1

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT MURFREESBORO

PATRICK WILLIAMS, ) Docket No 2019-05-1202

Employee, ) 2019-05-1203

v. )

YATES SERVICES, ) State File No. 57462-2019

Employer, ) 57623-2019

and )

TRAVELERS INDEM. CO., ) Judge Robert Durham

Carrier. )

COMPENSATION ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Court held a hearing on June 12, 2023, and a supplemental hearing on June 27,

on Yates’s Motions for Summary Judgment regarding Mr. Williams’s claims for injuries to

his shoulders and right knee. For the reasons below, the Court grants the motion. Mr. 

Williams is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment for his work-related 

injury to his right elbow and right leg but is not entitled to any additional medical treatment 

or disability benefits for any other alleged injuries from the March 5 or July 30 incidents. 

History of Claim

Mr. Williams alleged that on March 5, 2019, a “tug” collided with a piece of 

machinery that then struck him in the right elbow, causing him pain in his elbow and 

shoulders. He additionally alleged that he was struck again on July 30, 2019, causing an 

aggravation of his shoulder injuries as well as right knee pain. In its summary judgment

motion, Yates did not dispute that these incidents occurred as Mr. Yates described.1 Yates 

provided panels, and Mr. Williams chose Dr. John Byrnes.

1 When Mr. Williams asked for video of the July 30 incident, Yates did not provide it but instead asserted 

that the area where it happened was not covered by a camera. At the hearing, Mr. Williams disputed this 

assertion and said that he needed the video to show the doctors the severity of the accident so he could prove 

causation. However, Mr. Williams did not file any discovery requests until March 2023, and when Yates 

informed him that the video did not exist, he did not attempt to schedule any depositions to make further 

queries or file a motion to continue the summary judgment motion.

FILED

Jul 05, 2023

01:50 PM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS
2

In support of its motion, Yates submitted two C-32 medical reports from Dr. Byrnes. 

For the March 5 injury, Dr. Byrnes said that Mr. Williams suffered an injury to his right 

elbow that caused pain and required treatment but did not result in any permanent disability. 

However, he did not believe that Mr. Williams’s bilateral shoulder symptoms or need for 

treatment were primarily caused by the accident, nor were his shoulder conditions advanced 

or made worse by the collision.

Dr. Byrnes made a similar assessment of Mr. Williams’s assertion that he injured his 

right knee in the July 30 incident. Specifically, Dr. Byrnes believed that Mr. Williams only 

suffered a bruise to his right leg. Dr. Byrnes did not assign an impairment for the bruise or 

recommend further treatment for it. 

Regarding Mr. Williams’s patella tendon cyst and patella pain, Dr. Byrnes said that 

the July 30 accident did not cause the pain or the cyst, nor did it advance or worsen these 

preexisting conditions. He also said that the accident was not primarily responsible for any 

need to treat the conditions.

Mr. Williams did not submit any depositions, affidavits, or C-32 reports from a 

doctor to counter Dr. Byrnes’s opinions. Mr. Williams also did not respond to Yates’s 

Statement of Undisputed Facts that reiterated these opinions.

For this motion, Yates stipulated that Mr. Williams is entitled to reasonable and 

necessary medical treatment with Dr. Byrnes for the right elbow injury and right leg bruise 

that Dr. Byrnes causally related to his work-related falls, but not for his bilateral shoulder 

and knee complaints. 

Law and Analysis

To prevail on his claim for benefits related to his shoulders and knee, Mr. Williams must 

prove his injury or need for treatment arose primarily out of his employment. Tenn. Code Ann. 

§ 50-6-102(12)(A) (2022). He must prove that relation to a “reasonable degree of medical 

certainty,” which necessarily requires an expert medical opinion. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-

102(12)(C). Yates asserts it is entitled to summary judgment because Dr. Byrne did not 

furnish an opinion that Mr. Williams’s accidents caused either an injury to or the need for 

treatment of his shoulders and knee.

Summary judgment is only appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there 

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment 

as a matter of law.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 (2022). 

To prevail on its motion, Yates must do one of two things: (1) submit affirmative 

evidence that negates an essential element of Mr. Williams’s claims; or (2) demonstrate that 
3

Mr. Williams’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of his claim. Tenn. 

Code Ann. § 20-16-101. If Yates meets its burden, then Mr. Williams must “demonstrate 

the existence of specific facts in the record which could lead a rational trier of fact to find 

in [his favor].” Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 265 

(Tenn. 2015). The Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Williams

and must also draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. McCann v. Hatchett, 19 S.W.3d 

218, 219 (Tenn. 2000).

Based on the undisputed facts, Yates met both elements of summary judgment for 

the alleged shoulder and knee injuries. First, as allowed under Tennessee Code Annotated 

section 50-6-235(a)(c)(1), Yates submitted written medical reports from Dr. Byrd instead

of a deposition or affidavit. In the reports, Dr. Byrd gave his opinion that Mr. Williams’s 

bilateral shoulder and right knee problems were not caused, aggravated, or worsened by his 

accidents, and any medical treatment he may require for those conditions were not due to 

his work accidents. Thus, Yates submitted affirmative evidence that negated an essential 

element of Mr. Williams’s claims: causation.

Second, Mr. Williams did not submit any information that might constitute expert 

opinions in the form of a pleading, admission, interrogatory response, affidavit, deposition, 

or medical report under section 50-6-235 to dispute Dr. Byrd’s causation opinions. Rule 56 

of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the evidence supporting or 

defending a summary judgment be in one of those forms. Therefore, Yates has met the 

second element of summary judgment by establishing as a matter of law that Mr. Williams 

has insufficient evidence to establish an essential element of his claims. Yates is entitled to 

summary judgment as to Mr. Williams’s claims for injuries to his shoulders and right knee.

However, as agreed by Yates, Mr. Williams suffered right elbow pain and a bruise 

to his right leg due to his accidents, although Dr. Byrd’s opinions established that he did not 

suffer any disability from these injuries. Thus, the Court holds that Mr. Williams is entitled 

to medical treatment for these injuries if it becomes necessary.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:

1. Yates’s Motions for Summary Judgment are granted, and Mr. Williams’s claims for 

disability benefits as well as medical treatment for his shoulders and right knee are 

denied. Dr. Byrnes shall remain Mr. Williams’s authorized physician for any 

reasonable and necessary treatment for his work-related injuries to his elbow and the 

bruise to his right leg.

2. Yates shall pay court costs of $150.00 to the Court Clerk within five business days.

3. Yates shall prepare and submit the SD-2 within ten days of the date of judgment.
4

4. Unless appealed, this order becomes final in thirty days. 

ENTERED July 5, 2023. 

____________________________________ 

 Robert V. Durham, Judge 

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that a copy of this order was sent as indicated on July 5, 2023. 

Name Certified 

Mail

Via

Fax

Via 

Email

Service sent to:

Patrick Williams X X 445 Courtnea Lane

Manchester, TN 37355 

Patrickwilliams14@gmail.com

John Rucker, III X rrucker@ruckerlaw.com

_____________________________________ 

 Penny Shrum, Clerk 

 Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims 

WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov
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]