1 

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD 

Rosalind Williamson ) Docket No. 2017-08-0203 

) 

v. ) State File No. 78680-2016 

) 

Professional Care Services, et al. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ ) 

Compensation Claims ) 

Deana C. Seymour, Judge ) 

Affirmed and Certified as Final – Filed August 13, 2018 

The employee alleges that she fell while walking up a ramp to her employer’s building 

and suffered injuries to her shoulder and hand. Following an expedited hearing, the trial 

court denied benefits, and the employee’s appeal of that denial was dismissed as 

untimely. The employer subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, which the 

trial court granted and the case was dismissed. The employee has appealed. We affirm 

the trial court’s decision and certify its order as final. 

Presiding Judge Marshall L. Davidson, III, delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in 

which Judge David F. Hensley and Judge Timothy W. Conner joined. 

Rosalind Williamson, Somerville, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se 

Nicholas J. Peterson and T. Ryan Malone, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the employerappellee, Professional Care Services 

Memorandum Opinion1

Rosalind Williamson (“Employee”) alleges that on September 30, 2016, while 

working for Professional Care Services (“Employer”), she slipped on a ramp outside 

Employer’s building and fell. She claims that she suffered injuries to her left shoulder 

and hand in the fall. 

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.” Appeals Bd. Prac. & Proc. § 1.3. 
2 

Employer provided a panel of physicians from which Employee selected Dr. Bret 

Sokoloff. Dr. Sokoloff ordered an MRI of Employee’s shoulder and, after reviewing the 

results, concluded that her shoulder condition was “likely chronic” and that her hand 

complaints were “nonspecific.” Employer denied further treatment, and Employee 

obtained additional medical care on her own, including surgery on her shoulder 

performed by Dr. Sokoloff outside the context of her workers’ compensation claim. 

Employee filed a petition seeking medical and temporary disability benefits. 

Following an expedited hearing, the trial court ruled there was insufficient medical proof 

to find that Employee would likely prevail at trial in establishing her medical complaints 

arose primarily out of her employment. Employee filed an untimely appeal of the trial 

court’s expedited hearing order, which we dismissed. 

Employer subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that 

Employee had no medical proof of causation. Employer maintained that Dr. Sokoloff 

provided the only expert medical opinion, and he concluded merely that her shoulder 

condition was chronic and her hand condition was nonspecific. 

The trial court granted Employer’s motion and dismissed the case. In doing so, 

the court noted that Employee provided no causation opinion to support her claim and 

that she failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment consistent with the 

requirements set out in Rule 56 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Employee 

has again appealed.2

I.

The granting or denial of a motion for summary judgment is an issue of law and, 

therefore, our standard of review is de novo with no presumption of correctness. Rye v. 

Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 250 (Tenn. 2015); McBee v. 

CSX Transp., Inc., No. W2015-01253-COA-R3-CV, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 129, *14 

(Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2017). As such, we must “make a fresh determination of 

whether the requirements of Rule 56 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure have 

been satisfied.” Rye, 477 S.W.3d at 250. In addition, we “must view the evidence in the 

light most favorable to the non-moving party and must also draw all reasonable 

inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” Dugger v. Home Health Care of Middle 

Tenn., No. M2016-01284-SC-R3-WC, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 206, at *8 (Tenn. Workers’ 

Comp. Panel Jan. 31, 2017). 

2

 Employer also appealed, asserting that the regulation relied upon by the trial court to assess the filing fee 

against it, Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-21-.07 (2016), was unconstitutional because it requires 

employers to pay the fee even if the employer is the prevailing party. However, in its brief filed on 

appeal, Employer indicated it did not wish to pursue the issue. Accordingly, it is unnecessary for us to 

address the constitutionality of the regulation. 
3 

Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that 

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a 

judgment as a matter of law.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04. When a party who does not bear 

the burden of proof at trial files a motion for summary judgment, it must do one of two 

things to prevail: (1) submit affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the 

nonmoving party’s claim, or (2) demonstrate that the nonmoving party’s evidence is 

insufficient to establish an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim. Tenn. Code 

Ann. § 20-16-101 (2017); see also Rye, 477 S.W.3d at 264. If the moving party is 

successful in meeting this burden, the nonmoving party “may not rest upon the mere 

allegations or denials of its pleading.” Rye, 477 S.W.3d at 265. Rather, the nonmoving 

party must respond by producing affidavits, pleadings, depositions, responses to 

interrogatories, or admissions that set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine 

issue for trial. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.06; see also Rye, 477 S.W.3d at 265. If the 

nonmoving party fails to respond in this manner, “summary judgment, if appropriate, 

shall be entered against the [nonmoving] party.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.06. 

In addition to these requirements, Rule 56.03 provides specific filing requirements 

for both the moving party and the nonmoving party. The moving party must file a 

statement of undisputed material facts with its motion, ensuring that each fact is 

accompanied by a citation to the record. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. Likewise, the 

nonmoving party is instructed to respond to this statement of undisputed facts, either 

indicating it agrees the fact is undisputed or demonstrating that the fact is disputed by 

providing a citation to the record. Id. “The requirements of Rule 56 are not mere 

suggestions. The use of the words ‘must’ and ‘shall’ in Rule 56.03 to describe the 

necessary elements of a motion for summary judgment and any response thereto are plain 

and unambiguous.” Thomas v. Zipp Express, No. 2015-06-0546, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. 

App. Bd. LEXIS 22, at *11 n.4 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Mar. 15, 2017). 

As noted above, the trial court granted Employer’s motion for summary judgment 

because Employee provided no causation opinion to support her claim. She also failed to 

respond to the motion consistent with the requirements of Rule 56. On appeal, Employee 

has not filed a brief as required by Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-22-.03(3) (2018)

and has not otherwise offered any argument as to how the trial court erred in granting 

Employer’s motion. 

Employee does contend that counsel for Employer violated her privacy by 

obtaining her medical records, that efforts to obtain her medical records were used to 

“intimidate” her, that defense counsel “removed” medical records that would have 

benefited her claim, that “none of [her] proof was considered,” and that “[t]his appeal 

includes things that were not considered in the decision” of the trial court. Unfortunately, 

however, Employee does not address the legal basis for the trial court’s decision granting 

summary judgment, which is the issue dispositive of this appeal. We decline to speculate 
4 

about what arguments Employee might make, and it is not our role “to research or 

construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her.” Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l 

Responsibility of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010). 

We also note it is well-established that we will not consider documents or 

information on appeal that was not presented to and considered by the trial court. See 

Hadzic v. Averitt Express, No. 2014-02-0064, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 14, 

at *13 n.4 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. May 18, 2015). Thus, we have not 

considered the materials submitted by Employee with her notice of appeal that are not 

properly part of the record. We have likewise disregarded documents attached to 

Employer’s brief that are not part of the record. 

II.

Employer has asked that this appeal be deemed frivolous and that it be awarded 

attorney’s fees. 

A frivolous appeal is one that is devoid of merit or brought solely for delay. 

Yarbrough v. Protective Servs. Co., Inc., No. 2015-08-0574, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. 

Bd. LEXIS 3, at *11 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Jan. 25, 2016). Stated another 

way, “[a] frivolous appeal is one that . . . had no reasonable chance of succeeding.” 

Adkins v. Studsvik, Inc., No. E2014-00444-SC-R3-WC, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 588, at *30 

(Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel July 21, 2015). Although we conclude that this appeal had 

no realistic chance of success and is frivolous, we exercise our discretion not to assess 

attorneys’ fees or costs against Employee. See Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-22-

.04(6) (2018). 

We affirm the trial court’s grant of Employer’s motion for summary judgment and 

certify the court’s order as final.
 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Rosalind Williamson ) Docket No. 2017-08-0203 

) 

v. ) State File No. 78680-2016 

)

Professional Care Services, et al. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ ) 

Compensation Claims ) 

Deana C. Seymour, 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 13th day of August, 2018. 

Name Certified 

Mail

First Class 

Mail

Via 

Fax

Fax 

Number

Via 

Email

Sent to: 

Rosalind Williamson X Forgive12001@yahoo.com

Nicholas Peterson X nicholas.peterson@petersonwhite.com

Ryan Malone X ryan@petersonwhite.com

Deana C. Seymour, 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

Matthew Salyer

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