1 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSAT I ON APPEALS BOARD

Anthony Hayes ) Docket No. 2018

- 08

- 1204

)

v. ) State File No. 56539

- 2018

)

Elmington Property Management, et a l

. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )

Compensation Cl aims )

Deana C. Seymour , Judge )

A f f

i r m e d a n d C e r t i f i e d a s F i n a l

I n t h i s c o m p e n s a t i o n a p p e a l

, t h e e m p l o y e e c h a l l e n g e s t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t

,

w h i c h d i s m i s s e d h i s c a s e w i t h preju dice w h e n h e f a i l e d t o ap p e a r f o r a s c h e d u l e d t r i a l

. T h e e m p l o y e e d i d n o t a t t e n d t h e t r i a l d e s p i t e h a v i n g b e e n g i v e n n o t i c e o f t h e d a t e a n d

t i m e o f t h e h e a r i n g

. O n ap p e a l

, t h e e m p l o y e e f a i l e d t o f i l e a b r i e f o r i de n t i f y a n y

a p p e a l a b l e i s s u e s

. W e a f f

i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n d i s m i s s i n g t h e e m p l o y e e ’ s c a s e

w i t h p r e j u d i c e a n d c e r t i f y t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s o r d e r a s f i n a l

.

Judge Pele I. Godkin delivered the opini on of the App eals Board in which Presiding

Judge Timothy W. Conner a n d Judge David F. Hensley j o ined.

Anthony Hayes

, Memph is , Tennessee, employ ee

- appellant, pro se

Stephen P. Mil ler

, M emphis , Tennessee, for the emplo y er

- appellee, Elmington Property

Management

Memorandum Opinion 1

T h e r e h a v e b e e n m u l t i p l e i n t e r l o c u t o ry ap p e a l s i n t h i s c a s e p r i o r t o A n t h o n y

H a y e s ’ s ( “ E m p l o y e e ’ s ” ) ap p e a l o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s f i n a l c o m p e n s a t i o n o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g

h i s c l a i m w i t h p r e j u d i c e a f t e r h e f a i l e d t o a p p e a r f o r t r i a l

. While a recitation of the entire

1 “T he a p pea ls b oard may, in a n ef f ort to secure a j ust and speedy determi n ation of matters on appeal and

with the concurrence of all judges, d ec ide an appeal by an abbreviated order or by memoran dum opinion,

whichever the a ppeals b oard deems appropriate, in c as es tha t are not legally and/ o r factually novel or

complex.” Tenn. C o mp. R. & Regs. 0800

- 02

- 22

- .03( 1) (2020)

. 

### FILED

Jan 13, 2022

08:24 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

APPEALS BOARD2 history of the litigation is not necessary to address the cu rrent appeal, we have set out

p ortions of the factual and pr oc ed ur al back ground for cont ext.

Employee was wor king i n the course and sc ope of his employment with

E l m i n g t o n P r o p e r t y M a n a g e m e n t ( “ Employer ” ) in July 2018 when he fel l, allegedly

injuring hi s l eft knee, left arm, right hand, and head. His claim for wor ke rs ’

compensation benefits was accepted as com pen sable

, and he began treat in g with Dr.

David Deneka, an orthopedic specialist. In Sep tember 2018, Dr. Deneka reported t hat

Employee had reached ma ximum medical improvement for his work

- related injuries and

wo ul d retain no permanent me dical impairment as soc iated with his injuries.

Thereafter, Employee complained that he had not received m edical treatment for

neck and back symptoms he a s s e r t e d w e r e related to his fall at work. He filed a petition

seeking ad di tion al medic al benefits , a nd

, b a s e d o n h i s a s s e r t i o n he had been term inated

from his e mployment

, h e also sought temporary disability benefits. Foll owing an

expedited hearing, the trial court co ncluded Employee had offered credible testimony

regarding hi s need for additiona l medical treatment for injuri es r elated to his fal l but did

not present suf ficient evidence of his entitlement to tempora ry disab ility benefits. Th e

court ordered Employer to schedule an appointment with Dr. Deneka but denied

Employee ’s req uest for tempo rary disability benefits. Emp loye e appealed the tr ial

court’s d enial of his request for temporary disability benefits, an d we aff irmed the trial

cou rt’s order and remanded t he case

. See Hayes v. Elmington Prop. Mgmt. , No. 2018

- 08

-

1204

, 2019 TN Wrk. Co mp. App. Bd. LEXIS 49, at *1

- 2 (T enn. Workers’ Comp. A pp.

Bd. Sept. 3, 20 19).

Employee s ubsequently returned to Dr. D eneka

, w h o i n d i c a t e d h e w a s u n a b l e t o

a d d r e s s E m ployee’s n e c k a n d b a c k complaints because he does not treat t h o s e b o d y p a r t s

i n h i s m e d i c a l p r a c t i c e

. As a result, Employe r provided a panel o f physi cia ns from which

Employee selected Dr. Mark Harriman , a ph ysician at Ort hoSo uth

, w h o m E m p l o y e e f i r s t

s a w o n October 8

, 2019. The re p o r t of that visit reflects the appointment was f or a n

independent medical evaluation at the requ es t of Em p loyer’ s counsel rather than for

treatment

. It also reflects tha t Dr. Ha rriman obt ained a history from Employ ee, examined

him, and re v ie wed numerous medical records

. T h e r e p o r t noted Employee had a his tory

of “a back injury from a motor vehicle accident y ears a go ” and indicated Employee’s

s t o ry r e g a r d i n g t h e n e c k a n d b a c k c o m p l a i n t s h e r e l a t e d t o h i s e m p l o y m e n t “ had changed

considerabl y

. ” I t stated Employee “said that his init ial neck and back pr ob lems were

very minor, and he did not think anyth ing of th em unt i l they started both er ing him when

Dr. Deneka returned him back to work.” Further, D r

. H a rr i m a n ’ s repor t stated that h e

“asked [ E m p l o y e e ] again specifically when he had s tarted having neck a nd bac k

problems ” and that Employee “went on to t ell him t hat he h ad a second fall, unrelated to

his on

- the

- job injury, in Septembe r 2018 going home from a store,” and that “things got

wo rse t h en and he sought care for his neck and bac k through the [Vetera n s

Adm inistration].” Two days after Employee’s e valuation by Dr

. Harriman , the doctor3 signed an amendment to his report st ating

, “ [s] pec ifically, I can state with grea ter than

50% assura nce t h at [Employee’s] complaints of lumbar and c ervical ne ck pain are not

r elated to his on

- the

- job injury of July 27, 2018.”

On Oct o b er 25, 2019, Employee file d a Motion to Compel and for Sa nctions in

whi ch he asserted Dr. Harriman wou ld not treat h im and tol d h im the October 8 visit was

for an evalua tion only. On Novemb e r 4, 2019, t he trial c ourt granted Employee’s mo tion

, fin d i n g that Employer was obligated to provide Employee with a p anel of phys icians for

treatment of Employee’s ba ck and neck complaints

. T h e order noted that Employee had

returned to Dr. De neka, who “ d oes n ot treat neck and bac k issues ” and that Emp loy ee

was l ater evaluated by Dr. Harriman who concluded that Employee ’s “neck and back

c omplaints were less than fifty percent related to the w o rk injury.” However, the court

determined that Empl oyer “shoul d have provided [Employee] a panel from which he

cou ld sel ec t a physician to address his head and neck complaints rath er than provi ding

o nly an independent medical exam iner.” The court ordere d E mployer to provide a panel

of physicians to “evalu ate [Employ e e’s] head and neck condit ions” within ten days

, add ing th at Employer’s failure to do so would “result in referral to the Complianc e

Prog ram for investigation and possi ble assessment of penalt i es

. ”

Three days later, Employer filed a m otion requ esting the c ourt to reconsider its

No vember 4, 2019 order

. Emp loyer su pported its motion with a document electronically

signed b y Dr. Harrima n on N ovember 5, 2019

, w h i c h stated t hat “[t]he report on

[Em p lo yee] was improperly titled as an Indepen dent Medic al Evaluati o n,” a nd that “[i]n

fact, th e report should have been titl ed a s a medical opinion with option to treat should

treatmen t be required and r elated to the alleged work inci dent.”

On November 20, 2 01 9, the trial court granted Employer’s mo tion to re consider

,

c o n c l u d i n g that Employer had satisfied its ob ligat ion to pr ov ide Emplo yee “with a proper

panel under Tennessee Code Ann otated sectio n 50

- 6

- 204 and is not required to pro vide

him with another pa n el .” On December 4, 2019, Employee filed a n u n t i m e l y notice of

appea l o f the court’s November 20 order

. As a r esult, we d ismissed the appeal on

December 5, 2019

, and remanded the case

. On Dec ember 6, 201 9

, Employee filed a

“Dema nd for Reconsideration o f A ppeal,” citing the Tennessee Rules o f Ap pellate

Pr ocedure and the F ederal Rules of Appellate Procedur e, neithe r of whic h apply to us.

W e treated Employee’s filing as a motion to reconsider th e dism is sal of the appeal, which

we d enied by order filed on D ec ember 9

, 2 0 1 9

.

A scheduling order was s ub sequentl y filed in t he tr ial court on January 14, 2020,

s e t t i n g f o r t h dates f or d is covery and other procedural matters

, i n c l u d i n g a June 1 7, 2020

tria l date

. On January 22, 2 0 20 , Employe e filed numerous documen t s in the trial court

that included a “ S worn C omplain t fo r Shelb y Coun ty Government

, ” which identified nine

separat e indivi d uals, offic es

, or other entities alleged to be “ violators

, ” i ncluding the trial

judge . Several do cuments were filed as “Exhibits” t o t he Sworn C omplaint , including4 Employee’s “ Request for R ecusal of [t he T rial J udge] & Ethical Complaint

, ” which w as

addre s sed to the Ch ief Judge of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims and t o the

Tennessee Attorney General. Th e “Exhibits” also inc l ude d a “Complaint Against Judge

Und er Code of Judicia l C onduct ” t hat w as purportedly filed w ith the Tennessee Bo ar d of

Judic ial Conduct

. Among other numerous allegations in these doc uments, Employ ee

all eged that the trial judge consp ired with other membe r s o f the Bureau of Workers’

Compens ation to p revent h im from tim e ly re ceiving the court’s or ders, fa lsified a co ur t

order, a nd proceeded with a scheduling hearing over his objection.

The trial cou rt add ressed Employee’s motion for re cusal in a February 7

, 20 20

order. The court determine d Employee h ad prese nted no evi d ence of prejudice or bias

and there was n o re asonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality. In addition, the

court conc l ud ed t hat Employee had not complied w ith Tenn. Comp. R. & R egs. 080 0

- 02

-

21

- .18(3) (2019), w hich require s an affidavit to be file d with a motion to rec use se tting

out the fa ct ual and l egal grounds supporting the recusal. Based upon Employee’ s failure

to p r esent supporting evidence and his fai lure to file an appro p riate af fidavit, the trial

court denied his r ecusal motion

.

Employee appea l e d the trial co urt ’s February 7 ord er

, a s s e r t i n g that the tri al judge

cited “wrongful codes [and] laws tha t [do] not appl y to t he issues being raised to [enab le]

[Employer] to con t inue to discriminate and wrongfully deny[] c l aimant benefi ts. ”

E m p l o y e e a s s e r t e d

, a n d c o n t i n u e s t o a s s e r t i n h i s v o l u m i n o u s f i l i n g s

, t h a t d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n

o f t h e t r i a l j u d g e i s a u t o m a t i c a n d t h a t t h e o r d e r s e n t e r e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t a r e i n v a l i d

. H e

c i t e d f e d e r a l l a w a n d t h e l a w s o f o t h e r s t a t e s t o s u p p o r t h i s c o n t e n t i o n s b u t p r o v i d e d n o

T e n n e s s e e l a w t o s u p p o r t h i s c l a i m t h a t d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n o f t h e t r i a l j u d g e i s “ a u t o m a t i c

. ”

W e a f f

i r m e d t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s o r d e r d e n y i n g E m p l o y e e ’ s m o t i o n t o r e c u s e o n A p r i l 1 6

, 2 0 2 0

. S e e H a

y e s v

. E l m i n g t o n P r o p

. M g

m t

. , N o

. 201 8

- 08

- 1204

, 2 0 2 0 T N W r k

. C o m p

. A p p

. B d

. L E X I S 1 7 ( T e n n

. W o r k e r s ’ C o m p

. A p p

. B d

. A p r

. 1 6

, 2 0 2 0 )

.

O n A p r i l 1 7

, 2 0 2 0

, E m p l o y e r f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r p a r t i a l s u m m a r y judgment t h a t

s o u g h t t h e d i s m i s s a l o f E m p l o y e e ’ s c l a i m s f o r n e c k a n d b a c k i n j u r i e s t h a t a l l e g e d l y

r e s u l t e d f r o m h i s J u l y 2 0 1 8 w o r k i n j u r y

. O n A p r i l 2 9

, 2 0 2 0

, E m p l o y e e f i l e d s e v e r a l

d o c u m e n t s w i t h t h e C o u r t o f W o r k e r s ’ C o m p e n s a t i o n C l a i m s

, i n c l u d i n g a d o c u m e n t

p u r p o r t e d l y s u b m i t t e d t o t h e T e n n e s s e e S u p r e m e C o u r t s e e k i n g t o ap p e a l o u r A p r i l 1 6

, 2 0 2 0 d e c i s i o n

. O n M a y 8

, 2 0 2 0

, E m p l o y e e f i l e d a d d i t i o n a l d o c u m e n t s w i t h t h e C o u r t o f

W o r k e r s ’ C o m p e n s a t i o n C l a i m s

, i n c l u d i n g a d o c u m e n t t h a t appears t o b e i n t e n d e d

, i n

p a r t

, t o r e q u e s t a c o n t i n u a n c e o f t h e h e a r i n g o n E m p l o y e r ’ s m o t i o n f o r p a r t i a l s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t

. T h e f o l l o w i n g d a y

, E m p l o y e e f i l e d m o r e d o c u m e n t s i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t

a d d r e s s i n g h i s e f f

o r t s t o d i s q u a l i f y t h e t r i a l j u d g e

. O n M a y 1 3

, 2 0 2 0

, a d d i t i o n a l

d o c u m e n t s w e r e f i l e d w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t

, i n c l u d i n g a n o t i c e f r o m t h e T e n n e s s e e S u p r e m e

Court i n d i c a t i n g E m p l o y e e h a d f i l e d a “ T R A P 3 N o t i c e o f A p p e a l ” o n A p r i l 2 9

, 2 0 2 0

.5 O n M a y 1 9

, 2 0 2 0

, t h e C o u r t o f W o r k e r s ’ C o m p e n s a t i o n C l a i m s i s s u e d a n o r d e r

a c kn o w l e d g i n g t h a t Employee h a d f i l e d a n o t i c e o f ap p e a l o f o u r A p r i l 1 6 d e c i s i o n w i t h

t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t

. I n i t s o r d e r

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t “ [ s ] i n c e [ E m p l o y e e ] a p p e a l e d

t h e A p p e a l s B o a r d ’ s A p r i l 1 6

, 2 0 2 0 d e c i s i o n t o t h e T e n n e s s e e S u p r e m e C o u r t o n A p r i l

2 9

, 2 0 2 0

, a l l h e a r i n g s

. . . a r e c o n t i n u e d u n t i l t h e c a s e i s r e m a n d e d t o [ t h e t r i a l c o u r t ]

. ”

E m p l o y e r s ub s e q u e n t l y f i l e d a m o t i o n i n t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t r e q u e s t i n g t h a t

E m p l o y e e ’ s ap p e a l b e d i s m i s s e d

. O n J u n e 1 6

, 2 0 2 0

, t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t i s s u e d a n o r d e r

n o t i n g t h a t o u r A p r i l 1 6

, 2 0 2 0 d e c i s i o n w a s a n i n t e r l o c u t o ry r e c u s a l o r d e r a n d

, t h e r e f o r e

,

n o t r e v i e w a b l e b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t

. T h e C o u r t g r a n t e d E m p l o y e r ’ s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s

E m p l o y e e ’ s ap p e a l

. T h e f o l l o w i n g d a y

, E m p l o y e e f i l e d v o l u m i n o u s d o c u m e n t s i n t h e

C o u r t o f W o r k e r s ’ C o m p e n s a t i o n C l a i m s

, s o m e o f w h i c h w e r e a l s o f i l e d w i t h t h e

S u p r e m e C o u r t

. O n J u l y 9

, 2 0 2 0

, t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t i s s u e d a n o r d e r n o t i n g i t s e a r l i e r

d i s m i s s a l o f E m p l o y e e ’ s ap p e a l i n w h i c h t h e C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t E m p l o y e e “ s u b s e q u e n t l y

i s s u e d a ‘ d e m a n d ’ f o r t h e C o u r t t o t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e ” o f c e r t a i n m a t t e r s

, w h i c h t h e

S u p r e m e C o u r t r e f u s e d t o d o

, a d d i n g t h a t “ n o ap p e a l i s p e n d i n g w i t h t h i s C o u r t

. ” O n t h e

s a m e d a t e t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t i s s u e d i t s o r d e r

, E m p l o y e e f i l e d o v e r 2 0 0 p a g e s o f

d o c u m e n t s w i t h t h e C o u r t o f W o r k e r s ’ C o m p e n s a t i o n C l a i m s

. A d d i t i o n a l d o c u m e n t s

w e r e f i l e d t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y

, a n d

, o n J u l y 1 5

, 2 0 2 0

, E m p l o y e e f i l e d m o r e d o c u m e n t s i n

t h e t r i a l c o u r t

.

O n J u l y 2 4

, 2 0 2 0

, t h e t r i a l court i s s u e d a n a m e n d e d s c h e d u l i n g o r d e r s e t t i n g

v a r i o u s d a t e s f o r s p e c i f i c p r o c e d u r a l m a t t e r s l e a d i n g t o a n O c t o b e r 2 0 2 0 t r i a l d a t e

. A

t e l e p h o n i c h e a r i n g o n E m p l o y e r ’ s m o t i o n f o r p a r t i a l s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t w a s s e t f o r

A u g u s t 2 1

, 2 0 2 0

. 2 H o w e v e r

, d u e t o w h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e s c r i b e d a s E m p l o y e e ’ s

“ d i s r u

p t i o n s

, ” t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d a n i n

- p e r s o n h e a r i n g w o u l d b e c o n d u c t e d t o

a d d r e s s E m p l o y e r ’ s m o t i o n

. T h e m o t i o n f o r p a r t i a l s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t w a s r e s e t f o r

h e a r i n g on S e p t e m b e r 2

. O n A u g u s t 3 1

, 2 0 2 0

, E m p l o y e e f i l e d a n o t h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o

u s

, t h i s t i m e i d e n t i f y i n g

, b y d a t e

, t h r e e s e p a r a t e o r d e r s t h a t w e r e b e i n g a p p e a l e d

. W e

i s s u e d a n o r d e r o n S e p t e m b e r 1

, 2 0 2 0

, a d d r e s s i n g t h e d o c u m e n t s i d e n t i f i e d i n

E m p l o y e e ’ s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

, a n d w e d i s m i s s e d t h e ap p e a l a n d r e m a n d e d t h e c a s e

.

E m p l o y e e d i d n o t ap p e a r a t t h e S e p t e m b e r 2 h e a r i n g o n E m p l o y e r ’ s m o t i o n f o r

p a r t i a l s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t

, a n d c o u r t p e r s o n n e l w e r e u n a b l e t o r e a c h h i m b y t e l e p h o n e

. O n S e p t e m b e r 8

, 2 0 2 0

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s s u e d a n o r d e r g r a n t i n g E m p l o y e r ’ s m o t i o n f o r

p a r t i a l s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t

, c o n c l u d i n g t h a t E m p l o y e r s u c c e s s f u l l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t

E m p l o y e e ’ s e v i d e n c e w a s i n s u f f

i c i e n t t o p r o v e a n e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f h i s c l a i m

. B e c a u s e E m p l o y e e d i d n o t r e s p o n d t o E m p l o y e r ’ s m o t i o n f o r p a r t i a l s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t

a s p r o v i d e d i n R u l e 5 6

. 0 3 o f t h e T e n n e s s e e R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e a n d d i d n o t ap p e a r

2 Employee a tte mpted to app ea l the notice sett ing Employe r ’ s moti o n for partial summa ry judg ment for

he aring. H owever, th e noti ce wa s not a n or de r o f t he court but was a doc k eting not ice sig n ed by the clerk

and

, t h erefore

, was not appealable to us. See Tenn

. Cod e A n n . § 50

- 6

- 217(a )( 2 ) (201 9) ( only o rders

“ issued by a w orkers ’ compen satio n judge ” may be appealed to the A ppeals Boa rd).6 a t t h e h e a r i n g

, t h e c o u r t f o u n d E m p l o y e e h a d n o t p r e s e n t e d a n y e v i d e n c e t o r e f u t e

E m p l o y e r ’ s p r o o f a n d h a d n o t i d e n t i f i e d a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t

. E m p l o y e e

a p p e a l e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s g r a n t o f a p a r t i a l s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t d i s m i s s i n g h i s c l a i m s f o r

n e c k a n d b a c k i n j u r i e s t h a t a l l e g e d l y r e s u l t e d f r o m t h e J u l y 2 0 1 8 w o r k i n j u r y

, a s s e r t i n g

t h e t r i a l j u d g e w a s “ d i s q u a l i f i e d o n t h e r e c o r d s

, s h e v i o l a t e d co nstitutional d u e p r o c e s s

n o t i c e a n d p e r p e t r a t e d a f r a u d b y g o i n g a g a i n s t h e r o w n [ s ] c h e d u l i n g o r d e r t o r e n d e r t h i s

b o g u s d e c i s i o n t h a t w a s a l r e a d y o n ap p e a l t o t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t

. ” F u r t h e r

, E m p l o y e e ’ s

n o t i c e o f ap p e a l a s s e r t e d t h e r e w a s “ [ f ] r a u d u p o n t h e C o u r t s e n a c t e d b y t h e C o u r t

. ”

H o w e v e r

, E m p l o y e e f a i l e d t o i d e n t i f y a n y a p p e a l a b l e i s s u e

, f a i l e d t o i d e n t i f y a n y e rr o r s

a l l e g e d l y m a d e b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t

, a n d f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e a n y e x p l a n a t i o n o f h o w t h e c o u r t

e r

r e d b y c o n d u c t i n g t h e m o t i o n h e a r i n g

. M o r e o v e r

, E m p l o y e e d i d n o t a s s e r t t h a t h e d i d

n o t r e c e i v e n o t i c e o f t h e S e p t e m b e r 2 h e a r i n g o r t h a t h e w a s d e n i e d a n o p p o r tu n i t y t o

p a r t i c i p a t e in the h e a r i n g

. W e a f f

i r m e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s o r d e r g r a n t i n g p a r t i a l s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t o n N o v e m b e r 1 0

, 2 0 2 0

. S e e H a

y e s v

. E l m i n g t o n P r o p

. M g

m t

. , N o

. 2 0 1 8

- 0 8

-

1 2 0 4

, 2 0 2 0 T N W r k

. C o m p

. A p p

. B d

. L E X I S 6 6 ( T e n n

. W o r k e r s ’ C o m p

. A p p

. B d

. N o v

. 1 0

, 2 0 2 0 )

.

I n A p r i l 2 0 2 1

, E m p l o y e e f i l e d t w o m o r e n o t i c e s o f ap p e a l c o n c e rn i n g t h e t r i a l

c o u r t ’ s o r d e r s a w a r d i n g a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s a n d s e t t i n g a c o m p e n s a t i o n h e a r i n g

. W e

c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e t w o ap p e a l s a n d

, o n M a y 1 3

, 2 0 2 1

, f i l e d a n o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e

c o n s o l i d a t e d ap p e a l s f o r f a i l u r e t o p a y t h e f i l i n g f e e o r f i l e a c u rr e n t a f f

i d a v i t o f

i n d i g e n c y

. W e a l s o n o t e d o u r a g r e e m e n t w i t h E m p l o y e r ’ s p o s i t i o n t h a t E m p l o y e e h a d

n o t r a i s e d a n y r e v i e w a b l e i s s u e s o n a p p e a l

, a s t h e o n l y i s s u e r a i s e d w a s t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f

t h e t r i a l c o u r t

, w h i c h h a d b e e n p r e v i o u s l y d e c i d e d

. W e d e e m e d t h e ap p e a l f r i v o l o u s a n d

r e m a n d e d t h e c a s e f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o a w a r d a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s

.

O n J u l y 2 8

, 2 0 2 1

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n v e n e d a n i n

- p e r s o n c o m p e n s a t i o n h e a r i n g a t

w h i c h E m p l o y e r ap p e a r e d t h r o u g h c o u n s e l

. E m p l o y e e

, d e s p i t e h a v i n g b e e n g i v e n n o t i c e

o n m u l t i p l e o c c a s i o n s o f t h e d a t e o f t h e t r i a l

, d i d n o t ap p e a r o r f i l e a n y t h i n g i n s u p p o r t o f

h i s c l a i m

. A f t e r a l l o w i n g E m p l o y e e t i m e t o a p p e a r

, E m p l o y e r m o v e d f o r d i s m i s s a l o f t h e

c l a i m

, a n d t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n

, d i s m i s s i n g E m p l o y e e ’ s c l a i m w i t h p r e j u d i c e

. E m p l o y e e h a s ap p e a l e d

.

I n h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

, E m p l o y e e s t a t e d a s f o l l o w s :

J u d g e v i o l a t e d t h e r u l e t o s h o w c a u s e p r o c e e d i n g s p r e j u d i c i n g t h e

s ub s t a n t i v e r i g h t s o f t h i s p l a i n t i f f t o c h a l l e n g e t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h i s c o u r t

. J u d g e u n l a w f u l l y p e r m i t t e d s o m e t h i n g the law e x p r e s l y [ s i c ] f o r b i d s

. J u d g e

a l l o w [ e d ] f r a u d t h a t p e r m e a t e s e v e ry p a r t o f t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s [ a n d ]

u n l a w f u l l y c o n t i n u e d w i t h t h e t a i n t a n d j u d g e a c t e d i n a b s e n t [ s i c ] o f a l l

j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r u l e

.7 E m p l o y e e

, d e s p i t e b e i n g g r a n t e d m u l t i p l e e x t e n s i o n s o f t i m e

, d i d n o t f i l e a b r i e f

. H e d i d

n o t i d e n t i f y a n y ap p e a l a b l e i s s u e i n t h e notice o f ap p e a l

, c h o o s i n g t o r e i t e r a t e h i s b e l i e f

t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r u l e o n h i s c l a i m

. H o w e v e r

, h e h a s

p r o v i d e d n o p e r t i n e n t l e g a l a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t h i s p o s i t i o n

. W e h a v e a d d r e s s e d t h e

i s s u e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n o n m u l t i p l e o c c a s i o n s

.

W e a r e m i n d f u l t h a t Employ ee is self

- rep re sen ted in thi s ap peal, a s he was in the

t rial court. Parties who decid e to represen t the m sel ves are en t itled to f air and equal

treatment by the c ourts. Whit a ker v. Whirlpool Corp.

, 32 S.W .3d 2 22, 227 (Tenn. Ct.

App. 2000). However , a s e xplained by the C ou rt of Appe als

,

courts must also b e min dful of the boundary between f ai rness to a p ro s e

li tig a nt and unfairne ss to the pro se litigant’ s adver s ary. Thus, t he c ourts

must no t excus e pro se litigants from complying with the same su bstant ive

and procedu ra l rules that repr esented parties are expe cted to observe

. . . . Pro se li tigants sho u ld n o t b e p e rmitte d to shif t the burden of the litiga tion

to the courts o r to their adversa ries.

Hessme r v. Hessmer , 138 S.W.3d 901, 903

- 04 (Tenn. Ct. Ap p. 2003) (citat io ns omitted).

E m p l o y e e f a i l e d to art icul ate specific issues f o r o u r r e v i e w , fail e d to desc rib e h ow

the trial co u r t pur portedly erred in its rulin g s, and fail e d to provide any re levant l egal

authority in support of h i s position. When an ap pellant fails t o offer substa ntiv e

argume nts on appea l, an appellate c ourt’s ability to co nduct mean ingful app ell ate review

is s i gn ific ant l y ha mpered. Holme s v. E llis Watkins d/b/ a Watkins La wn Care

, No. 2 017

-

08

- 0504, 2018 TN W rk. Com p. App. Bd. LEXIS 7, at *3

- 4 (Tenn. Wo rkers’ Comp. App

. Bd. Fe b. 13, 2018 )

. M o r e o v e r

, “ w he re a party fails to develop an argume nt in support of

his o r her con t enti on or merely c onstr u cts a skelet a l argu ment, the is sue is waive d.”

Sneed v . Bd. o f P rof’l R esponsibili ty of the Sup. Ct. o f Ten n. , 301 S.W.3d 603

, 615 (T enn.

2010). It is not our ro le to search the rec ord for po ssible err ors or to formulat e a par ty’ s

leg al arguments w here t hat party ha s provi ded no mea ni ngful argume nt or author ity to

sup port it s position. Cosey v. Jarden Corp.

, No . 2017

- 01

- 00 53, 2 019 TN Wrk. Comp.

A pp. Bd. LEXIS 3, at *8 (Tenn. Workers ’ Comp. Ap p. Bd. Jan . 1 5, 2019). A s T e n n e s s e e

ap p e l l a t e c o u r t s h a v e e x p l a i n e d

, w e r e w e to search the re cor d for pos sible errors and raise

is su es and arguments f or Em ployee, we woul d be acting as h i s counsel , which the law

prohibits. S e e

, e

. g

. , Webb v . Sh errell , No. E2013

- 02 724

- CO A

- R3

- CV, 2015 T enn. A pp.

LEXIS 645, at *5 ( Ten n . Ct. App. A u g. 12, 2015).

W e affirm the d ecision of the trial court d i s m i s s i n g E m p l o y e e ’ s c l a i m w i t h

p r e j u d i c e a n d c e r t i f y t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s o r d e r a s f i n a l

. C o s t s o n ap p e a l h a v e b e e n w a i v e d

.TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSAT ION APPEALS BOARD

Anthony Hayes ) Docket No. 2018-08-1204

)

v. ) State File No. 56539-2018

)

Elmington Property Mangement , et al. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )

Compensation Claims )

Deana C. Seymour, 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 th e following recipients by the following methods of service on this the 13 th day

of January , 2022.

Name Certified

Mail First Class

Mail Via

Fax Via

Ema il Sent to:

Anthony Hayes X X 555 South 3rd Street

Memphis, TN 38101

555 B.B. King Blvd.

Memphis, TN 38101

a h. hayes 1@gmail.com

Stephen P. Miller

Melissa Doherty X smiller@mckuhn.com

mdoherty@mckuhn.com

Dean a C. Seymour

, 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