TENNESSEE DIVISION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD 

Employee: Yolanda Howard ) Docket No. 2015-01-0005 

) 

Employer: Unum ) State File No. 84357-2014 

In accordance with Rule 0800-02-22-.02(6), please find attached the Workers’ 

Compensation Appeals Board’s Opinion Affirming and Remanding Interlocutory Order 

of Court of Workers' Compensation Claims in the referenced case. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Opinion Affirming and Remanding 

Interlocutory Order of Court of Workers' Compensation Claims was sent to the following 

recipients by the following methods of service on this the 8th day of April, 2015. 

Name Certified 

Mail 

First Class 

Mail 

Via 

Fax 

Fax 

Number 

Via 

Email 

Email Address 

Yolanda Howard X yhoward127@yahoo.com

Gerry Siciliano X gms@lutheranderson.com

Thomas Wyatt, 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

 

Jeanette Baird

Clerk, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board

220 French Landing Dr., Ste. 1-B 

Nashville, TN 37243 

Telephone: 615-253-0064 

Electronic Mail: Jeanette.Baird@tn.gov 
FILED 

April 8, 2015 

TENNESSEE 

\YORI~RS' C'Ol\IPENSATION 

TENNESSEE DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD 

Employee: Yolanda Howard 

Employer: Unum 

Appeal from the Court of Workers' 

Compensation Claims 

Thomas Wyatt, Judge 

) Docket No. 2015-01-0005 

) 

) State File No. 84357-2014 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Affirmed and Remanded - Filed April 8, 2015 

APPEALS BOARD 

Time: 1: 13 Pl\I 

OPINION AFFIRMING AND REMANDING INTERLOCUTORY 

ORDER OF COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS 

This interlocutory appeal involves an employee who alleges that she developed bilateral 

carpal tunnel syndrome due to performing repetitive activities while working for the 

employer. The employer denied the claim on several grounds, including lack of evidence 

that the employee's condition arose primarily out of her employment. Following an 

expedited hearing, the trial court denied employee's claim for temporary disability 

benefits, concluding that the employee had not come forward with sufficient evidence 

that employee's condition arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her 

employment. The employee timely filed a notice of appeal. Having carefully reviewed 

the record, which did not include a transcript of the expedited hearing or a statement of 

the evidence, we affirm the decision of the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims. 

Judge Timothy W. Conner delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board, in which Judge 

Marshall L. Davidson, III, and Judge David F. Hensley, joined. 

Yolanda Howard, Chattanooga, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se 

Gerry Siciliano, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, Unum 
Factual and Procedural Background 

The employee, Yolanda Howard ("Employee"), is a 46 year old resident of 

Hamilton County, Tennessee. She worked for Unum ("Employer") as a customer service 

representative and claims specialist. 1 Her job required repetitive use of her arms, hands, 

and fingers while using a computer and telephone. Beginning in 2012, Employee noticed 

pain and numbness in her upper extremities. In an effort to alleviate her symptoms, 

Employer replaced her keyboard. Employee also took anti-inflammatory medications 

and wore wrist splints. In June 2014, Employee resigned her position. The trial court 

concluded that her resignation was due to "multiple factors, including workplace stress 

caused by alleged unfair management practices." On October 21, 2014, Employee gave 

notice that she intended to pursue a workers' compensation claim for bilateral carpal 

tunnel syndrome. On December 1, 2014, Dr. Marshall Jemison, a hand specialist 

practicing in Chattanooga, diagnosed "probable bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and 

cubital tunnel syndrome." In his report, Dr. Jemison commented that "she has had 

diabetes for several years and is on Metformin." Employer filed its Notice of Denial on 

December 30, 2014. An EMG/nerve conduction study confirmed a diagnosis of carpal 

tunnel syndrome and Dr. Jemison performed a left carpal tunnel release on January 27, 

2015. 

On January 14, 2015, Employee filed a Petition for Benefit Determination. 

Following the issuance of a Dispute Certification Notice on February 9, 2015, Employee 

filed a Request for Expedited Hearing. Following the hearing on March 6, 2015, the trial 

court entered its Expedited Hearing Order denying Employee's request for benefits on 

March 12, 2015. Employee filed her Notice of Appeal on March 18, 2015. The case was 

received by the Clerk of the Appeals Board on April 2, 2015. 

Standard of Review 

The standard of review applicable in reviewing a trial court's decision is 

statutorily mandated and limited in scope. Specifically, "[t]here shall be a 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) 

(2014 ). The trial court's decision must be upheld unless "the rights of the party seeking 

review have been prejudiced because findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions of a 

workers' compensation judge: 

(A) Violate constitutional or statutory provisions; 

(B) Exceed the statutory authority of the workers' compensation judge; 

1 No transcript of the expedited hearing or statement of the evidence has been filed. We have gleaned the factual 

background from the pleadings, the exhibits introduced at the expedited hearing, and the trial court's order entered 

following the expedited hearing. 

2 
(C) Do not comply with lawful procedure; 

(D) Are arbitrary, capricious, characterized by abuse of discretion, or 

clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or 

(E) Are not supported by evidence that is both substantial and material in the 

light of the entire record. 

Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-217(a)(2) (2014). 

In applying the standard set forth in subparagraph (E) above, courts have 

construed "substantial and material" evidence to mean "such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable mind might accept to support a rational conclusion and such as to furnish a 

reasonably sound basis for the action under consideration." Clay County Manor, Inc. v. 

State of Tennessee, 849 S.W.2d 755, 759 (Tenn. 1993) (quoting Southern Railway Co. v. 

State Bd. of Equalization, 682 S.W.2d 196, 199 (Tenn. 1984)). Like other courts 

applying the standard embodied in section 50-6-217(a)(2), we will not disturb the 

decision of the trial court absent the limited circumstances identified in the statute. 

Analysis 

An appellant has the burden to ensure that an adequate record is prepared on 

appeal. As the Supreme Court's Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel 

explained in Vulcan Materials Co. v. Watson, No. M2003-00975-WC-R3-CV, 2004 

Tenn. LEXIS 451 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. Panel May 19, 2004): 

The appellant has the duty of preparing a record that conveys a fair, 

accurate and complete account of the proceedings in the trial court with 

respect to the issues on appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b). We are provided 

with only the trial court's findings of facts and conclusions of law rendered 

from the bench and the exhibits introduced at the trial of this cause, which 

include three doctor's depositions. We do not have a record of the lay 

testimony presented to the trial court. In the absence of an adequate record 

on appeal, this Court must presume the trial court's rulings were supported 

by sufficient evidence. 

Id. at *6-7 (citing Manufacturers Consol. Service v. Rodell, 42 S.W.3d 846, 865 (Tenn. 

Ct. App. 2000)). We have noted in prior opinions that including a transcript or statement 

of the evidence as part of the record on appeal promotes meaningful appellate review 

and, in turn, public confidence in the integrity and fairness of the process. See, e.g., 

Payne v. D and D Electric, No. 2014-01-0023 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. Dec. 

17, 2014). "Full appellate consideration of a trial court's determination ... is part of the 

process designed to achieve an accurate and just decision .... " In re Adoption of J.D. W., 

No. M2000-00151-COA-R3-CV, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App. 

Aug. 16, 2000). "Without a transcript or a statement of the evidence, the appellate court 

3 
cannot know what evidence was presented to the trial court, and there is no means by 

which we can evaluate the appellant's assertion that the evidence did not support the trial 

court's decision." Britt v. Chambers, No. W2006-00061-COA-R3-CV, 2007 Tenn. App. 

LEXIS 38, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2007). Because no transcript or statement of 

the evidence was provided by the appellant in this case, we must presume that the trial 

court's findings were supported by sufficient evidence. 

Moreover, to be entitled to benefits at an expedited hearing, an employee must 

come forward with sufficient evidence from which the trial court reasonably can 

determine that the employee is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. See Tenn. 

Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(l) (2014). As discussed by the trial court, the Tennessee 

Workers' Compensation Law, as amended on July 1, 2014, requires an employee to 

establish that his or her condition arose "primarily out of and in the course and scope of 

employment." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13) (2014). In order to satisfy this standard, 

the employee must show "by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment 

contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes." 

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(B) (2014). In the present case, the only evidence 

regarding medical causation was offered by Employer, who provided an opinion from the 

treating physician, Dr. Jemison, that Employee's condition was "not primarily related" to 

her work activities (emphasis added). In the absence of any evidence from Employee 

addressing medical causation, we find that the record supports the trial court's 

determination on this issue. 

Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the evidence does not preponderate against 

the trial court's finding that Employee did not come forward with sufficient evidence to 

show that her medical condition arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of 

employment. Accordingly, the trial court's decision is affinned and the case is remanded 

for any further proceedings that may be necessary. 

Tim thy . Conner, Judge 

s' Compensation Appeals Board 

4