1

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Kimberly Satterfield ) Docket No. 2019-03-1440

)

v. ) State File No. 7635-2019

)

Smoky Mountain Home Health and )

Hospice, Inc., et al. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ ) Heard October 5, 2023

Compensation Claims ) at Knoxville

Lisa A. Lowe, Judge )

Affirmed and Certified as Final

This is an appeal of the trial court’s compensation order awarding extraordinary relief 

under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-242. The employee was working as a home 

health nurse when she slipped on ice and injured her right shoulder, middle finger, hip, and 

knee. After an initial compensation hearing, the employee was awarded permanent partial 

disability benefits consistent with her impairment rating and future reasonable and 

necessary medical benefits. At the end of her initial benefit period, she filed a new petition 

for benefits seeking permanent total disability benefits or, in the alternative, extraordinary 

relief. After a hearing at which the employee and two vocational experts testified, the court 

awarded two hundred seventy-five weeks of permanent disability benefits pursuant to

Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-242(a)(2). The employer has appealed. Upon 

careful consideration of the record and the arguments of counsel, we affirm the court’s 

decision and certify it as final.

Judge Meredith B. Weaver delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which Presiding 

Judge Timothy W. Conner and Judge Pele I. Godkin joined.

Tiffany B. Sherrill, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellant, Smoky Mountain 

Home Health and Hospice, Inc.

Timothy A. Roberto, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the employee-appellee, Kimberly 

Satterfield

FILED

Nov 06, 2023

12:18 PM(CT)

TENNESSEE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

APPEALS BOARD
2

Factual and Procedural Background

Kimberly Satterfield (“Employee”) is a registered nurse who slipped and fell on ice 

while working for Smoky Mountain Home Health and Hospice, Inc. (“Employer”) on 

January 29, 2019. She landed on her right knee with her arm outstretched, resulting in 

injuries to her right shoulder, middle finger, hip, and knee. Employer accepted the claim 

as compensable and provided authorized treatment with Dr. Paul Brady for her shoulder, 

Dr. Conrad Ivie for her knee and hip, and Dr. Timothy Renfree for her middle finger. Dr. 

Brady treated her for a rotator cuff tear in the shoulder, which he stated was more than fifty 

percent caused by the work injury and resulted in an eleven percent impairment. Dr. Ivie 

determined Employee’s knee and hip injuries, which included a meniscal tear in the knee, 

were more than fifty percent related to the work injury and assigned a three percent

impairment. Dr. Renfree found Employee’s middle finger injury was caused by the work 

fall and assessed a two percent impairment. Finally, Employee was evaluated by Dr. 

William Kennedy, who provided a combined impairment of twelve percent and opined that

the impairment for all her injuries was primarily caused by the work accident.

At the initial compensation hearing in June 2022, Employer argued Employee’s fall 

was idiopathic in nature and/or caused by her multiple sclerosis (“MS”). In support of its 

position, Employer presented records from prior physicians indicating Employee had 

suffered past falls and weakness on the right side due to her MS. In response, Employee 

asserted that most of the episodes as reflected in past medical records did not occur or were

depicted incorrectly in the medical records. Following the compensation hearing, the trial 

court awarded permanent partial disability benefits equating to a 12% vocational disability 

and future reasonable and necessary medical benefits. The order contained language 

acknowledging that the initial benefit period had not expired pursuant to Tennessee Code 

Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(A), and thus, the court was unable to determine whether 

Employee was entitled to increased benefits or extraordinary relief at that time. That order 

was not appealed.

On October 7, 2022, Employee filed a new petition for benefit determination, stating 

that the initial benefit period had expired and that she was seeking “increased, additional, 

and permanent total disability [benefits].” A dispute certification notice (“DCN”) was filed 

on December 7, 2022, identifying jurisdiction and compensability as the disputed issues. 

Following the entry of a scheduling order, Employer filed a motion for summary judgment, 

arguing Employee was precluded from being awarded permanent total disability benefits

as her initial petition filed in November 2020 did not allege that she was permanently and 

totally disabled and she did not present proof at the June 2022 compensation hearing that 

she was permanently and totally disabled. Therefore, Employer argued, Employee had 

waived any claim to permanent total disability benefits. It further argued that the specific 

language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(4)(B) prohibits an award of 

permanent total disability when an employee files for increased benefits after an award of

permanent partial disability. In support of this position, Employer pointed to the language 
3

stating that permanent total disability benefits can only be sought “[w]hen an injury not 

otherwise specifically provided for in this chapter totally incapacitates the employee from 

working at an occupation that brings the employee an income.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-

207(4)(B) (emphasis added). Hence, Employer argues that because Employee received 

permanent partial disability benefits at a compensation hearing, her injury did not qualify 

as one “not otherwise specifically provided for in this chapter,” and she could not qualify 

for an award of permanent total disability benefits.

In response to the dispositive motion, Employee submitted an affidavit from 

vocational expert Michael Galloway asserting Employee was, in his opinion, one hundred 

percent vocationally disabled as evidence that she had sufficient proof to establish she was 

permanently and totally disabled. Furthermore, Employee argued she could not have 

known she was permanently and totally disabled at the time she filed her initial petition for 

benefits because she had not yet reached maximum medical improvement. Finally, 

Employee argued the language upon which Employer relied from section 50-6-207(4) was 

a “relic” from the pre-reform law and was intended only to refer to scheduled member 

injuries, which are no longer included in the Workers’ Compensation Law.

The court heard the motion for summary judgment in April 2023. However, because 

the DCN only certified jurisdiction and compensability as disputed issues, the court issued 

an order holding the motion in abeyance, noting it could only adjudicate matters certified 

as disputed issues by the mediator on a DCN pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated 

section 50-6-239(b)(1). The court referred the case back to mediation and requested the 

mediator to certify permanent disability benefits as a disputed issue if the matter did not 

resolve at post-discovery mediation, which had previously been set by the court in the 

scheduling order. Employer did not appeal the trial court’s order holding the motion for

summary judgment in abeyance and ordering the mediator to identify permanent disability 

benefits as a disputed issue in the event the case was not settled.

The claim did not settle at mediation, and the mediator issued a DCN identifying 

permanent disability benefits as a disputed issue, to which Employer objected. A

compensation hearing was held on June 27, 2023. Employee, Mr. Galloway, and Michelle

McBroom Weiss, the vocational expert retained by Employer, all testified live, and Drs. 

Brady and Kennedy testified by deposition. The parties agreed Employee had not returned 

to work, but nearly all remaining issues were contested. As a threshold issue, Employer 

argued Employee could not receive any further disability benefits as permanent disability 

was not listed as a disputed issue on the December 7, 2022 DCN. Employee argued that 

the petition for benefit determination itself clearly indicated additional permanent disability 

benefits were being sought, and the petition was attached to the DCN. When those 

documents were considered as a whole, in Employee’s view, the issue was not waived. 

Employer also reiterated its argument from the summary judgment hearing that Employee 

could not seek permanent total disability, as she had previously been adjudicated as

permanently partially disabled.
4

Finally, Employer further disputed that Employee was unable to return to her preinjury occupation as certified by Dr. Brady pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 

50-6-242(a)(2)(B) or, if she indeed was unable to return to that occupation, that it was due 

to Employee’s pre-existing MS rather than her work injuries. Employer argued that 

Employee could return to her pre-injury occupation due to her extensive education, which 

included a Bachelor of Nursing, a Master of Science of Nursing with a concentration in 

women’s health, and a Doctorate of Nursing Practice, as well as her extensive work history

as a nurse practitioner, home health nurse, and nurse education instructor.

In response, Employee presented permanent work restrictions from both Dr. Brady 

and Dr. Kennedy placing her in the “sedentary” category of work. Mr. Galloway reiterated 

his opinion that Employee was one hundred percent vocationally disabled despite her 

extensive education. Although Ms. Weiss had not been asked by Employer to provide a 

percentage of vocational disability, she did testify that the Dictionary of Occupational 

Titles used by Mr. Galloway was not appropriate in this case because it was outdated and 

written before telehealth was utilized in the nursing profession. As such, she testified she 

had found ten nursing jobs in Employee’s labor market that she could perform based on 

her education, work experience, and restrictions. Employee disputed that she could 

perform any of the positions listed by Ms. Weiss for a variety of reasons, including 

difficulty keyboarding because of her finger fracture, pain in her right arm, and a lack of 

certifications required for certain positions. Ms. Weiss testified she had performed a labor 

market study, contacting various employers seeking nursing professionals, and that those 

businesses had confirmed Employee would be a candidate based on her education and 

experience. Employee further testified her MS did not contribute to her inability to work, 

stating she had always been able to perform her job duties prior to the work injury without 

any accommodations due to her MS.

Following the hearing, the court awarded 275 weeks of permanent disability 

benefits as extraordinary relief in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-

6-242. The trial court determined “while [Employee] is not permanently and totally 

disabled, she established by clear and convincing evidence it would be inequitable to limit

her to increased benefits alone, since she has no real job possibilities.” In response to 

Employee’s claim for permanent total disability, the courtstated that, although Employee’s 

employment opportunities were “significantly limited,” they were not “non-existent.” The 

court agreed with Ms. Weiss that some jobs existed that Employee could perform, which 

precluded an award of permanent total disability.

1 The court did not address Employer’s 

argument that the issue of permanent disability benefits was waived in the December 2022 

dispute certification notice. Employer has appealed.

1 The court later amended its order to account for a credit of fifty-four weeks, the original award, against 

the two hundred seventy-five-week award.
5

Standard of Review

The standard we apply in reviewing a 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) (2022). 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 made by the trial 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 with no presumption 

of correctness afforded the trial court’s conclusions. 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 (2022).

Analysis

On appeal, Employer raises two issues, which we restate as: (1) whether Employee 

waived any claim for any additional permanent disability benefits based on the December 

2022 DCN; and (2) whether Employee is entitled to extraordinary relief as awarded by the 

trial court. In her responsive brief, Employee raises two additional issues: (1) whether the 

testimony of Employer’s vocational expert should have been excluded due to her reliance 

on hearsay in forming her opinions; and (2) whether Employee should have been awarded

permanent total disability benefits. For its part, Employer counters that Employee cannot 

raise any issues of her own as she did not file a notice of appeal.

Waiver of Claim for Permanent Disability

Employer notes that the initial DCN completed after Employee filed her petition for 

increased benefits, dated December 7, 2022, lists only two disputed issues: “Jurisdiction” 

and “Compensability.” The category of “Permanent Disability Benefits” is not marked as 

a “Disputed Issue” on the DCN, and although both parties were given time to respond to 

the DCN before it was certified and submitted to the trial court, neither party requested any 

edits or submitted any further issues. As such, Employer argues that Employee waived 

any claim for additional permanent disability benefits by failing to include those benefits 

as an issue on the DCN. We are unpersuaded.
6

Tennessee Code Annotated 50-6-239(b)(1) states, in part:

Unless permission has been granted by the assigned workers’ compensation 

judge, only issues that have been certified by a workers’ compensation 

mediator within a dispute certification notice may be presented to the 

workers’ compensation judge for adjudication.

(Emphasis added.) The language of this portion of the statute requires that an issue be 

certified by a mediator on a DCN, not necessarily the initial DCN that is filed at the outset 

of the claim.2

 The trial court noted at the time of the summary judgment hearing that 

“Permanent Disability Benefits” was not marked as an issue on page one of the DCN under 

“Disputed Issues” and ordered the mediator to include permanent disability benefits as an 

issue following the post-discovery mediation if the parties were unable to resolve the case 

at that time. The mediator did so in the May 10, 2023 DCN, and, as such, the issue of 

increased permanent disability was properly before the court at the compensation hearing. 

Furthermore, Employer’s argument would require the court to look at only one portion of 

a DCN in a vacuum, which we have previously stated is not the proper course of action. 

In Marzette v. Pat Salmon and Sons, Inc., No. 2014-08-0058, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. 

Bd. LEXIS 29, at *11 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Sept. 18, 2015), we explained, “it 

is necessary to consider the document as a whole” and in the context of the entire record to 

determine what issues were certified by the mediator. Id. In the case at hand, the mediator 

noted on the December 2022 DCN that mediation had occurred regarding permanent 

disability benefits and included the petition for benefit determination seeking increased 

permanent disability benefits at the time of the certification to the court. As such, even 

without the court’s instruction to include permanent disability benefits in the DCN 

following the post discovery mediation, when viewing the December 2022 DCN as a 

whole, and considering it in the context of the entire record as contemplated in Marzette, 

we find that Employee did not waive the issue of additional permanent disability benefits

and that the trial court properly considered the issue.

3

Extraordinary Relief

Employer next argues that the trial court erred in awarding extraordinary relief in 

this case. Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(B) provides that “[i]f at the time 

the period of compensation . . . ends, . . . the employee has not returned to work with any 

employer . . . the injured employee may file a claim for increased benefits.” However, if 

the “presiding workers’ compensation judge first determines based on clear and convincing 

2 The initial DCN relative to Employee’s initial claim for benefits, which was filed on December 14, 2020, 

did identify “Permanent Disability Benefits” as a disputed issue.

3 Employee argued that this defense from Employer was waived and not raised at the trial level. However, 

Employer objected to the May 2023 DCN, and the argument is referenced in the Employer’s trial brief and 

in the transcript of the proceedings. Thus, we find this assertion to be without merit.
7

evidence that limiting the employee’s recovery to the benefits provided [by that section] 

would be inequitable,” that judge may award up to two hundred seventy-five weeks. Tenn. 

Code Ann. § 50-6-242(a)(2). To qualify for extraordinary relief, the employee must have 

an impairment rating of more than ten percent (10%) and cannot be earning an amount 

equal to or above seventy percent of his or her pre-injury wage at the time the compensation 

period ends. In addition, the employee’s authorized treating physician must certify that the 

employee no longer has the ability to return to his or her pre-injury occupation, which refers 

to “the type of work one does as his or her ‘usual or principal work.’” Batey v. Deliver 

This, Inc., 568 S.W.3d 91, 99 (Tenn. 2019) (emphasis in original). Once the employee 

obtains the certification form signed by the treating physician, the burden shifts to the 

employer to provide clear and convincing evidence the employee could return to the preinjury occupation. Id. at 98.

In this case, Employee has extensive education as a nurse, including masters and 

doctorate degrees. Employer presented proof regarding her work history as a professor in 

nurse training as evidence Employee could return to her pre-injury occupation. In his 

deposition, Dr. Brady acknowledged that although Employee would only occasionally be 

able to grip a laptop, she would not be restricted from a lecture-style teaching position with 

certain accommodations. He further testified that, in his opinion, Employee could not 

return to a position as a registered nurse but that he believed she could likely work at a 

computer.

Employer also presented proof from Ms. Weiss regarding potential employment 

within the field of registered nursing. Ms. Weiss performed a labor market survey and 

testified to ten possible positions in nursing that she believed, based on her experience, 

Employee would be qualified to perform within her given restrictions. Several of the 

positions were remote and involved telehealth. Employee testified she had no experience 

with that type of work and that she believed her difficulties with keyboarding would 

prevent her from doing that type of work.

While Employee had some experience as a professor, based on her testimony, the 

bulk of her work history was as a registered nurse treating patients. Her restrictions from 

the two testifying physicians placed her in a sedentary category, and the experts agreed she 

would not have been able to return to any of her prior nursing positions. Dr. Brady 

indicated that if she did return to teaching, accommodations would likely have to be made, 

and there was little evidence in the record regarding the physical requirements of her 

previous teaching position. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that it would 

be inequitable to limit Employee to increased benefits, which in this case would have 

allowed for increases based on her employment status and her age. Although Employer 

presented evidence of possible positions Employee could perform within her restrictions, 

we agree with the trial court that Employer did not meet its burden of proving by clear and 

convincing evidence that Employee could perform her pre-injury occupation. As such, 
8

based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude the preponderance of the evidence 

supports the court’s award of extraordinary relief.

Appellee’s Right to Raise Issues on Appeal

In her brief, Employee argues both that Employer’s vocational expert’s testimony 

should have been excluded and that the court erred by failing to award permanent total 

disability benefits. Employer responded, arguing Employee waived her right to appeal any 

issue by not filing a timely notice of appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 

217(2)(B). Furthermore, it argued the timelines set forth in the applicable rules were not 

conducive to raising a new issue in a response brief. Although Employer raises a legitimate 

concern regarding the feasibility and timing of raising new issues in a response brief, we 

have previously addressed this issue. “Once an appeal is properly perfected, the statute 

does not restrict the Appeals Board to considering only issues identified by the appealing 

party in a notice of appeal but allows consideration of issues specified and argued by a 

party as long as the issue was properly presented and decided below.” Morgan v. Macy’s, 

No. 2016-08-0270, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 39, at *24 (Tenn. Workers’ 

Comp. App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2016).

Employer notes that our opinion in Morgan was issued prior to amendments to the

language in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-217. Previously, the language of

subsection 217(a)(1)(B) stated that “within thirty calendar days after issuance of a 

compensation order . . . either party may request an appeal. . . . Parties shall have fifteen 

calendar days after an appeal is filed to file briefs with the workers’ compensation appeals 

board.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-217(a)(1)(B) (2014). Currently, subsection 217(a)(2)(B) 

was amended to state, “[t]he appealing party has fifteen calendar days after the record is 

filed with the clerk of the workers’ compensation appeals board to file a brief. A brief in 

response, if any, must be filed within 15 days of the filing of the appellant’s brief.” Tenn. 

Code Ann. § 50-6-217(a)(2)(B) (2022). We conclude this amendment did not address or 

limit a party’s ability to raise issues in a response brief. Moreover, the regulations 

governing the appeals process contemplate that a reply brief may be filed within five 

business days if the response brief “raises an issue or issues on appeal not previously 

addressed in the appellant’s brief.” Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-22-.06(3) (2020). 

As such, although the timeline is stringent, the rules clearly provide a mechanism for the 

appellee to raise additional issues in its response brief and for the appellant to reply to those 

issues.

Furthermore, although the Rules of Appellate Procedure are not binding on this 

Board, they are instructive. Under those rules, appellees may raise issues without filing a 
9

separate notice of appeal once an appeal has been filed by another party. See Tenn. R. 

App. P. 3(h) and 13(a). In short, we find this issue to be without merit.

4

Exclusion of Testimony

Employee argues that the testimony of Employer’s vocational expert should be 

excluded as unreliable because it was, at least in part, based on hearsay. See Tenn. R. Evid. 

703. Specifically, Ms. Weiss testified that she or someone on her staff contacted various 

employers with open advertised positions she believed Employee may be qualified to 

perform. She (or her staff) discussed Employee’s work history, education, and restrictions 

with the potential employer and, by so doing, created a list of potential employers within 

the nursing field. At trial, Employee’s attorney objected to the testimony despite the fact 

that it was elicited by that same attorney. The court took the objection under advisement 

but also questioned Ms. Weiss, who confirmed “based on her experience and opinion as an 

expert, that [Employee] would qualify for at least one or more of these positions even if 

[she had not made] the phone calls.” Ultimately, and as stated previously, the court 

considered Ms. Weiss’s testimony and relied upon it in its determination that Employee’s 

job opportunities were “not non-existent.”

On appeal, Employee reiterates that she believes Ms. Weiss’s testimony to be 

unreliable and based on hearsay, arguing that her conversations with the potential 

employers were possibly rooted in observation bias. We find this argument to be without 

merit and unconvincing. Ms. Weiss was not presenting these positions as actual jobs being 

offered to Employee but as potential opportunities for employment she believed Employee 

was qualified for and physically capable of performing. In addition, as noted above, the 

Rules of Evidence allow an expert to rely on evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible 

if it is of a “type reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field.” Tenn. R. Evid. 

703. In short, we conclude Employee’s objection goes to the weight, not the admissibility, 

of this expert testimony.

Permanent Total Disability

Finally, Employee argues that the court should have determined she is permanently 

and totally disabled based on the evidence presented at trial. For its part, Employer 

reiterates that Employee’s previous award of permanent partial disability precludes the 

court from awarding her permanent total disability. An award of permanent total disability 

is appropriate only if a work-related injury “totally incapacitates the employee from

working at an occupation that brings the employee an income.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-

207(4)(B). In analyzing an award of permanent total disability, “[t]he statute contemplates 

4 We also note that, although the Rules of Appellate Procedure do not apply at this stage of the case, if our

opinion were appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, those rules would apply. Thus, the appellee would 

be allowed to raise any issues in a response brief as allowed by the rules noted above. Prohibiting the 

presentation of such issues at the current stage would violate precepts of judicial economy.
10

employment in the open labor market and not a return to the employee’s previous position.” 

Prost v. City of Clarksville, Police Dep’t., 688 S.W.2d 425, 427 (Tenn. 1985).

Employee’s vocational expert, Michael Galloway, testified he believed Employee

to be “one hundred percent vocationally disabled.” However, he admitted he at least 

partially based that opinion on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, which he 

acknowledged was outdated with regard to employment opportunities in the subspecialty 

of telehealth. He further admitted there were options for Employee using a dictation device 

and/or working as a lecturer in the field of nursing, albeit with certain accommodations. 

Ms. Weiss, as stated earlier, believed there were at least ten open positions that Employee 

could perform, although she did not offer an opinion as to a percentage of vocational 

disability in her report. As noted by the trial court, Employee’s physical restrictions are 

substantial; however, an award of permanent total disability must be based on a finding 

that the employee cannot return to any position that would earn him or her an income, not 

just a prior position. Given her education and work experience, as well as the testimony 

of Ms. Weiss and the admissions of Mr. Galloway, we find no error in the court’s 

determination that Employee is not permanently totally disabled. In short, the 

preponderance of the evidence supports the court’s determinations. As such, because the 

trial court did not find that Employee is permanently and totally disabled, we need not 

address whether an employee can receive a permanent total disability award after 

previously being adjudicated as permanently partially disabled.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the trial court and certify it as final.

Costs on appeal are taxed to Employer.
 

 

 

 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Kimberly Satterfield ) Docket No. 2019-03-1440 

) 

v. ) State File No. 7635-2019 

)

Smoky Mountain Home Health and ) 

Hospice, Inc., et al. ) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ ) Heard October 5, 2023 

Compensation Claims ) at Knoxville 

Lisa A. Lowe, 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 6th day 

of November, 2023. 

Name Certified 

Mail 

First Class 

Mail 

Via 

Fax 

Via 

Email 

Sent to: 

Tiffany B. Sherrill

Gregory H. Fuller

X tbsherrill@mijs.com

ghfuller@mijs.com

Timothy A. Roberto X troberto@brownandroberto.com

cmagnusson@brownandroberto.com

Lisa A. Lowe, 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