1

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD 

Giovanna Meier ) Docket No. 2015-02-0179 

) 

v. ) State File No. 42423-2015 

) 

Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., et al. ) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ ) 

Compensation Claims, ) 

Brian K. Addington, Judge )

Affirmed and Remanded - Filed July 27, 2016 

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee alleges suffering an injury to her back while 

moving bags of concrete in the course and scope of her employment. The employer 

denied the claim as not being work-related. Following an expedited hearing, the trial 

court ruled that the employee presented insufficient evidence she was likely to succeed at 

a trial on the merits in establishing an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and 

scope of her employment. The employee has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s 

decision and remand the case. 

Judge Marshall L. Davidson, III, delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board, in which 

Judge David F. Hensley and Judge Timothy W. Conner joined.

George Todd East, Kingsport, Tennessee, for the employee-appellant, Giovanna Meier

Jess Maples, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, Lowe’s Home Centers, 

Inc.

Memorandum Opinion1

Giovanna Meier (“Employee”) alleges that she suffered an injury to her back on 

April 27, 2015, when she transferred bags of concrete from one cart to another while 

1

“The Appeals Board may, in an effort to secure a just and speedy determination of matters on appeal and 

with the concurrence of all judges, decide an appeal by an abbreviated order or by memorandum opinion, 

whichever the Appeals Board deems appropriate, in cases that are not legally and/or factually novel or 

complex.” Appeals Bd. Prac. & Proc. § 1.3. 
2

working for Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. (“Employer”).2She described a twisting motion, 

followed by a pop in her knee. Employee offered conflicting information regarding 

whether she felt immediate pain but, in any event, she did not seek medical treatment that 

day. According to the trial court’s order, Employee testified she and her husband were 

on their way to the emergency room to have her injury evaluated the next day when she 

asked her husband to stop at a store for a loaf of bread. She testified that when she bent 

over to retrieve the bread from a shelf, she felt intense pain. She proceeded to the 

emergency room and was evaluated.

Employer denied the claim as not arising out of the employment, and Employee 

filed a petition for benefit determination. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court 

determined there was insufficient medical proof to establish a causal link between the 

employment and the purported injury. The trial court noted that Employee initially 

reported a knee injury and later claimed a back injury. The court denied relief and 

Employee appealed.

Testimony was presented to the trial court at the expedited hearing, and the court 

relied on that testimony in deciding the case. However, we have been provided with no 

record of this testimony. Moreover, no statement of the evidence has been filed. Thus, 

the totality of the evidence introduced in the trial court is unknown, and we decline to 

speculate as to the nature and extent of the proof presented to the trial court. Instead, 

consistent with established Tennessee law, we must presume that the trial court’s rulings 

were supported by sufficient evidence. Vulcan Materials Co. v. Watson, No. M2003-

00975-WC-R3-CV, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 451, at *7 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel May 19, 

2004) (“In the absence of an adequate record on appeal, this Court must presume the trial 

court’s rulings were supported by sufficient evidence.”); Leek v. Powell, 884 S.W.2d 118, 

121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (“In the absence of a transcript or a statement of the evidence, 

we must conclusively presume that every fact admissible under the pleadings was found 

or should have been found favorably to the appellee.”). Furthermore, there is a statutory 

presumption “that the findings and conclusions of the workers’ compensation judge are 

correct, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-

6-239(c)(7) (2015). 

In accordance with these principles, we cannot conclude that the evidence 

preponderates against the trial court’s decision. Nor does the trial court’s decision violate 

any of the standards set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-217(a)(3)

(2015). Accordingly, the trial court’s decision is affirmed, and the case is remanded for 

any further proceedings that may be necessary.

 

2 The parties have not submitted a transcript of the proceedings in the trial court or a statement of the 

evidence presented at the expedited hearing. Thus, we have gleaned the facts from the documents and 

exhibits filed in the trial court, including the trial court’s June 17, 2016 expedited hearing order. 
3
 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD 

Giovanna Meier ) Docket No. 2015-02-0179

) 

v. ) 

) State File No. 42423-2015

Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., et al. ) 

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 27th day of July, 2016. 

Name Certified 

Mail

First Class 

Mail

Via 

Fax

Fax 

Number

Via 

Email

Email Address

George Todd East X jennifer@toddeast.com

Jess Maples X jess.maples@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

Matthew Salyer

Clerk, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board

220 French Landing Dr., Ste. 1-B 

Nashville, TN 37243

Telephone: 615-253-1606 

Electronic Mail: Matthew.Salyer@tn.gov