1

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT MURFREESBORO

BENJAMIN GRISSOM, ) Docket No. 2021-05-0400

 Employee, )

v. )

)

AT&T SERVICES, INC., ) State File No. 58242-2020

 Employer, )

And )

)

OLD REPUBLIC INS. CO., ) Judge Dale Tipps

 Insurance Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER GRANTING BENEFITS

The Court held an Expedited Hearing on May 19, 2022, to determine whether Mr. 

Grissom is entitled to additional medical benefits, specifically payment for treatment for 

his right suprascapular neuropathy and reimbursement of his out-of-pocket medical 

expenses. The Court finds the evidence supports Mr. Grissom’s contention that his

suprascapular neuropathy was primarily caused by his work accident. Therefore, the Court 

holds that he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits.

History of Claim

The parties agreed that Mr. Grissom suffered a compensable right-shoulder injury 

on August 26, 2020. AT&T provided medical benefits, including treatment by panel 

physician Dr. James Rungee. Dr. Rungee’s treatment included arthroscopic surgery for a 

partial-thickness rotator cuff tear.

Mr. Grissom testified his symptoms included a burning pain from his neck down to 

his fingers that he reported to Dr. Rungee at the outset of his treatment. However, Dr. 

Rungee’s notes do not mention radiating pain or tingling until March 1, 2021, about four 

months after the shoulder surgery. At that time, Dr. Rungee recommended an EMG, which 

showed possible borderline cubital tunnel syndrome but no other radiculopathy or 

FILED

Jun 01, 2022

08:04 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS
2

neuropathy. He recommended a cervical MRI but suggested that it would “not appear to

be part of this current claim.”

Counsel for the parties then discussed Mr. Grissom’s request that AT&T authorize 

a return to Dr. Rungee to address treatment or evaluation of his possible cervical condition. 

Counsel for Mr. Grissom advised that Mr. Grissom would seek unauthorized treatment if 

AT&T did not provide it. Mr. Grissom also personally asked AT&T for additional 

treatment, which AT&T refused.

A couple of months later, Mr. Grissom began seeing Dr. John Dorizas. After 

another EMG and a new MRI, Dr. Dorizas diagnosed suprascapular entrapment 

neuropathy. He recommended a nerve block, which provided temporary relief. Dr. 

Dorizas later performed a suprascapular nerve release operation.

As noted above, Mr. Grissom testified about pain in his arm that failed to improve 

after Dr. Rungee’s operation. He also began noticing numbness and tingling in his hand. 

These symptoms were so severe that he worried he would not be able to return to his former 

work. Since Dr. Dorizas’s surgery, he feels “a million times better.” Mr. Grissom said his

full range of motion has returned, he has no pain or numbness, and he feels normal again.

Mr. Grissom sent Dr. Dorizas questionnaires asking about his treatment and the 

cause of his condition. The doctor’s responses stated that Mr. Grissom’s suprascapular 

neuropathy was “causally related” to his work injury “by greater than 50% considering all 

causes,” as was the need for the second EMG and the surgery. He added, “It is likely . . . 

that irritation of his [suprascapular nerve] may have been the primary cause of symptoms 

from the beginning.” Dr. Dorizas also testified that the charges for treatment were causally 

related to the work injury and were medically necessary and reasonable.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Mr. Grissom requested payment of his medical 

bills and reimbursement of his expenses. He relied on Dr. Dorizas’s opinion to establish 

medical causation and argued that it was the only medical proof presented on that issue. 

AT&T contended that Mr. Grissom was not entitled to payment because Dr. Rungee’s 

opinion on causation is presumed correct and Dr. Dorizas’s opinion is based upon a 

standard that is no longer valid under current law.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

For the Court to grant Mr. Grissom’s requests, he must prove he is likely to prevail 

at a hearing on the merits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2021); McCord v. 

Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 

27, 2015). 
3

Causation

To prove that his suprascapular neuropathy is a compensable injury, Mr. Grissom

must show that it arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. 

This includes the requirement that he must show, “to a reasonable degree of medical 

certainty that [the incident] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . 

disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” “Shown to a 

reasonable degree of medical certainty” means that, in the opinion of the treating physician, 

it is more likely than not considering all causes as opposed to speculation or possibility. 

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

Applying this standard to Mr. Grissom’s claim, the Court disagrees with Mr. 

Grissom’s argument that only one medical causation opinion exists. However, it finds that 

only one relevant opinion was offered. Dr. Rungee did not address whether the need for 

treatment of suprascapular neuropathy was primarily caused by the work injury. Instead, 

he attributed Mr. Grissom’s symptoms to a possible cervical injury that “does not appear 

to be part of this current claim for his right shoulder labral repair.” Because Mr. Grissom’s 

problem was shown to be in his shoulder, not his neck, Dr. Rungee’s opinion about cervical 

problems is either irrelevant (and thus not entitled to the presumption of correctness) or 

substantially outweighed by the other medical proof.

That proof is the opinion of Dr. Dorizas, who diagnosed and successfully treated 

Mr. Grissom’s suprascapular neuropathy. He stated that the condition was “causally 

related” to his work injury “by greater than 50% considering all causes.”

AT&T argued that Dr. Dorizas’s opinion was insufficient to establish causation 

because he used “likely” and “may have been” in his response. It claimed the use of this 

language does not meet the current statutory requirement of proving causation or, in the 

alternative, is insufficient to overcome the presumption attached to Dr. Rungee’s opinion.

The Court finds this argument unpersuasive because it mischaracterizes what the 

doctor said, which was, “It is likely . . . that irritation of his [suprascapular neuropathy] 

may have been the primary cause of symptoms from the beginning.” This is not a comment 

on the cause of the condition. Instead, the doctor, who had already said the work injury 

was the primary cause of the neuropathy, was not talking about medical causation but was 

commenting on the possibility that the neuropathy might have been present but 

undiagnosed and untreated by Dr. Rungee.

For these reasons, the Court finds Dr. Dorizas’s unrebutted opinion sufficient to 

support Mr. Grissom’s claim that his work injury was the primary cause of his

suprascapular neuropathy. Therefore, the Court holds that he is likely to prove entitlement 

to treatment for these conditions.
4

Medical Benefits

 

The Workers’ Compensation Law requires an employer to provide reasonable, 

necessary treatment at no cost to the injured worker. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204. Because 

the Court has found Mr. Grissom likely to prove causation for his suprascapular neuropathy, 

it must consider his request for payment of unauthorized medical treatment.

An employer may be required to pay for unauthorized treatment if it does not 

provide the treatment made reasonably necessary by the work injury as required by section 

50-6-204. Whether an employee is justified in seeking additional medical services to be 

paid for by the employer depends on the circumstances of each case, but an “employee 

[should] do no less than to consult [the] employer before incurring expenses called for by 

the statute if the employee expects the employer to pay for them.” Hackney v. Integrity 

Staffing Solutions, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 29, at *8-9 (July 22, 2016).

Both Mr. Grissom and his attorney advised AT&T that Dr. Rungee had 

recommended further evaluation or treatment, and they requested AT&T to authorize it. 

Counsel specifically told AT&T’s attorney that Mr. Grissom would have to seek 

unauthorized treatment if it did not approve the additional treatment with Dr. Rungee or 

provide another doctor. Under the circumstances, the Court finds Mr. Grissom was 

justified in seeking treatment on his own. Therefore, AT&T must provide future medical 

treatment with Dr. Dorizas and pay Mr. Grissom’s medical providers and/or health insurer 

under the fee schedule for treatment of his suprascapular neuropathy. 

Mr. Grissom presented unrebutted evidence of reasonable and necessary medical 

expenses for his treatment of his suprascapular neuropathy, as well as evidence of his 

personal payment of some of those costs. The total amount of these out-of-pocket 

payments is $1,902.14.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. AT&T shall continue to provide medical benefits, including treatment with Dr. 

Dorizas, for Mr. Grissom’s suprascapular neuropathy.

2. AT&T shall reimburse Mr. Grissom’s health insurer for payments to Dr. Dorizas

and any other providers for his suprascapular neuropathy treatment or pay the 

providers directly. All payments or reimbursements shall be subject to the fee 

schedule.

3. AT&T shall reimburse Mr. Grissom for his out-of-pocket payments in the amount 

of $1,902.14.
5

4. Mr. Grissom’s attorney is entitled to a twenty-percent fee from the reimbursement

under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-226(a)(1), or $380.43.

5. A status hearing will take place on July 27, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. Central Time. The 

parties must call 615-741-2112 or toll-free at 855-874-0473 to participate. Failure 

to call might result in a determination of issues without your participation.

6. Unless an 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). The 

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 confirmation within seven business days 

may result in a penalty assessment for non-compliance. For questions regarding 

compliance, contact the Workers’ Compensation Compliance Unit via email at 

WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov.

ENTERED June 1, 2022.

_____________________________________

Judge Dale Tipps

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

APPENDIX

Exhibits:

1. Mr. Grissom’s affidavit

2. Documents attached to Employee’s Exhibit List

3. Documents attached to Employee’s Supplemental Exhibit List

Technical record:

1. Petition for Benefit Determination 

2. Dispute Certification Notice

3. Request for Expedited Hearing

4. Employee’s Pre-Hearing Brief

5. Employee’s Exhibit List

6. Employee’s Supplemental Exhibit List

7. Employer’s Response in Opposition to Request for Expedited Hearing
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the Expedited Hearing Order was sent as indicated on June 

1, 2022.

Name Certified 

Mail

Fax Email Service sent to:

Stephan D. Karr,

Employee

X steve@flexerlaw.com

Charles E. Pierce,

Employer’s Attorney

X cepierce@mijs.com

______________________________________

PENNY SHRUM, COURT CLERK

wc.courtclerk@tn.gov
For self-represented litigants: Help from an Ombudsman is available at 800-332-2667.

Expedited Hearing Order Right to Appeal:

If you disagree with this Expedited Hearing Order, you may appeal to the Workers’ 

Compensation Appeals Board. To appeal an expedited hearing order, you must:

1. Complete the enclosed form entitled: “Notice of Appeal,” and file the form with the 

Clerk of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims within seven business days of the 

date the expedited hearing order was filed. When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must 

serve a copy upon all parties. 

2. You must pay, via check, money order, or credit card, a $75.00 filing fee within ten 

calendar days after filing of the Notice of Appeal. Payments can be made in-person at 

any Bureau office or by U.S. mail, hand-delivery, or other delivery service. In the 

alternative, you may file an Affidavit of Indigency (form available on the Bureau’s 

website or any Bureau office) seeking a waiver of the fee. You must file the fullycompleted Affidavit of Indigency within ten calendar days of filing the Notice of 

Appeal. Failure to timely pay the filing fee or file the Affidavit of Indigency will 

result in dismissal of the appeal.

3. You bear the responsibility of ensuring a complete record on appeal. You may request 

from the court clerk the audio recording of the hearing for a $25.00 fee. If a transcript of 

the proceedings is to be filed, a licensed court reporter must prepare the transcript and file 

it with the court clerk within ten business days of the filing the Notice of 

Appeal. Alternatively, you may file a statement of the evidence prepared jointly by both 

parties within ten business days of the filing of the Notice of Appeal. The statement of 

the evidence must convey a complete and accurate account of the hearing. The Workers’ 

Compensation Judge must approve the statement before the record is submitted to the 

Appeals Board. If the Appeals Board is called upon to review testimony or other proof 

concerning factual matters, the absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence can be 

a significant obstacle to meaningful appellate review.

4. If you wish to file a position statement, you must file it with the court clerk within ten

business days after the deadline to file a transcript or statement of the evidence. The 

party opposing the appeal may file a response with the court clerk within ten business 

days after you file your position statement. All position statements should include: (1) a 

statement summarizing the facts of the case from the evidence admitted during the 

expedited hearing; (2) a statement summarizing the disposition of the case as a result of 

the expedited hearing; (3) a statement of the issue(s) presented for review; and (4) an 

argument, citing appropriate statutes, case law, or other authority.
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]