1

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT MURFREESBORO

JOHN MINOR, ) Docket No.: 2015-06-0227

Employee, )

v. ) State File No.: 27720-2015

)

NASHVILLE ELECTRIC SERVICE, ) Date of Injury: March 6, 2015

Employer. )

) Judge: Dale Tipps

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER GRANTING MEDICAL AND TEMPORARY 

DISABILITY BENEFITS

THIS CAUSE came to be heard before the undersigned Workers’ Compensation 

Judge on August 12, 2015, upon the Request for Expedited Hearing filed by John Minor

(Mr. Minor), the Employee, on July 16, 2015, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated 

section 50-6-239 (2014) to determine if the Employer, Nashville Electric Service (NES),

is obligated to provide medical and/or temporary disability benefits. Considering the 

positions of the parties, the applicable law, and all of the evidence submitted, the Court 

concludes that Mr. Minor is entitled to medical and temporary disability benefits.

ANALYSIS

Issues

The Dispute Certification Notice (DCN) issued in this claim indicated a number of 

issues. The Court did not decide issues marked on the DCN unless presented for 

determination at the Expedited Hearing. The parties presented the following issues for 

determination at the Expedited Hearing:

Whether Mr. Minor’s injury of March 6, 2015, arose primarily out of and in the 

course and scope of his employment with NES; and,

If so, whether Mr. Minor is entitled to medical and/or temporary disability 

benefits.
2

Evidence Submitted

The Court admitted into evidence the exhibits below: 

1. Affidavit of John Minor

2. Medical Records from Dr. Robert Weiss

3. Medical Records from Northcreek Chiropractic Clinic

4. Affidavit of John Thomas

5. Employee’s Notice of Injury

6. Transcription of Mr. Minor’s recorded statement (marked for identification 

only)

7. Form C20 First Report of Injury.

The Court designated the following as the technical record:

 Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD), April 21, 2015

 Dispute Certification Notice (DCN), July 13, 2015

 Request for Expedited Hearing, July 16, 2015

 NES’s Objection To Dispute Certification Notice

 NES’s Pre-Hearing Brief

 Mr. Minor’s Position Statement.

The Court did not consider attachments to the above filings unless admitted into 

evidence during the Expedited Hearing. The Court considered factual statements in the 

above filings or any attachments thereto as allegations unless established by the evidence.

The following witnesses provided in-person testimony: 

 Mr. John Minor

 Mr. Chase Porter

 Mr. Bill Braswell

 Mr. John Thomas.

The parties stipulated that Mr. Minor suffered a back injury, including a herniated 

disc, when he fell on the ice at Chik-Fil-A on March 6, 2015.

History of Claim

Mr. Minor is a forty-eight year-old resident of Robertson County, Tennessee. (See

PBD.) He testified he is a Lineman/Working Foreman for NES, where he has worked 

since 2003. His current job requires him to “run service” on Fridays, which means he 

makes repairs or service calls as they are called in by customers and assigned to him by 
3

NES. He went to work on Friday, March 6, 2015, starting at 6:00 a.m. with a morning 

meeting. Mr. Minor and his partner had no assignments by the time they finished the 

meeting and prepared their truck, so they decided to take their morning break and drove 

to Chik-Fil-A. They sat in their truck for a time, filling out paperwork and checking the 

computer for assignments. They had not received any repair or service calls before they 

exited the truck to go into the restaurant. Mr. Minor slipped on the ice and fell while 

walking across the parking lot. He testified that the accident occurred around 7:10 or 

7:15 a.m.

Mr. Minor testified that he reported his injury to the company nurse on the day of 

the accident, and then informed his supervisor, Bill Braswell, on the same day. He 

continued working that day, but his symptoms eventually worsened to the point that he 

sought treatment.

On cross-examination, Mr. Minor admitted that he was aware of and understood 

NES’s rule that prohibits employees from taking their break within the first hour of their

shift.

1

 He confirmed that he selected Chik-Fil-A as the place to take his break.

John Thomas submitted an affidavit and testified at trial. He is a Field 

Superintendent-Overhead Distribution for NES and is one of Mr. Minor’s supervisors. 

(Ex. 4 at 1.) NES allows its linemen employees two fifteen-minute breaks during their 

shift. However, it prohibits linemen from taking a break or lunch period within the first 

hour of their shift. Id. Mr. Thomas testified that, other than this restriction, linemen may

select their break time and the location of their breaks. He also testified that the truck 

Mr. Minor drove on March 6, 2015, was equipped with a GPS tracking system. He 

indicated that records from the tracking system showed that Mr. Minor arrived at ChikFil-A at 6:57 a.m. and left at 7:30 a.m. (Ex. 4 at 2.)

Mr. Minor submitted records showing he received treatment from Northside 

Chiropractic Clinic from March 18, 2015, through July 6, 2015. (Ex. 3.) On April 5, 

2015, he told Dr. Wade Scott that he fell at work one month earlier. Id. at 5.

Mr. Minor saw Dr. Robert Weiss on April 9, 2015, for left hip, buttock, and back 

pain that had become intolerable over the past two weeks. Dr. Weiss assigned 

restrictions of no repetitive bending or stooping, no lifting more than ten pounds, and 

changing position frequently. (Ex. 2 at 6.) After ordering an MRI, Dr. Weiss noted a 

large left lateralizing L-5 disc herniation. Id. at 6. He stated that the disc herniation 

“undoubtedly occurred when he slipped and fell on the ice.” Id. at 1. On May 4, 2015, 

he revised Mr. Minor’s lifting restrictions to no more than thirty pounds. Id. at 10. The 

most recent record from Dr. Weiss, dated July 6, 2015, states that Mr. Minor is still out of 

 

1 NES presented significant amount of testimony to establish the existence of this policy and Mr. Minor’s awareness 

of it. As he admitted both, it is not necessary to summarize that evidence in detail.
4

work and symptomatic with radicular leg pain.

Except for four days, Mr. Minor has not worked because of his injury since March 

30, 2015. He took sick days until he began receiving short-term disability payments on 

June 3, 2015. He claimed he has incurred medical bills from Northcreek Chiropractic 

Clinic for $2,452.01. (Ex. 1 at 3.) He attempted to return to work when Dr. Weiss raised 

his lifting restrictions to thirty pounds, but NES did not accommodate those restrictions. 

Id. at 4.

Mr. Minor filed a PBD on April 21, 2015, seeking medical and/or temporary 

disability benefits. The parties did not resolve the disputed issues through mediation and 

the Mediation Specialist filed the DCN on July 13, 2015. 

Mr. Minor’s Contentions

Mr. Minor contends he sustained a low-back injury in the course and scope of his 

employment with NES. He argues that the street risk doctrine governs this case because 

his job required him to work all over town, not just on NES’s premises. He requests that 

the Court order NES to provide medical treatment, pay his outstanding medical bills, and 

reimburse him for medical expenses he has already paid. He also seeks an order for 

temporary disability benefits for the period of time NES failed to provide light duty 

within his medical restrictions.

NES’s Contentions

NES does not dispute that Mr. Minor suffered a low-back injury when he fell on 

March 6, 2015. It contends that Mr. Minor failed to carry his burden of proving that his 

injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. NES argues 

that Mr. Minor’s accident did not occur during the course of his employment because it 

happened during a deviation from that employment.

NES also contends that the recent addition to the statute, the requirement that an 

injury must arise “primarily” out of and in the course and scope of employment,

forecloses any finding that Mr. Minor’s injury is compensable. It argues that, at the time 

of the accident, Mr. Minor was not engaged in any business for the benefit of NES, was 

not assigned to perform any job duties at Chik-Fil-A, and was not assigned to any 

particular area or specific restaurant in which to eat or take his breaks. It relies on 

Vandall v. Aurora Healthcare, LLC, 401 S.W.3d 28, 29 (Tenn. 2013), which held the 

mere presence of an employee at his place of employment at the time of an injury does 

not mean that the injury is deemed to have arisen out of the employment. Therefore, Mr. 

Minor’s employment with NES did not contribute “more than fifty percent in causing the 

injury,” as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(B) (2014).
5

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Standard Applied

The Workers’ Compensation Law shall not be remedially or liberally construed in 

favor of either party but shall be construed fairly, impartially and in accordance with 

basic principles of statutory construction favoring neither the employee nor 

employer. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-116 (2014). An employee need not prove every 

element of his or her claim by a preponderance of the evidence in order to obtain relief at 

an expedited hearing. McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, No. 2014-06-0063, 

2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. 

Mar. 27, 2015). At an expedited hearing, an employee has the burden to come forward 

with sufficient evidence from which the trial court can determine that the employee is 

likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. Id.

Factual Findings

Mr. Minor suffered a low-back injury, including a herniated disc, when he slipped 

and fell in the Chik-Fil-A parking lot on March 6, 2015. NES denied the claim on April 

16, 2015. Mr. Minor received treatment from Dr. Weiss, who assigned temporary 

restrictions on April 9, 2015.

Application of Law to Facts

In order for an injury to be compensable, it must be accidental. Under the 

Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law, an injury is accidental “only if the injury is 

caused by a specific incident, or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course 

and scope of employment, and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence.” Tenn. 

Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(A) (2014). “An injury ‘arises primarily out of and in the

course and scope of employment’ only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the 

injury, considering all causes[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(B) (2014).

The statutory requirements that an injury arise out of and in the course of the 

employment are not synonymous “although both elements exist to ensure a work 

connection to the injury for which the employee seeks benefits.” Blankenship v. Am. 

Ordnance Sys., 164 S.W.3d 350, 354 (Tenn. 2005). An injury occurs in the course of 

employment if it takes place while the employee was performing a duty he or she was 

employed to perform. Fink v. Caudle, 856 S.W.2d 952, 958 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. 

Panel 1993). Thus, the course of employment requirement focuses on the time, place, 

and circumstances of the injury. Saylor v. Lakeway Trucking, Inc., 181 S.W.3d 314, 318 

(Tenn. 2005). By contrast, arising out of employment refers to causation. Reeser v. 

Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 938 S.W.2d 690, 692 (Tenn. 1997). An injury arises out of 
6

employment when there is a causal connection between the conditions under which the 

work is required to be performed and the resulting injury. Fritts v. Safety Nat’l Cas.

Corp., 163 S.W.3d 673, 678 (Tenn. 2005).2 Put another way, an injury arises out of 

employment when it “has a rational, causal connection to the work.” Braden v. Sears, 

Roebuck & Co., 833 S.W.2d 496, 498 (Tenn. 1992). 

In the Course of Employment

“Acts necessary to the life, comfort and convenience of an employee while at 

work are incidental to the employment and contribute to the furtherance of service; and 

injuries that occur in the performance thereof are deemed to have arisen out of the 

employment.” McCormick v. Aabakus, Inc., 101 S.W.3d 60, 63 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. 

Panel 2000). Tennessee courts have long held that injuries suffered on the employer's 

premises during lunch breaks arise out of and in the course of employment. Id. Mr. 

Minor, of course, was not on NES’s premises when he injured his back. The question, 

therefore, is whether an off-premises accident by a worker arises out of that worker’s 

employment.

The Court agrees with Mr. Minor that this case is governed by the “street risk 

doctrine” adopted in Hudson v. Thurston Motor Lines, Inc., 583 S.W.2d 597 (Tenn. 

1979). In Hudson, the employee was a “city driver.” His duties were to pick up and 

deliver freight. After he made a delivery, he went to a nearby restaurant for lunch while 

waiting for his truck to be reloaded. There, he was attacked by unknown assailants and 

sustained severe injuries. The trial court found that his injuries did not arise from his 

employment, and denied benefits. The Supreme Court noted that, although the employee 

“could eat when and where [he] might select, it was expected that [he] would take into 

consideration the convenience of the employer and its customers, as well as [his] own, in 

selecting the time and place for lunch.” Id. at 598. Further, the Court found that the 

employee’s selection of the particular restaurant “was for the mutual convenience and 

economy of the employer, its customer, and perhaps himself.” Id. at 599. The Court then 

explicitly adopted the street risk rule, stating that “the risks of the street are the risks of 

the employment, if the employment requires the employee’s use of the street.” Id. at 602.

In Hall v. Mason Dixon Lines, Inc., 743 S.W.2d 148, 151 (Tenn. 1987), the Court 

 

2

It is noted that the Fritts decision included a reference to the “equitable construction” provision of an earlier 

version of the statute. However, the Supreme Court did not base its explanation of the “arising out of” requirement

on the doctrine of equitable construction. “Reliance on precedent from the Tennessee Supreme Court is appropriate 

unless it is evident that the Supreme Court’s decision or rationale relied on a remedial interpretation of pre-July 1, 

2014 statutes, that it relied on specific statutory language no longer contained in the Workers’ Compensation Law, 

and/or that it relied on an analysis that has since been addressed by the general assembly through statutory 

amendments.” McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, No. 2014-06-0063, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. 

LEXIS 6, at *13 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Mar. 27, 2015).
7

elaborated on the breadth of the street risk doctrine: “Generally, street risks include 

simple falls, assaults by highway robbers and automobile accidents.”

Mr. Minor’s job required him to travel between the NES facility and various 

locations around the city. The testimony established that linemen could select their break 

time and the location of their breaks. Thus, as in Hudson, Mr. Minor’s selection of ChikFil-A for his morning break on March 6, 2015, was for the mutual convenience of NES. 

As one of the “risks of the street,” the ice on which Mr. Minor slipped was a risk of his 

employment by virtue of the travel requirements of his job.

NES contends, however, that Mr. Minor was outside the scope of his employment 

at the time of the injury because he had deviated from his work duties. An unauthorized 

deviation may preclude recovery of compensation for an injury caused by an added peril 

to which the employee is exposed during the period of the deviation. Carter v. Utica 

Mut. Ins. Co., 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 750, at *10 (Tenn. Aug. 27, 2003). NES alleges that 

Mr. Minor’s deviation was taking his break during the first hour of his shift.

NES’s argument is not persuasive. First, there is no proof that the accident 

actually occurred during the first hour of Mr. Minor’s shift. NES presented the affidavit 

and testimony of Mr. Thomas, who said GPS records showed that Mr. Minor arrived at 

Chik-Fil-A at 6:57 a.m., three minutes before the end of the first hour of his shift. Unless 

Mr. Minor left his truck within those three minutes, he did not violate the policy. Mr. 

Minor testified that he and his partner sat in the truck for a while, filling out paperwork 

and checking the computer for assignments. He stated that the accident occurred around 

7:10 or 7:15 a.m. This unrebutted testimony establishes that Mr. Minor’s fall was not the 

result of a deviation from his work duties.

Even if Mr. Minor had exited his truck when he arrived at the restaurant, it is not 

at all clear that the alleged three-minute violation of NES’s break rule would constitute a 

material deviation from Mr. Minor’s work duties. The undisputed proof is that NES 

authorized Mr. Minor to take his break anywhere he wished, and that he had no job 

assignments at the time of the accident. Whether the accident occurred just before 7:00 

or a few minutes later than 7:00, there is no evidence this would have resulted in “an 

added peril to which the employee is thereby exposed during the period of the deviation,” 

as required by Carter.

Arising out of Employment

As noted above, the Workers’ Compensation Law now provides that an injury 

arises primarily out of employment only if a preponderance of the evidence shows that 

the employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury. NES contends 

that, at the time of the accident, Mr. Minor was not engaged in any business for the 

benefit of NES because he had no job duties at Chik-Fil-A and was not required to take 
8

his break there. Therefore, NES argues his employment with NES did not contribute 

“more than fifty percent in causing the injury,” as required by Tennessee Code Annotated 

section 50-6-102(13)(B) (2014).

The “primarily” requirement is new to Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law 

and, consequently, the appellate courts have not substantively addressed it. However, it 

is reasonable to continue to apply the test set out in Fritts. That is, is there a causal 

connection between Mr. Minor’s injury and the conditions under which he was required 

to work?

NES required Mr. Minor to drive around the city in order to make the repairs or 

service calls assigned by NES. Except for the morning meeting, Mr. Minor was required 

to travel throughout the day and was not required to return to NES’s premises for his 

breaks and meals. There is no indication he would have been at Chik-Fil-A or suffered 

any injury had he not been on the job. Further, NES has not identified any other cause of 

Mr. Minor’s injury, much less any cause exceeding fifty percent. The Court finds there is 

a rational connection between Mr. Minor’s injury and the conditions of his work, 

especially the requirements of travel that led him to the restaurant. The Court further 

finds that Mr. Minor’s work was the primary cause of his injury.3

Medical Benefits

Tennessee law requires an employer to provide “free of charge to the employee 

such medical and surgical treatment . . . made reasonably necessary by accident as 

defined in this chapter[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(a)(1)(A) (2014). 

According to the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board: 

Under the same statute, the injured employee has a corresponding duty to 

accept the medical benefits provided by the employer, but only if the 

employer provides a list of three or more physicians or surgeons from which 

the employee has the privilege of selecting the operating surgeon or attending 

physician. . . . [A]n employer who elects to deny a claim runs the risk that it 

will be held responsible for medical benefits obtained from a medical 

provider of the employee’s choice and/or that it may be subject to penalties 

for failure to provide a panel of physicians and/or benefits in a timely 

manner.

 

3 NES’s reliance on Vandall v. Aurora Healthcare, LLC, 401 S.W.3d 28 (Tenn. 2013), is misplaced. While the 

Court held that the mere presence of an employee at her place of employment at the time of an injury does not mean 

that the injury is deemed to have arisen out of the employment, the issue in Vandall was whether an employment 

hazard existed or whether the employee’s fall was the result of an idiopathic condition. As it is undisputed that Mr. 

Minor slipped on ice in the Chik-Fil-A parking lot, the Court finds that an employment hazard caused his injury.
9

McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, No. 2014-06-0063, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp.

App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *13 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Mar. 27, 2015).

Although Mr. Minor gave notice of his injury to NES, there is no evidence he 

requested medical treatment or notified NES of his desire to make a workers’ 

compensation claim until April 9, 2015. (Ex. 1 at 3.) NES apparently then provided 

treatment with Dr. Weiss, although the parties presented no evidence as to whether NES 

provided a panel of physicians. It subsequently denied the claim on April 16, 2015.

The Court finds that NES is not responsible for medical expenses incurred by Mr. 

Minor prior to his request for workers’ compensation benefits. Further, NES is not 

responsible for Mr. Minor’s chiropractic expenses during the period that NES provided

authorized treatment with Dr. Weiss, as there is no indication that Dr. Weiss ordered 

chiropractic treatment. The Court finds, however, that NES is responsible for all of Mr. 

Minor’s related medical expenses (including chiropractic) incurred after April 16, 2015, 

the date it denied the claim.4 

NES must also provide ongoing medical treatment made reasonably necessary by 

the accident as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(1)(A) (2014). 

Because there is no evidence as to whether Mr. Minor selected Dr. Weiss from a panel, 

the Court finds that Mr. Minor has the option of continuing to treat with Dr. Weiss as the 

authorized treating physician or requesting a new panel of spine specialists.

Temporary Disability Benefits

An employee must establish every element of his claim for workers’ compensation 

benefits. See Oster v. Yates, 845 S.W.2d 215, 217 (Tenn. 1992). To establish a prima 

facie case for temporary total disability benefits, an employee must show that: (1) he or 

she was totally disabled and unable to work as a result of a compensable injury; (2) that a 

causal connection exists between the injury and the employee’s inability to work; and (3) 

the duration of the period of the employee’s disability. Gray v. Cullom Mach., Tool & 

Die, Inc., 152 S.W.3d 439, 443 (Tenn. 2004).

Mr. Minor has not shown that he is totally disabled and unable to work because of 

his work accident. Dr. Weiss assigned temporary restrictions, but did not take Mr. Minor

completely off work. Consequently, Mr. Minor is not entitled to temporary total 

disability benefits.

Temporary partial disability arises when the temporary disability is not total. 

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-207(2) (2012) provides that “[i]n all cases of temporary partial 

 

4

 The parties submitted no evidence establishing which expenses are reasonable and necessary, so the Court is 

unable at this time to specify which of the submitted bills NES must pay. The parties are encouraged to resolve this 

issue by agreement.
10

disability, the compensation shall be sixty-six and two-thirds percent (66 2/3 %) of the 

difference between the average weekly wage of the worker at the time of the injury and 

the wage the worker is able to earn in the worker’s partially disabled condition.” When 

an injured worker is willing to return to work within his restrictions, but the employer is 

unwilling or unable to return the injured worker to work, the injured worker may be 

entitled to recover temporary partial disability benefits equal to the amount of temporary 

total disability benefits. See Williams v. Saturn Corp., 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1032 (Tenn. 

Nov. 15, 2005).

Mr. Minor requested workers’ compensation benefits on April 9, 2015. Dr. Weiss 

assigned light-duty restrictions on the same date, which have continued to the present. 

NES accommodated Mr. Minor’s restrictions and he worked from April 10, 2015, 

through April 15, 2015, at which time NES denied his claim. (Ex. 1 at 3.) NES failed to 

return him to work following the denial. Id. He is thus entitled to continuing temporary 

partial disability benefits equal to the amount of temporary total disability benefits 

beginning on April 16, 2015.

NES failed to file a wage statement with the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation or 

the Court, and Mr. Minor did not present any proof of his average weekly wage. 

However, the C20 First Report of Injury filed by NES on April 7, 2015, indicates that Mr. 

Minor’s bi-weekly wage at the time of his accident was $3,256.00. This reflects an 

average weekly wage of $1,628.00, which yields the maximum compensation rate of 

$932.80.

In this case, there is no dispute that Mr. Minor injured his back in a fall at ChikFil-A on March 6, 2015. Mr. Minor has presented sufficient evidence for the Court to 

conclude that, at a hearing on the merits, he would likely establish the injury arose 

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

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Medical care for Mr. Minor’s injuries shall be paid and NES shall provide Mr.

Minor with medical treatment for these injuries as required by Tennessee Code 

Annotated section 50-6-204 (2014), to be initiated by NES providing Mr. Minor 

with his choice continuing treatment with Dr. Weiss or with a panel of spine 

specialists as required by that statute. NES shall also pay all of Mr. Minor’s 

reasonable and necessary related medical expenses (including chiropractic) 

incurred after April 16, 2015. Mr. Minor or the medical providers shall furnish 

NES medical bills for treatment provided in compliance with this order.

2. The amount of temporary disability benefit is $932.80 per week based on Mr.

Minor’s average weekly wage of $1,628.00.
11

3. Payment of past due benefits in the amount of $17,723.20 shall be made for the 

period from April 16, 2015, to August 26, 2015.

4. NES or its workers’ compensation carrier shall continue to pay to Mr. Minor

temporary disability benefits in regular intervals until he is no longer eligible for 

those benefits by reaching maximum medical improvement, by returning to work

at a wage equal to or greater than the pre-injury wage, or by release without 

restrictions by the authorized treating physician. NES’s representative shall

immediately notify the Bureau, Mr. Minor, and Mr. Minor’s counsel, if any, of the 

intent to terminate temporary disability benefits by filing Form C-26, citing the 

basis for the termination.

5. This matter is set for an Initial (Scheduling) Hearing on October 13, 2015, at 9:00

a.m.

6. Unless interlocutory appeal of the Expedited Hearing Order is filed, 

compliance with this Order must occur no later than seven business days 

from the date of entry of this Order as required by Tennessee Code 

Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(3) (2014). The Insurer or Self-Insured 

Employer must submit confirmation of compliance with this Order to the 

Bureau by email to WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov no later than the 

seventh business day after entry of this Order. Failure to submit the 

necessary confirmation within the period of compliance may result in a 

penalty assessment for non-compliance.

7. For questions regarding compliance, please contact the Workers’ Compensation 

Compliance Unit via email WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov or by calling (615) 

253-1471 or (615) 532-1309.

ENTERED this the 19th day of August, 2015.

_____________________________________

Dale Tipps, Judge

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
12

Initial (Scheduling) Hearing:

An Inietial (Scheduling) Hearing has been set with Judge Dale Tipps, Court of 

Workers’ Compensation Claims. You must call 615-741-2112 or toll free at 855-

874-0473 to participate in the Initial Hearing.

Please Note: You must call in on the scheduled date/time to 

participate. Failure to call in may result in a determination of the issues without 

your further participation. All conferences are set using Central Time (CT).

Right to Appeal:

Tennessee Law allows any party who disagrees with this Expedited Hearing Order 

to appeal the decision to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. To file a Notice of

Appeal, you must:

1. Complete the enclosed form entitled: “Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal.”

2. File the completed form with the Court Clerk within seven business days of the 

date the Workers’ Compensation Judge entered the Expedited Hearing Order.

3. Serve a copy of the Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal upon the opposing party. 

4. The appealing party is responsible for payment of a filing fee in the amount of 

$75.00. Within ten calendar days after the filing of a notice of appeal, payment 

must be received by check, money order, or credit card payment. Payments can be 

made in person at any Bureau office or by United States mail, hand-delivery, or 

other delivery service. In the alternative, the appealing party may file an Affidavit 

of Indigency, on a form prescribed by the Bureau, seeking a waiver of the filing 

fee. The Affidavit of Indigency may be filed contemporaneously with the Notice 

of Appeal or must be filed within ten calendar days thereafter. The Appeals Board 

will consider the Affidavit of Indigency and issue an Order granting or denying 

the request for a waiver of the filing fee as soon thereafter as is 

practicable. Failure to timely pay the filing fee or file the Affidavit of 

Indigency in accordance with this section shall result in dismissal of the 

appeal.

5. The parties, having the responsibility of ensuring a complete record on appeal, 

may request, from the Court Clerk, the audio recording of the hearing for the 

purpose of having a transcript prepared by a licensed court reporter and filing it 

with the Court Clerk within ten calendar days of the filing of the Expedited 

Hearing Notice of Appeal. Alternatively, the parties may file a joint statement of 
13

the evidence within ten calendar days of the filing of the Expedited Hearing 

Notice of Appeal. The statement of the evidence must convey a complete and 

accurate account of what transpired in the Court of Workers’ Compensation 

Claims and must be approved by the workers’ compensation judge before the 

record is submitted to the Clerk of the Appeals Board.

6. If the appellant elects to file a position statement in support of the interlocutory 

appeal, the appealing party shall file such position statement with the Court Clerk

within three business days of the filing of the Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal, 

specifying the issues presented for review and including any argument in support 

thereof. If the appellee elects to file a response in opposition to the interlocutory 

appeal, appellee shall do so within three business days of the filing of the 

appellant’s position statement.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Expedited Hearing Order

Granting Medical and Temporary Disability Benefits was sent to the following recipients 

by the following methods of service on this the 19th day of August, 2015.

Name Certified 

Mail

Via

Fax

Via 

Email

Service sent to:

John Minor X K_minor@bellsouth.net

Camille Steward X csteward@nespower.com

_____________________________________

Penny Shrum, Clerk of Court

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov