appear might result in a 

determination of the issues without the party’s participation.

 2 Ms. Mann correctly points out that NP Robertson is also a nurse-practitioner; however, her statement is 

signed, and presumably agreed to, by Dr. Wakeman, a medical doctor. In addition, the burden of proof is 

on Ms. Mann, not ACA, to establish a competent medical opinion.
5 

ENTERED June 21, 2021.

 

 

 ___________________________ 

 ROBERT DURHAM, JUDGE

 Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims 

APPENDIX 

Technical Record: 

1. Expedited Hearing Order

2. Request for Expedited Hearing 

3. ACA’s Motion to Dismiss Request for Expedited Hearing 

4. Ms. Mann’s Response to Motion to Dismiss 

5. Order Denying Motion to Dismiss 

6. Ms. Mann’s Pre-Hearing Brief 

7. ACA’s Pre-Hearing Brief 

Exhibits: 

1. Medical records from various providers 

2. Texts between Ms. Mann and Mr. Allen 

3. Transcript of initial Expedited Hearing 

4. Exhibits from initial Expedited Hearing 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on June 21, 2021. 

Name Certified 

Mail

Fax Email Service sent to:

Geraldine Mann X X 1800 Baron Drive, Apt. K-2

Bolivar, MO 65613

Emmie Kinnard X ekinnard@ortalekelley.com

jarmstrong@ortalekelley.com

_____________________________________ 

 PENNY SHRUM, COURT CLERK COURT 

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims 

WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov 
LB-1099 rev. 01/20 Page 1 of 2 RDA 11082 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation

www.tn.gov/workforce/injuries-at-work/ 

wc.courtclerk@tn.gov | 1-800-332-2667 

Docket No.: ________________________

State File No.: ______________________ 

Date of Injury: _____________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

Employee

v.

___________________________________________________________________________ 

Employer

Notice is given that ____________________________________________________________________ 

[List name(s) of all appealing party(ies). Use separate sheet if necessary.]

appeals the following order(s) of the Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims to the 

Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (check one or more applicable boxes and include the date filestamped on the first page of the order(s) being appealed):

□ Expedited Hearing Order filed on _______________ □ Motion Order filed on ___________________

□ Compensation Order filed on__________________ □ Other Order filed on_____________________

issued by Judge _________________________________________________________________________. 

Statement of the Issues on Appeal 

Provide a short and plain statement of the issues on appeal or basis for relief on appeal: 

________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

Parties

Appellant(s) (Requesting Party): _________________________________________ ☐Employer ☐Employee 

Address: ________________________________________________________ Phone: ___________________ 

Email: __________________________________________________________ 

Attorney’s Name: ______________________________________________ BPR#: _______________________ 

Attorney’s Email: ______________________________________________ Phone: _______________________ 

Attorney’s Address: _________________________________________________________________________ 

* Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellant *
LB-1099 rev. 01/20 Page 2 of 2 RDA 11082 

Employee Name: _______________________________________ Docket No.: _____________________ Date of Inj.: _______________ 

Appellee(s) (Opposing Party): ___________________________________________ ☐Employer ☐Employee 

Appellee’s Address: ______________________________________________ Phone: ____________________ 

Email: _________________________________________________________ 

Attorney’s Name: _____________________________________________ BPR#: ________________________ 

Attorney’s Email: _____________________________________________ Phone: _______________________ 

Attorney’s Address: _________________________________________________________________________ 

* Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellee *

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, _____________________________________________________________, certify that I have forwarded a 

true and exact copy of this Notice of Appeal by First Class mail, postage prepaid, or in any manner as described 

in Tennessee Compilation Rules & Regulations, Chapter 0800-02-21, to all parties and/or their attorneys in this 

case on this the __________ day of ___________________________________, 20 ____. 

 ______________________________________________ 

[Signature of appellant or attorney for appellant]