# TENNESSEE

BUREAU

OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION WORKERS' COMPENSATION

APPEALS

BOARD Stephen

W. Shepherd v

. 

# Haren Construction

Company,

Inc.,

et

al. Appeal

from

the Court

of Workers' Compensation

Claims Thomas

Wyatt,

Judge

) Docket

No. 2015-01-0325 ) 

# ) State

File

No. 79562-2015 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

# Affirmed

as Modified

and Remanded

- Filed March

30, 2016 This interlocutory

appeal involves

an employee

who

was injured

while

in the course

and scope

of

his employment

and

was subsequently

terminated

by

the employer.

The employee

requested

payment

of temporary

disability

benefits,

which

the employer

denied on

the basis

it terminated

the employee

for cause

and would

have provided

light

duty work

but

for

the termination.

Following

an expedited

hearing,

the trial court denied

the employee's

request

for temporary

disability

benefits,

finding

the employee

was terminated

for cause.

The employee

has appealed.

Having carefully

reviewed

the record, we affirm

the

trial court's decision

denying temporary

disability

benefits,

modify

the decision concerning

the payment

of medical

benefits

based

on

the parties' stipulation, and remand

the case

for further proceedings

as may

be necessary. Judge

David

F. Hensley

delivered

the opinion

of

the Appeals

Board,

in which

Judge Marshall

L. 

# Davidson,

III,

and Judge Timothy

W. Conner

joined. William

J. Brown, Cleveland,

Tennessee,

for

the employee-appellant,

Stephen

W. Shepherd

1LeslieBishop,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheemployer-appellee,HarenConstructionCompany,Inc.FactualandProceduralBackgroundStephenShepherd("Employee"),aresidentofPolkCounty,Tennessee,wasemployedasaheavyequipmentoperatorbyHarenConstructionCompany,Inc.("Employer"),onJuly14,2015,whenhesufferedalacerationinjurytohisleftforearmthataroseprimarilyoutofandinthecourseandscopeofhisemployment.Employeracceptedtheinjuryascompensable.Althoughthereissomediscrepancyregardingtheexactcircumstancesoftheincidentcausingtheinjury,theoccurrenceoftheinjuryisundisputed.Employeewasprovidedmedicalcareatawalk-in urgentcareclinicinClay,NorthCarolina,whereEmployeewasworkingwithafive-personcrewinstallingpipeline.Employee'slacerationwassuturedandhewasreleasedtoworkwithinstructionstokeepthewoundcleananddryfortwodays.Hereturnedtoworkontheafternoonofhisinjury.Employeeworkedthefollowingday,July15,2015.OnJuly16,2015,Employeewasoperatingabackhoeandaccidentlyrupturedagaslinewhilediggingatrenchinwhichpipewastobelaid.Theincidentresultedinaworkstoppageuntilthegaslinecouldberepaired,andthecrewresumedworkafterrepairswerecompleted.ThefollowingdaywasatraveldayforthecrewandafterashortperiodoftimeattheworksitethecrewlefttoreturntoTennessee.OnJuly18,2015,Employee'ssupervisorcalledhimandadvisedthathehadbeenterminatedfor"runningtheequipmenterraticallyandthenhittingagasline."Thefollowingworkday,EmployeewenttoEmployer'sofficeandspokewithEmployer'spresident,EvanHaren.Thereisaconflictintheparties'testimonyconcerningwhethertheconversationbetweenEmployeeandMr.HarenincludedadiscussionaboutEmployee'sinjury,butEmployee'spurposeinmeetingwithEmployerwastoaddressthereasonforhistermination.Mr.Harentestifiedthat,beforehemetwithEmployee,hewasawarethatagaslinehadbeenrupturedbyanoperatorandthattherupturehadshutdownworkforabriefperiod.HetestifiedhedidnotknowwhotheoperatorwasanddidnotknowthattheoperatorhadbeenterminateduntilthemeetingwithEmployee.HetestifiedhetoldEmployee"[he]wouldlookintoitandif[he]foundanythingdifferent[fromwhathadbeenreportedtohim]abouttheincident[he]wouldgetbackwith[Employee]andlethimknowwhat[he]found."Mr.HarenfurthertestifiedtherewasnomentionofEmployee'sinjuryormedicalcareduringthemeeting,andthatthediscussionwaslimitedtoEmployee'stermination.Incontrast,EmployeetestifiedthathetoldMr.Harenabouthisinjuryduringthemeetingandasked,''whoisgoingtodealwiththisarm?"EmployeetestifiedthatMr.Harensaidhehadnotbeeninformedofanon-the-jobaccident,andthathewould"look2intothatandgetbackto[him]."EmployeedeniedshowingMr.Harenhisarm,statingitwasbandagedand"[he]wasnotgoingtouncoverit."EmployeealsotestifiedthathetoldMr.Harenhe"mashed"hisshoulderandthathe"washaving...alotofshoulderpaininmyrotatorcuffandeverythingelse."EmployerdidnotprovideEmployeeapanelofphysiciansforfollow-upcareforhisforearmlaceration,andonSeptember8,2015,Employeesoughttreatmentonhisownwithanorthopedicphysician,Dr.PatrickStone.Dr.StonewassubsequentlyauthorizedbyEmployertoprovideongoingreasonableandnecessarymedicalcareforEmployee'swork-relatedinjury.Atanexpeditedhearing,theparties stipulatedthatallofthemedicalexpensesincurredasaresultoftreatmentwithDr.StoneforEmployee'sworkinjurywereEmployer'sresponsibility.ThedisputeinthiscaseconcernswhetherEmployeeisentitledtotemporarydisabilitybenefitsfromthedateofhisterminationuntiltheJanuary28,2016expeditedhearing.1EmployercontendsEmployeeisnotentitledtotemporarydisabilitybenefitsfortheperiodinquestion,assertingthatEmployeewasterminatedforcauseandthatitwouldhaveaccommodatedEmployee'sworkrestrictions hadhenotbeenterminated.EmployerreliesprimarilyontheJuly16,2015gaslineruptureasthebasisforitsterminationofEmployee,butcitedotherreasonssupportingthetermination.InadditiontoEmployee,fourindividualstestifiedattheexpeditedhearing,includingEmployee'ssupervisor,Employer'spresident,Employer'ssafetymanager,andaheavyequipmentmechanicforEmployerwhowaspresentattheworksitewhenthegaslineruptureoccurred.Thecruxoftheparties'disputeiswhetherEmployee'srupturingthegaslinewastheresultofhisfailuretofollowhissupervisor'sinstructionsandimproper operationofthebackhoeorwas,ascharacterizedbyEmployee'sattorney,an"honestmistake."Employeetestifiedthatonthedayofthegaslinerupture,hewasexperiencingnumbnessinhislefthand,thumb,andsomeofhisfingersasaresultofhiswork-relatedinjurytwodaysearlier.Heexplainedthat,asaheavyequipmentoperator,havingfullsensationinhishandsisessentialsohecanfeelthevibrationofthemachineheisoperatingand anychangesinthatvibrationthatwouldindicatehehadcomeintocontactwithsomethingwhiledigging.Becauseofthelacerationonhisleftarm,Employeetestifiedhehadreducedsensationandexperienceddifficultyinoperatingthebackhoe.Healsotestifiedthatbecausehewasdiggingparalleltothegasline,itwaslesslikelythathewouldfeelhesitationifthebucketcameintocontactwiththegasline.Employee'stestimonydirectlycontradictsthatofEmployer'switnessesregardingwhetherhewasinstructednotto digintheareawherethegaslinewasruptured.HedescribedworkingonthebackhoediggingparalleltothegaslinewhilehissupervisorIDr.StonetookEmployeecompletelyoffworkforaperiodoftime,duringwhichEmployerpaidtemporarytotaldisabilitybenefits.Thosebenefitsarenotdisputed.3waslocatednearbyonatrackhoe.Employee'srecollectionoftheeventsimmediatelypriortorupturingthegaslinewasthataco-worker,GregAnthony,servedashis"groundman"andwatchedwhereEmployeewasdiggingtogivehiminstructionsorguidanceondigging.Employeetestifiedheis"theonlypersonIwouldhavebeenpayingattentionto,"and"[w]henhetoldmetomakeamove,thatwasthemovethatgotmade."Employeedeniedhavingeverheardhissupervisorinstructhimtostopdiggingintheareaofthegasline.Employeetestifiedthathewashardofhearingasaresultofaworkhistoryofoperatingheavymachinery,andthathewaswearingearplugsatthetimeoftheincident.Hetestifiedthathadhissupervisoryelledathimtostopdigginghewouldnothavebeenabletohearhim.Further,hetestifiedthatthegaslinewasnotmarkedandthatthegroundwherehewasdiggingwasundisturbed.Hetestifiedthatatoothonthebackhoebucketcaughttheedgeofthegasline''justenoughtocutalittlegashinit."Whenquestionedoncross-examinationregardingwhetherhehadbeendisciplinedforoperatingmachineryinadangerousmanner,Employeeacknowledgedhavingbeenreprimandedbyhissupervisorononeoccasionwhenhehit a"siltfence"withanexcavatorandstatedthat,ifhehad everreceivedotherreprimands,theywereofsuchaninsignificantnaturethattheydidnot"registerwith[him]."However,hedeniedhavingbeenreprimandedforoperatingmachineryina''wild"mannerandtestifiedhewouldrememberreprimandsofthatnature.ThetestimonyofEmployee'ssupervisorwasmarkedlydivergentfromthatofEmployee.HetestifiedthatthegaslinearoundwhichEmployeewasdigginghadbeenexposedbyworkersdiggingbyhand.HetestifiedthatwhenEmployeebegantousethebackhoenearasectionofgaslinethatwasstillburied,heinstructedEmployeetostopdiggingtoallowanotherworkertouncoverthelinebyhandwithashovelsoitwouldbevisible.ThesupervisorstatedthatEmployeeheardhimtellhimtostopdiggingbecauseEmployeeresponded,"Iseetheline.I'vegotthis."ThesupervisortestifiedthathetoldEmployeethathewouldratherletalaboreruncoveritwithashoveland,whenEmployeecontinuedtodig,instructedhimnottohitthegasline.HestatedthatEmployeetook"twomoreswipesandcutthegaslineintwo."Thesupervisoralsotestifiedthat,beforethedaythegaslinewasruptured,hehadreprimandedEmployeefourtimesforoperatingmachineryinanunsafeor"wild"manner.HetestifiedthatafterEmployeecontinuedtodigintheareaofthegasline,despitehavingbeentoldtostopdigging,hedeterminedtheappropriatecourseofactionwastoterminateEmployee.PriortodoingsohecontactedEmployer'ssafetymanagertodiscussthepossibletermination.MikeBell,aheavyequipmentmechanicforEmployer,testifiedhewaspresentattheworksiteandwasstandingonthecurbobservingwhatwasgoingonwhentheincidentoccurred.HetestifiedheheardthesupervisorinstructEmployeenottocontinuediggingwherethegaslinehadnotbeenexposed.Hetestifiedthesupervisortold4Employee

to

let one

of the laborers

uncover

the

gas

line with

a shovel, and

that Employee told

the supervisor

he could

see

the

gas

line

and continued

digging.

He testified

that Employee dug

beyond

where

the

gas

line

was exposed

and

"[a] couple

of swipes

later,

a couple

of digs later,

he ruptured

the

gas line." In addition

to testifying

about

his meeting

with Employee

following Employee's termination,

Employer's

president,

Mr. Haren, testified

about

the company's

policy

of providing

light

duty

work

to employees

with

work restrictions,

stating

"[w]e almost

100 percent

of the time utilize

light

duty

for people

who

get injuries

on jobs."

He testified that Employer

would

have accommodated

Employee

had

he been

in need

of light

duty work

with restrictions

limiting

him

to work

with

no

use

of one

arm. Employee

disputed whether

light

duty

work would

have

been available

for him,

but offered

no evidence

in support

of his position

other

than

his own testimony. Lastly, Employer's

safety manager,

Mike Herrell,

testified

that

he received

a telephone

call from

the supervisor concerning

whether

to terminate Employee

and

that

he was involved

in the decision

to terminate Employee.

He testified

the

sole reason

for

the termination

was Employee's insubordination.

He also testified Employer

has

a policy

to provide reasonable accommodation

to injured employees,

stating

the work

would

be "[

e ]ither

in the field

or

at the office,"

and

that

the work "could

be through cleaning

up around

the office, painting,

using

a paint brush,

any number

of things." Following

an expedited

hearing,

the

trial

court

found Employer

terminated Employee

for cause, observing

that Employee's

affidavit submitted

with

his request

for expedited

hearing

was inconsistent

with

his testimony

at the hearing.

The

trial

court found Employer's

witnesses

to

be credible

and found

the termination

was consistent

with Employer's

policies

and,

thus,

was justified. Accordingly,

the

trial

court

denied Employee's

request

for temporary

disability

benefits. Employee

has appealed. Standard

of Review The standard

we apply

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)

(2015).

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

of the 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; 5(E)Arenotsupportedbyevidencethatisbothsubstantialandmaterialinthelightoftheentirerecord."Tenn.CodeAnn.§50-6-217(a)(3)(2015).Likeothercourtsapplyingthestandardsembodiedinsection50-6-217(a)(3),wewillnotdisturbthedecisionofthetrialcourtabsentthelimitedcircumstancesidentifiedinthestatute.AnalysisAsaninitialmatter,wenotethatthetrialcourtdeniedEmployee'srequestforpaymentofmedicalexpensesincurredwithDr.Stone.However,thepartiesstipulatedintheexpeditedhearingthatDr.Stonewastheauthorizedphysician,andtheEmployeragreedthatthemedicalexpensesassociatedwithDr.Stone'streatmentoftheworkinjury"wouldbepaidpursuanttothefeeschedule."Initsbriefonappeal,Employerstatedthat"thebillforservicesofDr.StoneofSeptember8,2015,waspaid."Therefore,thetrialcourt'sorderregardingthedenialofpaymentforthemedicalexpensesarisingfromtheinitialtreatmentwithDr.StoneforEmployee'sworkinjuryismodifiedtoprovidethatEmployerisresponsibleforallreasonableandnecessarymedicalexpensesincurredwithDr.Stoneasaresultoftheworkinjury.Withrespecttothetrialcourt'sdenialoftemporarydisabilitybenefits,EmployeeraisesasanissueinthenoticeofappealandinhisbriefwhetherthetrialcourterredinfailingtoawardtemporarytotaldisabilitybenefitsfromthedateofEmployee'stermination.2Toreceivetemporarytotaldisabilitybenefits,anem_ployeemustprove(1)totaldisabilityfromworkingastheresultofcompensableinjury;(2)acausalconnectionbetweentheinjuryandtheinabilitytowork;and(3)thedurationoftheperiodofdisability.Simpsonv.Satterfield,564S.W.2d953,955(Tenn.1978).Wherethedisabilityisnottotal,anemployeemayrecovertemporarypartialdisabilitybenefitsiftheemployee"isabletoresumesomegainfulemploymentbuthasnotreachedmaximumrecovery."Williamsv.SaturnCorp.,No.M2004-01215-WC-R3-CV,2005Tenn.LEXIS1032,at*6(Tenn.Workers'Comp.PanelNov.15,2005).SeeTenn.CodeAnn.§50-6-207(2)(2015).Temporaryrestrictionsassignedbyphysiciansduringaninjuredworker'smedicaltreatmentdonotestablishanentitlementtocontinuedtemporarydisabilitybenefitsiftheemployeeisabletoworkwithoutlossofincome.SeeLongv.MidTennesseeFordTruckSales,160S.W.3d504,511(Tenn.2005);Vinsonv.FirestoneTireandRubberCo.,655S.W.2d931,933(Tenn.1983).Eventhoughanemployeehasawork-relatedinjuryforwhichtemporarybenefitsmaybepayable,anemployermaystillenforceworkplacerules.Carterv.FirstSource2EmployerpaidtemporarytotaldisabilitybenefitsfortheperiodoftimeDr.StoneopinedEmployeewastotallyunabletowork.Alltemporarytotaldisabilitybenefitsowedhavebeenpaid.Employee'srequestfortemporarytotaldisabilitybenefitsisbettercharacterizedasarequestfortemporarypartialdisabilitybenefits.6Furniture

Grp.,

92 S.W.3d

367,

368 (Tenn.

2002).

Thus,

an employee's

termination

due to

a violation

of workplace

rules

may relieve

the employer

of

its obligation

to provide temporary partial

disability

benefits,

provided

the termination

was related

to

the workplace

violation.

See Marvin Windows

of Tenn.,

Inc.

v. Gardner,

No. W2011-01479- WC-R3-WC,

2012 Tenn. LEXIS

403,

at

*9 (Tenn. Workers'

Comp.

Panel

June

8, 2012). When confronted

with

such

a case, courts

must "consider

the employer's

need

to enforce workplace

rules

and

the reasonableness

of the contested

rules."

Id.

at

10.

An employer will

not

be penalized

for enforcing

a policy

if the court determines

"(1)

that

the actions allegedly precipitating

the employee's

dismissal

qualified

as misconduct

under established

or ordinary workplace

rules and/or expectations;

and

(2) that those actions were,

as

a factual

matter,

the

true motivation

for

the dismissal."

Durham

v. Cracker Barrel

Old Country

Store,

Inc.,

No. E2008-00708-WC-R3-WC,

2009

Tenn. LEXIS

3,

at *9 (Tenn. Workers'

Comp.

Panel

Jan.

5, 2009). In the instant

case,

the determinative

issues

are whether Employer

came forward with sufficient

evidence

to support

its position

that Employee

was terminated

for violating workplace

rules

and whether Employee

came forward

with evidence

that

the stated

reason

for

the termination

was merely

a pretext.

The

trial court determined

that Employer

terminated

Employee

for cause, "mak[ing]

it unnecessary

to determine

if [Employer]

would

have offered [Employee]

a light

duty position

had

it not terminated him."

For

the reasons

that follow,

we conclude

from

our independent

review

of

the record

that

the evidence

does

not preponderate

against

the trial court's determinations that Employee

was terminated

for misconduct

and

that Employee

is not

due additional temporary

disability

benefits. The

trial court

found Employer's

witnesses

to

be credible

and found

the actions

of Employee's

supervisor

and Employer's

safety manager

in terminating

Employee

to

be reasonable.

While

it

is the responsibility

of

a reviewing

court

to conduct

an in-depth examination

of the trial court's

factual findings

and conclusions,

Wilhelm

v. Krogers, 235 S.W.3d

122,

126 (Tenn.

2007),

our review

of the trial court's

order

is governed

by Tennessee

Code Annotated

sections 50-6-217(a)(3),

as referenced

above,

and 50-6- 239(c)(7)

(2015).

Section 50-6-239(c)(7)

provides

a presumption

"that

the findings

and conclusions

of the workers' compensation

judge

are correct,

unless

the preponderance

of the evidence

is otherwise."

Furthermore,

when

the

trial court

has

seen

and heard

the witnesses, considerable

deference

must

be afforded

the

trial court's

factual findings. Tyron

v. Saturn

Corp.,

254 S.W.3d

321,

327 (Tenn.

2008). Nonetheless,

we must

still assess independently

where

the preponderance

of the evidence

lies.

See Tenn.

Code

Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(7).

The testimony

of Employer's

witnesses concerning

whether Employee

operated the backhoe

contrary

to

his supervisor's

instructions

was consistent.

As

a result

of the manner

in which Employee

operated

the backhoe,

the

gas

line

was ruptured,

Employer incurred expenses,

and work

time

was

lost. Employer's

mechanic,

who

was present

at 7thejobsite,andEmployee'ssupervisortestifiedthatEmployeewasaskedtostopdiggingsoalaborercoulduncoverthegasline.WhenEmployeecontinuedtodig,thesupervisorwarnedEmployeenottohitthegasline.ThereisnoevidenceotherthanEmployee'stestimonythattheinjurytohisforearmwascausinghimtohavedifficultiesoperatingthebackhoeorthatanysuchdifficultiesplayedanypartincausingEmployeetorupturethegasline.Moreover,Employee'ssupervisortestifiedthatEmployeedidnotcomplainofanyphysicaldifficultiesoperatingthebackhoepriortothegaslinerupture.TheEmployeeInformationHandbook,whichEmployeetestifiedheread,includedthefollowing:Employeesshouldbeconcernedwiththecareanduseofcompany-ownedequipmentandfacilities.Employeesareexpectedtofollowalloperatinginstructions,safetystandardsandguidelines.Unsafe,destructive,careless,negligent,orimproperuseoroperationofequipmentmayresultindisciplinaryactionuptoandincludingterminationofemployment.EmployeeassertsinhisbriefonappealthatEmployer'spresident,Mr.Haren,"acknowledgedthat[Employee's]allegedconductasdescribeddidn'tconstituteaviolationofadirectorder."Oncross-examinationMr.Harenwasasked,"[b]asedonyourunderstandingofthepolicies,whatwasthereasonwhyHarenConstructionCompanyfired[Employee]?"ConsistentwiththetestimonyofEmployee'ssupervisor,Mr.Harenresponded"[b]ecausehedisobeyedanordernottodigaroundthatgasline."Employee'scounselthenrepresentedtoMr.HarenthatwhenthesupervisortoldEmployeetostopdiggingEmployeesaid"IthinkIcangetit,"andthatthesupervisorresponded,"[w]ell,goahead."WiththatrepresentationtoMr.Harenofthesupervisor'stestimony,counselthenasked,"[i]sthatsomeonedisobeyingadirectinstruction?"Mr.Harenresponded,"[i]fit'swordedthatway,no."However,Employee'ssupervisordidnottestifythathetoldEmployee"[w]ell,goahead,"aswasrepresentedtoMr.Haren.Employeedoesnotciteintherecordwherethisallegedtestimonyofthesupervisorappears andourindependentreviewoftherecorddoesnotdisclosesuchtestimony.Employeeadditionallyasserts"[t]herewasnothingintherecordtosuggestthatanypastconductor'inadequacies'...wentintothedeterminationtoterminate[Employee]."However,Employee'ssupervisorwasaskedwhetherhehadeverreprimandedEmployeeabouttheoperationofequipmentandtestifiedhehaddonesofourtimesbeforetheincidentwhenthegaslinewasruptured.ThesupervisorwasaskedwhetherhewasconfidenthehadspokentoEmployeeabouthisoperationoftheequipmentonpreviousoccasionsandresponded,"[y]es,ma'am.BecauseIwroteitinmyjournaleverytimeIhadto."Furthermore,whenaskedtotellthesubstanceofthe8conversationhehadwithEmployeewhenEmployeewasterminated,thesupervisortestified"Ijusttoldhimthatbythewayhe'dbeenrunningtheequipmenterraticallyandthenhittingagaslinethatwasexposed,thenwearegoingtohavetoterminatehim."Employeehasnotofferedevidenceofanycontraryreasonforhisterminationandhasnotsetforthevenaplausiblecircumstantialcasethathisterminationwasmotivatedbyanythingotherthanthemanner inwhichheoperatedequipment.Thus,wefindthatEmployee'sactionsprecipitatinghisdismissalqualifiedasmisconductunderEmployer'sworkplacepoliciesandthatthoseactionswerethetruemotivationforEmployee'stermination.Finally,Employeecontendsthetrialcourt"didnotaddressthesecondprongoftheanalysisitsuggestedwasnecessaryfor[Employee]toprevailandrecover[temporarydisabilitybenefits],"whichis''whether[Employer]everintendedtoprovide'lightdutywork."'Employerpresentedunrefutedtestimonyfrombothitspresidentanditssafetymanageraddressingthecompany'spolicyregardingtheaccommodationoflight dutyrestrictions.Accordingly,wefindnomeritinEmployee'sinsistencethatthecompanywouldnothaveprovidedlightdutyworkwithinEmployee'srestrictionshadEmployeenotbeenterminatedforcause.ConclusionFortheforegoing reasons,weholdthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourt'sdecisiontodenytemporarydisabilitybenefitsatthisinterlocutorystageofthecase.Nordoesthetrialcourt'sdecisionviolateanyofthestandardssetforthinTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection50-6-217(a)(3).Accordingly,thetrialcourt'sdecisionisaffirmedasmodified.Thecaseisremandedforanyfurtherproceedingsthatmaybenecessary.!?f~~nav{dF.Hensley,JudgeWorkers'CompensationAppealsBoard9

# TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSAT ION APPEALS BOARD

Stephen W. Shepherd ) Docket No. 2015

- 01 -0325

)



# v. )

) State File No. 78562- 2015

Haren Construction Co., Inc., et al. )



# 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 30th day of March

, 2016

.

Name Certified

Mail First Class

Mail Via

Fax Fax

Number Via

Email Email Address

William J. Brown X 

# wjb@vollaw.com

Leslie Bishop X 

# lbishop@lewisthomason.com

Thomas Wyatt 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



# Jeanette Baird

Deputy Clerk, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board

220 French Landing Dr., Ste. 1-B

Nashville, TN 37243

Telephone: 615- 253 -0064

Electronic Mail: Jeanette.Baird@tn.gov