1 

IN THE

AT NASHVILLE

Debra De Rosa, ) Docket No. 2020-06-0216 

Employee, ) 

v. ) 

I & MJ Gross Co., ) State File No. 76351-2019 

Employer, ) 

And ) 

Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., ) Judge Kenneth M. Switzer 

 Carrier. ) 

 

 

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER 

Debra DeRosa injured her wrist while working for I & MJ Gross, which authorized 

treatment. She asserted that the carrier never offered a panel of physicians or even 

discussed with her that she had the right to choose from a list of three physicians. I & MJ

Gross denied both allegations. Ms. DeRosa requested additional treatment with a new 

doctor. 

After an expedited hearing on September 16, the Court finds that the carrier twice 

fulfilled its statutory obligation to offer a panel. Additionally, I & MJ Gross authorized 

with Dr. John Weaver, which treatment Ms. DeRosa accepted. 

Because Dr. Weaver placed her at maximum medical improvement, released her without

restrictions, and anticipated no need for further treatment

for additional treatment. 

History of Claim 

Ms. DeRosa worked for I & MJ Gross in housekeeping. On August 22, 2019, she 

fell while cleaning a light fixture, injuring several body parts, but the current, sole dispute 

revolves around her right wrist only I & MJ Gross offered a panel and her 

entitlement to additional treatment for it. 

Immediately after the fall, Ms. DeRosa sought emergency treatment. Providers

FILED

Sep 21, 2020

08:56 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS
2 

ordered x-rays, which showed a acute avulsion fracture from the ulnar 

styloid[.] The discharge documents recommended follow up with Dr. Martha George, an 

orthopedist. However, Ms. DeRosa never saw Dr. George but rather came under Dr. John 

Ms. DeRosa testified that, on August 26, she spoke with 

Shoop, by phone. She told Ms. Shoop that the ER had referred her to Dr. George. 

Ms. Shoop made an appointment with Dr. George, who practices with Tennessee 

Orthopedics in its Lebanon office. When Ms. DeRosa learned that she would have to drive 

to Lebanon from her home in Gallatin, Ms. DeRosa said

She asserted that Ms. Shoop never mentioned 

that she had the right to a panel or a choice of physician. 

Ms. Shoop offered a different account. She testified that in their first conversation 

with Dr. George. 

Ms. Shoop said she told her she would provide a list of three physicians, one of whom was

Dr. George, and Ms. DeRosa could choose one. The next day, Ms. Shoop called Ms. 

DeRosa to say that she set an appointment with Dr. George. Ms. Shoop testified that, 

during the call, Ms. DeRosa said she did not want to drive to Lebanon to see Dr. George. 

Rather, according to Ms. Shoop, Ms. DeRosa 

practice in Gallatin, and I secured her an appointment with the first available 

do Shoop emailed the panel to Ms. DeRosa that day, with a 

on September 

21 in response to Ms. DeRosa emailing her to state that she had not received the panel. 

Ms. Shoop testified that she also sent a hard copy by regular mail, but Ms. DeRosa never 

returned the form. 

On cross-examination, Ms. DeRosa acknowledged that the carrier had her correct

email address. She said her email works now, but she 

DeRosa added, I spoke with her [Ms. Shoop] after the fact, she claimed she had a 

stated that she did not receive a copy by mail. 

saw him on August 28. He noted 

he reviewed x-rays, 

. . . [S]he 

has excellent motion and excellent streng

After this visit, Ms. DeRosa emailed Ms. Shoop on September 19 to tell her that Dr. 

of 

been given a list of three providers from the beginning to choose from which I never 
3 

on September 21

on 8/27, with the panel of 3 doctors attached? then 

wrote:

I want to remind you that I get to choose which 3 doctors are put on the panel. 

You had insisted on Dr. Martha George, and I went along with your wishes, 

and she is one of the three doctors on the attached panel. Also, this was with 

whom I set up your initial appointment. Once you learned she was not

located in the office closest to you, we went with the orthopaedic office that

you desired in Gallatin, and got you in with the doctor who had the earliest

availability. 

Despite her concerns, Ms. DeRosa returned to Dr. Weaver for two more visits. In 

October, Dr. Weaver reviewed an MRI and xchronic finding to the ulnar styloid not an acute fracture. At the final visit in November, 

he placed her at maximum medical improvement and released her to full-duty work. Dr. 

Weaver later completed a final medical report that assigned a zero-percent impairment

rating and stated that no future treatment will be necessary. 

Ms. DeRosa argued that, from

 After 

her case was closed, she began treating on her own. 

or was told she 

In response, I & MJ Gross argued that it sent the panel several times. While Ms. 

DeRosa never returned the panel form, she accepted the treatment I & MJ Gross offered. 

Dr. Weaver placed her at maximum medical improvement and saw no need for additional

treatment. I & MJ Gross asserted it provided all the medical benefits to which she is

entitled. 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

Ms. DeRosa must show that she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits

regarding whether I & MJ Gross offered a panel as well as whether she is entitled to 

additional treatment. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2019); McCord v. Advantage 

Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015). 

To prevail, she must show that I & MJ Gross did not satisfy its obligation under the 

provide treatment. The medical benefits provision of the 

sta

section; provided that . . . the employer shall designate a group of three (3) or more 

independent reputable physicians . . . from which the injured employee shall select one (1) 
4 

 

The Court first considers whether I & MJ Gross offered a panel as the statute 

requires. The parties offered vastly different accounts, so the Court must make a credibility 

determination to decide this factual issue. 

Here, nor was it

discussed on August 26 or 27. She acknowledged that Ms. Shoop had the correct email

address, but she said she 

her she had the incorrect email address, and Ms. DeRosa gave her 

the correct one. 

This does not square with testimony, or with the emails the parties

exchanged. The August 27 and September 21 emails from Ms. Shoop to Ms. DeRosa bear 

the same email address as the one Ms. DeRosa wrote on her petition for benefit

determination. The August 27 email plainly states that they discussed the panel the 

previous day, in accordance with Court simply does

not believe that Ms. DeRosa never received the panel, when Ms. Shoop credibly testified 

that she used two different means of transmission, email and regular mail, to send it. 

Therefore, the Court finds that I & MJ Gross discussed its obligation to offer a panel of 

physicians with Ms. DeRosa and sent the form; thus, it satisfied the statutory requirement. 

the statute requires. twice, 

when she put Dr. George on the panel and then set an 

appointment with Tennessee Orthopedics with the first available orthopedist, Dr. Weaver, 

at the Gallatin Branch. 

In Ms. DeRosa she candidly admitted that she did not want to drive to 

Lebanon. Rather, she twice attended appointments with Dr. Weaver before expressing 

dissatisfaction. Then she continued seeing him until he placed her at maximum medical

improvement, released her from treatment, and anticipated no need for future treatment for 

the work injury. document that he based 

his opinions after examining her and ordering x-rays and an MRI. The Court finds that

Ms. DeRosa accepted treatment, and in his expert opinion she does not need 

additional treatment for the work injury. 

Therefore, Ms. DeRosa has not presented sufficient evidence from which this Court

can conclude she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that I & MJ Gross failed to 

offer her a panel and is entitled to additional treatment. 

 
5 

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. for additional treatment is denied at this time.

2. This case is set for a scheduling hearing on October 26, 2020, at 9:15 a.m. Central. 

You must call 615-532-9552 or toll-free at 866-943-0025 to participate. Failure to 

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

ENTERED September 21, 2020. 

_____________________________________ 

 JUDGE KENNETH M. SWITZER 

Court of Compensation Claims

APPENDIX 

Exhibits:

1.

2. sent it

3. of medical records

4.

5. Emails between Ms. DeRosa and Ms. Shoop 

Technical Record:

1. Petition for Benefit Determination 

2. Dispute Certification Notice 

3. Show-Cause Order, June 1, 2020 

4. Show-Cause Order, June 30, 2020 

5. Request for Expedited Hearing 

6. Order Setting Expedited Hearing 

7.

8. the Alternative, Request for 

Reasonable Extension 

9.

10.Order Continuing Expedited Hearing 

11.Order Setting Expedited Hearing 

12. Brief 

13.
6 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

September 21, 2020. 

Name Certified

Mail

Regular 

mail

Email Sent to 

Debra De Rosa, selfrepresented 

employee 

X X 300 Kirk Lane 

Gallatin, TN 37066 

Debra6254@gmail.com 

Lynn Lawyer, X Lawyel2@nationwide.com 

Burruc1@nationwide.com 

_____________________________________ 

 Penny Shrum, Clerk of Court 

WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov