TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT JACKSON

BETTY TIPTON, ) Docket No. 2018-07-0202

Employee, )

v. )

DYNAMETAL TECHNOLOGIES, ) State File No. 86668-2016

Employer,

And

ACCIDENT FUND INS. COMPANY,

 Carrier.

)

)

)

)

Judge Joshua Davis Baker

COMPENSATION HEARING ORDER

The Court held a compensation hearing on October 20, 2022, to consider Ms. 

Vaulx’s request for a new panel of physicians.

1 Dynametal opposed the request, arguing 

that it has provided all medical care required by this Court’s earlier ruling. The Court 

agrees and denies her request for a panel of physicians.

History of Claim

Ms. Vaulx, who went by her maiden name Tipton then, hurt her back while working 

for Dynametal. After a compensation hearing, the Court awarded permanent disability 

benefits as well as continuing medical care with Dr. James Brophy, the authorized treating 

physician.2 The Court relied on the opinion of a non-treating physician to award benefits 

rather than Dr. Brophy, who had assigned Ms. Vaulx no permanent impairment. 

1 Ms. Vaulx filed a request for expedited hearing to determine this post-judgment medical dispute. At the 

hearing, the parties agreed that this should have been a request for compensation hearing and agreed to have 

the case determined under the standard of proof applicable to that proceeding. 

2 Ms. Vaulx testified she did not select Dr. Brophy from a panel. Because the Court in its previous order 

determined that she did, and the order was not appealed, this issue is not subject to review. 

FILED

Oct 31, 2022

12:41 PM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS
2

Ms. Vaulx saw Dr. Brophy only once before going to her primary care physician for 

treatment and paying those expenses out of pocket. She did not request further treatment 

from Dr. Brophy before treating with her personal physician. 

At about the same time she saw her primary care physician, Ms. Vaulx filed a 

request for a new doctor. She claimed she needs a new doctor because Dr. Brophy does 

not believe she needs additional treatment. It was evident from her testimony that she 

disagrees with Dr. Brophy’s opinion about her treatment needs. Also, she and her husband 

both testified she still suffers from her injury and that the associated pain interferes with 

her ability to conduct her daily activities. 

Ms. Vaulx filed a letter from Dr. Emmanuel Obi concerning treatment: 

Dynametal argued that it offered Ms. Vaulx treatment with Dr. Brophy as required 

by the Court’s order, but she declined. Further, Dynametal maintained Ms. Vaulx can 

return to Dr. Brophy and is not entitled to a new panel of physicians. 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

The only issue in this compensation hearing is whether Dynametal must provide 

Ms. Vaulx a new panel of doctors. Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, 2015 TN Wrk. 

Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *6 (Aug. 18, 2015). Ms. Vaulx must prove her entitlement 

to a new panel of doctors by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-

239(c)(6) (2022) (“[T]he employee shall bear the burden of proving each and every element 

of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.”). She did not carry this burden.

The Workers’ Compensation Law requires an injured employee “to accept the 

medical benefits” provided by the employer, which includes a panel of “three or more 

independent reputable physicians . . . from which the employee shall select one to be the 

treating physician.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(3)(A)(i). Once selected, that physician 

is the authorized treating physician until the physician declines to continue treating the 

employee. Limberakis v. Pro-Tech Sec., Inc., 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 53, 

at *8-10 (Sept. 12, 2017). The employer may also voluntarily provide a new panel of 

physicians.
3

Neither situation occurred in Ms. Vaulx’s case. Ms. Vaulx offered no evidence that 

Dr. Brophy has declined to see her. And, Dynametal refused to provide a new panel.

In support of her position, Ms. Vaulx offered the letter from Dr. Obi. His letter does 

not sway the Court’s opinion for several reasons. First, while the letter details treatment 

he provided, it does not state that Dynametal declined to provide this treatment through Dr. 

Brophy. Second, the letter does not prove that the treatment outlined in the letter is 

reasonable and necessary for treatment of her work injury. Finally, the letter, although 

agreed upon by the parties as admissible in this hearing, does not meet required standards 

for a judge’s consideration at a compensation hearing, as it is neither deposition testimony 

nor included in a form C-32. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-235 (allowing admission of a 

doctor’s testimony on this form instead of a deposition.).

In sum, Ms. Vaulx has not carried her burden of proving her entitlement to a new 

panel of physicians.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Ms. Vaulx’s request for a new panel of doctors is denied.

2. The Court assesses the $150.00 filing fee against Dynametal, for which execution 

might issue as necessary. Dynametal shall pay the filing fee to the Clerk within five 

business days of this order becoming final.

3. Unless appealed, this order shall become final thirty days after issuance. 

ENTERED October 31, 2022.

____________________________________

Judge Joshua Davis Baker

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
4

APPENDIX

Exhibits:

1. Ms. Vaulx’s Rule 72 Declaration 

2. Medical Records filed October 3, 2022

3. Dr. Emmanuel Obi letter 

4. Compensation order dated February 15, 2019

Technical record:

1. Petition for Benefit Determination

2. Dispute Certification Notice

3. Order to Show Cause

4. Request for Expedited Hearing

5. Employer’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on October 31, 2022.

Name Certified 

Mail

First 

Class 

Mail

Via 

Email

Service sent to:

Betty Tipton Vaulx,

Employee

X 1080 Wallace Rd. Apt, 5

Jackson, TN 38305

stevenvaulx@gmail.com

Gordon Aulgur,

Employer’s Attorney

X gordon.aulgur@accidentfund.com

_____________________________________

Penny Shrum, Clerk

Court of Workers' Compensation Claims

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

Compensation Order Right to Appeal:

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

Compensation Appeals Board. To do so, you must:

1. Complete the enclosed form entitled “Notice of Appeal” and file it with the Clerk of the 

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims within thirty calendar days of the date the 

Compensation Order was filed. When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must serve a copy 

upon the opposing party (or attorney, if represented). 

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

days after filing 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 filing fee. You must file the fully-completed 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 your appeal.

3. You are responsible for ensuring a complete record is presented on appeal. The Court Clerk 

will prepare the technical record and exhibits for submission to the Appeals Board, and you 

will receive notice once it has been submitted. If no court reporter was present at the hearing, 

you may request from the Court Clerk the audio recording of the hearing for a $25.00 fee. 

A licensed court reporter must prepare a transcript, and you must file it with the Court Clerk 

within fifteen calendar days of filing the Notice of Appeal. Alternatively, you may file a 

statement of the evidence prepared jointly by both parties within fifteen calendar days of 

filing the Notice of Appeal. The statement of the evidence must convey a complete and 

accurate account of the testimony presented at the hearing. The Workers’ Compensation 

Judge must approve the statement of the evidence before the record is submitted to the 

Appeals Board. If the Appeals Board must 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. After the Workers’ Compensation Judge approves the record and the Court Clerk transmits 

it to the Appeals Board, a docketing notice will be sent to the parties. You have fifteen 

calendar days after the date of that notice to file a brief to the Appeals Board. See the Rules 

governing the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board on the Bureau’s website

If neither party timely files an appeal with the Appeals Board, the trial court’s Order will 

become final by operation of law thirty calendar days after entry. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-

239(c)(7).