TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Michael Boyd ) Docket No. 2015-07-0053

)

v. )

) State File No. 96497-2014

Revel Logging, LLC )

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 22nd day of September, 2015.

Name Certified 

Mail

First Class 

Mail

Via 

Fax

Fax 

Number

Via 

Email

Email Address

Charles L. Hicks X larry_hickslaw@bellsouth.net

Jeffery G. Foster X jfoster@morganakins.com

Allen Phillips, 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: Matthew.Salyer@tn.gov
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD 

FILED 

September 22, 2015 

Michael Boyd 

v. 

Revel Logging, LLC 

Appeal from the Court of Workers' 

Compensation Claims 

Allen Phillips, Judge 

) Docket No. 2015-07-0053 

) 

) 

) State File No. 96497-2014 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, 

and Remanded- Filed September 22, 2015 

T ENNESSEE 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION 

APPEALS BOARD 

Time: 1 :38 P.M. 

This interlocutory appeal involves an employee who alleges suffering a work-related 

back injury and a vascular leg injury from a fall at work. Although the employee 

received authorized treatment for his back injury, he sought treatment for the vascular 

condition on his own. Thereafter, he sought continuing treatment for both conditions as 

well as payment of medical bills associated with the unauthorized treatment of the 

vascular condition. The trial court determined that both injuries were compensable and 

ordered continuing treatment for the vascular condition and payment of the unauthorized 

medical bills. The trial court denied the employee's request for a second panel of 

physicians to treat his back injury. The employer has appealed, arguing that the trial 

court erred in determining that the vascular injury was compensable. After a careful 

review of the record, we affirm the trial court's decision to deny additional medical 

benefits for the employee's back injury and reverse the trial court's findings that the 

vascular injury was compensable and that the employer should pay the medical expenses 

associated with that condition. The case is remanded for such additional proceedings as 

may be necessary. 

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

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

1 
Jeffery G. Foster, Jackson, Tennessee, for the employer-appellant, Revel Logging, LLC 

Charles L. Hicks, Camden, Tennessee, for the employee-appellee, Michael Boyd 

Factual and Procedural Background 

Michael Boyd ("Employee"), a forty-eight-year-old resident of Henry County, 

Tennessee, was working for Revel Logging, LLC ("Employer"), when he allegedly 

suffered an injury to his low back and a vascular injury in his left leg on December 2, 

2014. He described climbing onto a machine that he operated to perform his duties and 

slipping, twisting his back and striking his leg. He testified that his left leg immediately 

felt "frozen" and that he experienced pain in his left leg and low back. He reported the 

incident that day and was transported by his supervisor to a clinic for evaluation. The 

attending physician diagnosed him with a lumbar strain and sciatica and prescribed 

medication. 

The following day, Dr. Stephen Waggoner was chosen from a panel of physicians. 

Dr. Waggoner first saw Employee on December 5, 2014, and provided treatment for his 

back injury consisting of testing, physical therapy, and medication. Employee returned to 

Dr. Waggoner on December 11 to discuss his MRI results and began physical therapy on 

December 16. Employee complained of pain in his low back as well as left leg pain, 

numbness, and tingling at these visits. On December 22, 2014, Dr. Waggoner saw 

Employee again for his back injury, and Employee reiterated his left leg complaints. 

Upon examination, Dr. Waggoner noted that Employee's leg was cool to the touch and 

that he could not feel a pulse in that leg. He referred Employee to Methodist Hospital for 

immediate evaluation of a potential vascular condition. 

Employee presented to Methodist Hospital but testified that, due to a case 

manager's 1 statement that Employer would not pay for treatment or testing for a vascular 

condition and his perception that the hospital was unsanitary, he decided to forego testing 

at that time. He subsequently learned that Employer would provide the recommended 

vascular testing, which was scheduled for December 26, 2014. 

On December 25, 2014, Employee awoke in severe pain and went to the 

emergency room at Henry County Medical Center where testing revealed a blocked 

femoral artery in his left leg. The attending physician examined Employee and noted, 

"our working theory is that the patient likely mechanically ruptured an intra-arterial 

plaque at the time of his accident." The following day, the attending physician observed 

that "the patient is having an occlusion because of a trauma event which is ahead of the 

1 A case manager is employed to provide "medical case management or the ongoing coordination of 

medical care services provided to an injured or disabled employee." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-1 02(6) 

(2015). 

2 
normal progression of atherosclerotic disease for this individual." Following additional 

testing, Employee underwent surgery performed by Dr. Andrew Lundberg for "acute 

thrombosis ofthe left common femoral system" on December 28, 2014. 

Following his surgery, Employee returned to Dr. Waggoner, noting that his left leg 

was better but that he still had back pain. Dr. Waggoner prescribed a second round of 

physical therapy, which Employee requested be discontinued because he was feeling 

better and wanted to return to work. Dr. Waggoner allowed him to stop the physical 

therapy and return to work without restrictions or impairment. Employee testified that he 

continued to suffer from back pain and attempted to return to Dr. Waggoner for 

additional treatment. However; he was informed that Dr. Waggoner believed that he did 

not need additional treatment and had refused to see him. 

On March 6, 2015, the case manager wrote to Dr. Waggoner and requested his 

opinion regarding the cause of Employee's vascular condition. Dr. Waggoner responded 

that the back strain suffered during the work incident was not the cause of Employee's 

vascular condition. However, he stated that, with respect to whether the work incident 

caused the vascular injury, he would defer to a vascular surgeon. A few days later on 

March 11, 2015, Employer wrote Dr. Waggoner seeking his opinion regarding the cause 

of the vascular condition and provided Dr. Lundberg's records. Dr. Waggoner checked 

"no" in response to the following question: 

In your expert medical opinion, taking into account this patient's health 

conditions as demonstrated in the above testing results and the surgical 

findings by Dr[.] Lundberg, the work injury in question, and your 

evaluation and treatment of the patient, along with any and all other 

information you feel to be germane, did the incident on December 2, 20 14 

contribute more than 50% in causing the patient's current vascular 

symptoms and need for surgery? 

Dr. Lundberg likewise provided an opinion regarding the cause of Employee's 

vascular condition, stating: 

[ w ]hether or not this was specifically associated with a traumatic fall and 

acute dissection at the time, I am not sure anybody could answer unless we 

had seen him just directly after the fall but given the temporal relationship 

between the fall and the symptoms, my suspect [sic] is that this would be 

associated with his injury during his duties at work. 

Following an expedited hearing, the trial court determined that Employee was not 

entitled to a second panel of physicians for his back injury because the medical evidence 

3 
established that additional treatment was unnecessary .

2 The trial court also determined 

that Employee suffered a compensable vascular injury to his left leg, deemed Dr. 

Lundberg the authorized treating physician, and ordered Employer to pay the medical 

bills associated with the vascular condition. Employer timely appealed, and the Appeals 

Board received the record on September 4, 2015. 

Standard of Review 

The standard of review to be applied by this Board in reviewing a trial court's 

decision is statutorily mandated and limited in scope. Specifically, "[t]here shall be a 

presumption that the findings and conclusions of the workers' compensation judge are 

correct, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-

6-239(c)(7) (2014). The trial court's decision must be upheld unless the rights of a party 

"have been prejudiced because findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions of a 

workers' compensation judge: 

(A) Violate constitutional or statutory provisions; 

(B) Exceed the statutory authority ofthe workers' compensation judge; 

(C) Do not comply with lawful procedure; 

(D) Are arbitrary, capricious, characterized by abuse of discretion, or 

clearly an unwarranted exercise of discretion; or 

(E) Are not supported by evidence that is both substantial and material 

in the light of the entire record." 

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-217(a)(3) (2015). Like other courts applying the standards 

embodied in section 50-6-217(a)(3), we will not disturb the decision of the trial court 

absent the limited circumstances identified in the statute. 

Analysis 

To be compensable under the workers' compensation statutes, an injury must arise 

primarily out of and occur in the course and scope of the employment. Tenn. Code Ann. 

§ 50-6-1 02( 13) (20 14 ). The term "injury" is defined as "an injury by accident ... arising 

primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, that causes death, 

disablement or the need for medical treatment of the employee." !d. For an injury to be 

accidental, it must be "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). Moreover, "[t]he opinion 

of the treating physician, selected by the employee from the employer's designated panel 

of physicians ... shall be presumed correct on the issue of causation but this presumption 

2 Employee has not appealed the trial court's denial of additional medical benefits for his back injury and, 

therefore, we need not address that issue. 

4 
shall be rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-

102(13)(E) (2014). 

Here, the evidence contained in the record does not support the trial court's 

finding that Employee's vascular condition was caused by the work incident of December 

2, 2014. Dr. Waggoner, while initially indicating that he would defer to the vascular 

surgeon on the issue of causation, ultimately opined that the work accident was not the 

primary cause of the vascular injury. For his part, Dr. Lundberg opined that "[w]hether 

or not this was specifically associated with a traumatic fall and acute dissection at that 

time, I am not sure anybody could answer unless we had seen him just directly after the 

fall." He goes on to say that, due to the temporal relationship between the work accident 

and Employee's complaints, he "suspect[s]" that the vascular injury is associated with the 

work incident. Thus, Dr. Lundberg was unsure whether anyone could opine on the issue 

of causation, and he only suspected the vascular condition was associated with the 

employment. Such an opinion is conjectural, does not establish that the injury is 

primarily work-related, and is insufficient to rebut the presumption 'of correctness 

attached to Dr. Waggoner's opinion under section 50-6-102(13)(E). 

Accordingly, we conclude that, based upon the record as it currently exists, there 

is insufficient evidence from which the trial court could determine that Employee is 

likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits concerning whether his vascular condition 

arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. It follows that the 

trial court erred in requiring Employer to pay the medical bills associated with that 

condition. Employer's remaining issues are pretermitted. 

Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court's findings that Employee's vascular 

condition is compensable and that Employer should pay the medical expenses associated 

with that condition are reversed. As no issue has been raised regarding the trial court's 

denial of additional medical benefits for Employee's back injury at this time, that portion 

of the court's decision is affirmed. The case is remanded for any further proceedings that 

may be necessary. 

5 

Marshall L. Davidson, III, 

Presiding Judge 

Workers' Compensation Appeals Board