1

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Daniel Tedford ) Docket No. 2020-02-0046

)

v. ) State File No. 4141-2020

)

Energy Savers, LLC, et al. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ ) Heard January 25, 2022

Compensation Claims ) via Microsoft Teams

Brian K. Addington, Judge )

Affirmed and Remanded

The employee, an insulation installer, reported two incidents he alleged caused injuries to 

his shoulders and neck. The employer initiated the payment of benefits after the second 

reported incident but allegedly paid no benefits with respect to the first reported incident. 

After the employer denied a request for surgery, the employee filed a petition for benefits, 

listing the date of the second reported incident as the date of injury. The employer argued 

that the need for surgery was caused by the first reported incident and that the employee 

did not file a petition for benefits within the limitations period applicable to that accident. 

The employee asserted the discovery rule and the employer’s voluntary payment of 

benefits tolled the applicable statute of limitations. Following an expedited hearing, the 

trial court declined to order the benefits the employee sought and concluded it had 

insufficient information to address whether the limitations period for the first reported 

incident had expired. The employee has appealed. Upon careful consideration of the 

record, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

Presiding Judge Timothy W. Conner delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which 

Judge David F. Hensley and Judge Pele I. Godkin joined.

Josh Hoeppner, Kingsport, Tennessee, for the employee-appellant, Daniel Tedford

C. Christopher Brown, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, Energy Savers, 

LLC

FILED

Feb 22, 2022

12:23 PM(CT)

TENNESSEE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

APPEALS BOARD
2

Factual and Procedural Background

Daniel Tedford (“Employee”), a resident of Carter County, Tennessee, worked as 

an insulation installer and “lead sprayer” for Energy Savers, LLC (“Employer”). Sometime 

in October or November 2019, Employee was working in an attic at a jobsite when he fell 

through the ceiling, catching himself on the attic floor joists. Employee has been unable 

to identify the date or precise location of this accident. Employee testified he felt “off” 

after this accident, but he did not report feeling any particular symptoms, and he continued 

working. He testified he reported the incident only to make Employer aware of the damage 

to the ceiling, not because he believed he had suffered an injury.

On or about January 3, 2020, Employee reported experiencing pain and symptoms 

in his right shoulder, arm, and neck after spraying insulation at a residence for five or six 

hours. He reported an exacerbation of his symptoms after working on January 6, 2020. 

Employee went to the emergency room at Sycamore Shoals Hospital that day, then sought 

care at a walk-in clinic. He alleged he reported his injuries to Employer on January 7, but 

they failed to provide a panel of physicians. He then filed a petition for benefits on January 

23, 2020, identifying January 3, 2020 as the date of injury, and Employer subsequently 

agreed to initiate benefits.1

Over the course of the next ten months, Employee was evaluated and/or treated by 

numerous providers, including Drs. Janice Schweitzer, Jody Helms, Richard Duncan, 

Thomas Gill, and Larry Waldrop. His claim was also reviewed at Employer’s request by 

Dr. Christopher Shaver. Employee asserted he informed each of the medical providers 

about the fall in late 2019, and he claimed he “began to believe that his . . . fall was at least 

partly the cause of his conditions.” Employee acknowledged, however, that the records of 

these providers do not reference the 2019 fall until he saw Dr. Waldrop in late 2020. 

According to Dr. Waldrop’s October 13, 2020 report, at his first visit, Employee 

described the injury as having occurred in January 2020 “while reaching out and [he] felt 

a pop in his [right] shoulder.” An MRI revealed what Dr. Waldrop interpreted as “a subtle 

superior labral tear,” for which he recommended surgery. In a second report dated 

November 11, 2020, Dr. Waldrop noted he was asked to evaluate Employee’s left shoulder 

complaints. This is the first report in which a medical provider noted that Employee “did 

fall through a ceiling” three months before the January 2020 incident and “caught himself 

with his arms.” Dr. Waldrop noted Employee expressed complaints of symptoms in his 

left shoulder similar to those in his right shoulder but “not as bad as the right side.” He 

again recommended a right shoulder arthroscopy to repair the labral tear and also 

recommended a right distal clavicle excision to address acromioclavicular degenerative 

changes.

1 The January 2020 petition for benefit determination was not included in the record on appeal.
3

In response to the request for surgery authorization, Employer requested a case 

review from Dr. Christopher Shaver, an orthopedic physician. Following his review of the 

medical records from other providers, Dr. Shaver issued his report in which he opined,

“there is no clear evidence of biceps or labral pathology and the individual’s reported injury 

is not consistent with a mechanism of injury that you would expect to produce a labral 

tear.” He then explained:

The mechanism of injury of continuous spraying overhead from the incident 

of 1/3/20 and 1/6/20 is typically not correlative to labral

pathology (especially in a person of his age) as the individual reported no 

specific injury. However, an incident such as that referred to in the email of 

10/22/2020, with a fall through a ceiling and catching himself, is commonly 

associated with this type of injury. In regards to causation of this specific 

event, I would determine that the symptoms reported from 1/3/2020 and 

1/6/2020 do not appear to be work-related in regards to a labral tear 

respecting the current Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation laws 

after July 1, 2014. The injury does not appear to arise primarily out of and 

in the course of employment and contribute more than 50% to the cause of 

the injury considering all causes.

After receiving Dr. Shaver’s report, Employer declined to authorize the surgery 

recommended by Dr. Waldrop, and, consequently, Employee filed a second petition for 

benefits in December 2020. This petition again listed the date of injury as January 3, 2020. 

Employer responded that the alleged incidents in January 2020 did not cause the need for 

surgery as recommended by Dr. Waldrop and that Employee had not identified any other 

work-related accidental injury by time and place of occurrence.

Following an expedited hearing, the court concluded Employee had not come 

forward with sufficient evidence to indicate a likelihood of his prevailing at a hearing on 

the merits. The court noted that Employee was not a good historian and that “no physician 

had an accurate history of [Employee’s] injuries concerning what happened or when.” The 

court determined it could not rely on any causation opinions under such circumstances. 

Finally, the court concluded that it had insufficient information to determine whether 

Employee had filed his petition for benefits within the applicable limitations period. The 

court denied Employee’s request for benefits, and Employee has appealed. 

Standard of Review

The standard we apply in reviewing the trial court’s decision presumes that the 

court’s factual findings are correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. 

See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(7) (2021). When the trial judge has had the 

opportunity to observe a witness’s demeanor and to hear in-court testimony, we give 

considerable deference to factual findings and credibility determinations made by the trial 
4

court. Madden v. Holland Grp. of Tenn., Inc., 277 S.W.3d 896, 898 (Tenn. 2009). 

However, “[n]o similar deference need be afforded the trial court’s findings based upon 

documentary evidence.” Goodman v. Schwarz Paper Co., No. W2016-02594-SC-R3-WC, 

2018 Tenn. LEXIS 8, at *6 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel Jan. 18, 2018). Similarly, the 

interpretation and application of statutes and regulations are questions of law that are 

reviewed de novo. See Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 

393, 399 (Tenn. 2013). We are also mindful of our obligation to construe the workers’

compensation statutes “fairly, impartially, and in accordance with basic principles of 

statutory construction” and in a way that does not favor either the employee or the 

employer. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-116 (2021).

Analysis

In Buchanan v. Carlex Glass Co., No. 2015-01-0012, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. 

Bd. LEXIS 39 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Sept. 29, 2015), we discussed an 

employee’s burden of proof at an expedited hearing:

[A]n injured worker retains the burden of proof at all stages of a workers’

compensation claim. At an expedited hearing, a trial court may grant relief 

if the court is satisfied that an employee has met the burden of showing that 

he or she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. This lesser evidentiary 

standard, embodied in section 50-6-239(d)(1), does not relieve an employee 

of the burden of producing evidence of an injury by accident that arose 

primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment at an expedited 

hearing, but allows some relief to be granted if that evidence does not rise to 

the level of a “preponderance of the evidence.”

Id. at *6. We also noted in Buchanan that “an injury is accidental only if the injury is 

caused by a specific incident, or set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of 

occurrence.” Id. at *6-7 (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A)).

In the present case, Employee filed two petitions seeking benefits for injuries he 

allegedly suffered on January 3 and January 6, 2020 while using an insulation sprayer. He 

later asserted that his right shoulder condition may have been caused by an earlier incident 

in which he fell through a ceiling at a jobsite and caught himself with his arms. However, 

to date, Employee has not identified that accident by time and place of occurrence. 

Employee argues that by voluntarily initiating the payment of benefits for the 

January 2020 incidents, Employer’s actions tolled the statute of limitations for the 2019 

incident. We find no merit to this argument. Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-

203(b)(2), which sets out the limitations period in circumstances where an employer 

voluntarily pays benefits, specifically ties the payment of such benefits to “the accident 

resulting in injury.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-203(b)(2). Here, both petitions filed by 
5

Employee alleged a January 3, 2020 date of injury, and that is the claim that resulted in 

Employer’s decision to initiate the payment of certain benefits. Employee has failed to 

establish that Employer voluntarily paid any benefits associated with the 2019 incident to 

toll the statute of limitations applicable to that alleged injury.

Employee further asserts the “discovery rule” tolled the statute of limitations for the 

2019 incident because Employee was unaware of the occurrence of an “injury” caused by 

his falling through the ceiling until late 2020 when Dr. Waldrop evaluated him. The trial 

court concluded it had insufficient information to determine whether Employee’s petition 

was timely filed because Employee had yet to identify by time and place of occurrence the 

accidental injury he described as falling through a ceiling. We agree with the trial court 

and conclude it is unnecessary at this stage for us to address whether the discovery rule is 

applicable. We do not address factual issues before the trial court has had a reasonable 

opportunity to address the issues, as that would improperly place us in the role of original 

fact finder. See Fritts v. Anderson Cty. Election Comm’n, No. E2003-00015-COA-R3-CV 

& No. E2002-03118-COA-R3-CV, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 564, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. 

Aug. 11, 2003) (“It is inappropriate for this Court to assume the role of original fact 

finder.”). Thus, initially, it is the trial court’s role to determine whether the discovery rule 

tolled the statute of limitations for any injury identified by Employee.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case. 

Costs on appeal are taxed to Employee.
 

 

 

 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD 

Daniel Tedford ) Docket No. 2020-02-0046 

) 

v. ) State File No. 4141-2020 

)

Energy Savers, LLC, et al. ) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ ) Heard January 25, 2022 

Compensation Claims ) via Microsoft Teams

Brian K. Addington, 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 22nd 

day of February, 2022. 

Name Certified 

Mail

First Class 

Mail

Via 

Fax

Via 

Email

Sent to: 

Josh Hoeppner X josh@hoeppnerlaw.com

C. Christopher Brown X chris.brown@leitnerfirm.com

Brian K. Addington, 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

 

Olivia Yearwood

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