1 

 

 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD 

Randall Harper ) Docket No. 2015-06-1067 

 ) 

v. ) 

 ) State File No. 47262-2015 

USF Holland Trucking Company ) 

 ) 

 ) 

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ ) 

Compensation Claims ) 

Robert Durham, Judge )

Affirmed and Remanded – Filed December 18, 2015 

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee contends that he developed cellulitis from a 

spider or insect bite in a Michigan motel while in the course of his employment as a truck 

driver. Although the employee initially received authorized medical treatment, the 

employer ultimately denied the claim. Following a review of the record without an 

evidentiary hearing, the trial court determined that the employee had not presented 

sufficient proof of an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his 

employment to warrant the payment of benefits prior to trial. After a careful review of 

the record, we affirm. 

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

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

Randall Harper, Lebanon, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se 

Stephen Heard, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, USF Holland Trucking 

Company 

Factual and Procedural Background 

 Randall Harper (“Employee”), a fifty-two-year-old resident of Wilson County, 

Tennessee, worked for USF Holland Trucking Company (“Employer”) as an over-the-
2 

road truck driver. On June 16, 2015, Employee was staying in a motel in Michigan while 

on a route for Employer when he began to feel sick and lightheaded, and he informed his 

dispatcher that he would not be able to drive. The following morning, Employee was 

examined at a Michigan clinic called Med 1. Employee’s affidavit submitted with his 

Request for Expedited Hearing reflects that he showed the attending physician a spot on 

his leg and the doctor informed him that he “had been bitten by something.” He was 

prescribed antibiotics and released to drive home to see his primary care physician. 

 Employer instructed Employee to continue on his route. Thus, the following day, 

June 18, 2015, Employee was in Ohio when his condition worsened. He contacted 

Employer and was instructed to seek emergency medical care. Accordingly, he went to a 

hospital where he was admitted and given antibiotics. When he appeared at the 

emergency room, his chief complaint was “[t]here is something wrong with my leg. Not 

sure if I got bit by something or what.” The treating physician at the hospital, Dr. Allison 

Dollman, noted that Employee reported feeling nauseated and fatigued. Employee 

informed Dr. Dollman that he was a truck driver and, when he removed his socks on June 

17, 2015, he saw redness and swelling in his left leg. He denied having suffered any 

recent trauma or injury, though he did have a previous fracture in the same leg. 

Employee was diagnosed with cellulitis and a skin infection, and he remained in the 

hospital until June 20, 2015, at which time he was sent home for follow-up with his 

primary care physician. 

Employee returned to Tennessee and was directed by Employer to see a physician 

at Concentra on June 22, 2015 for an evaluation of his ability to drive. The attending 

physician determined that Employee was at maximum medical improvement but 

restricted him from driving until he was cleared by his primary care physician as a result 

of “functional limitations.” 

On June 26, 2015, Employee saw his primary care physician, Dr. Lisa Kellogg, 

who kept him off work and referred him to Sumner Wound Care. Employee began 

treating with Dr. John Pinkston at Sumner Wound Care on June 30, 2015. Dr. Pinkston’s 

record of that date reflects that Employee “got what was a small bite he thought on his 

left lower extremity. It became infected.” Dr. Pinkston provided wound care through the 

end of July when, on July 31, 2015, he returned Employee to work without restrictions 

and placed him at maximum medical improvement. 

Employer denied further benefits, and Employee filed a Petition for Benefit 

Determination. After performing a record review at Employee’s request, the trial court 

denied benefits based on a finding that Employee had not presented sufficient evidence 

regarding whether he suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and 

scope of his employment to prevail at a hearing on the merits. Employee appealed. 
3 

Standard of Review 

The standard we apply 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 a party “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; 

(C) Do not comply with lawful procedure; 

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

clearly an unwarranted exercise of discretion; 

(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)(3) (2015). Like other courts applying the standards 

embodied in section 50-6-217(a)(3), we will not disturb the decision of the trial court 

absent the limited circumstances identified in the statute.

 

Analysis 

 Employee has not filed a brief or position statement in support of his appeal as 

permitted by Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-22-.02(1) (2015) and Section 5.1 of the 

Appeals Board’s Practices and Procedures. Thus, the only indication we have of his 

position on appeal is a handwritten comment on the notice of appeal: “Med 1 doc’s 

where [sic] never used to show initial problem (cause).” It is unclear exactly what 

Employee meant by this comment, but we infer that he means medical records from the 

Med 1 clinic in Michigan should have been considered by the trial court. 

 The record on appeal contains an exam report from Med 1 filed on November 4, 

2015, one day before the trial court’s decision was filed on November 5, 2015.1

 The 

report was not made an exhibit and is not otherwise mentioned in the trial court’s 

decision. Indeed, the trial court’s order reflects that, other than a prescription, the court 

was not provided with any records from Med 1. Based on his statement in the notice of 

appeal, Employee apparently believes that the Med 1 record filed on November 4, 2015 

should have been considered by the trial court. Assuming for the sake of analysis 

Employee is correct, we find that the information contained in the Med 1 note merely 

 

1 The report reflects that Employee was examined on June 17, 2015 and had a “[r]ash secondary to some 

type of bite[.] Rx given for antibiotics for cellulitis [and Employee] is capable to drive back home.” 
4 

corroborates other information in the record and its consideration likely would not have 

altered the outcome. Thus, any error in this regard was harmless error. 

 Other than the vague issue raised in the notice of appeal regarding the records 

from Med 1, Employee makes no argument as to how the trial court erred in deciding the 

case. Thus, we have no way of knowing the nature of his contentions on appeal. As 

stated by the Tennessee Supreme Court, “[i]t is not the role of the courts, trial or 

appellate, to research or construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her.” Sneed v. 

Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010). 

Indeed, were we to search the record for possible errors and raise issues and arguments 

for Employee, we would essentially be acting as his counsel, something the law clearly 

prohibits us from doing. As explained by one court, appellate courts will not “dig 

through the record in an attempt to discover arguments or issues that [a pro se party] may 

have made had [that party] been represented by counsel” because doing so “would place 

[the opposing party] in a distinct and likely insurmountable and unfair disadvantage.” 

Webb v. Sherrell, No. E2013-02724-COA-R3-CV, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645, at *5 

(Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2015). Accordingly, we decline to search the record in an 

attempt to discover errors that might benefit either party. See McEarl v. City of 

Brownsville, No. W2015-00077-COA-R3-CV, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 894, at *7 (Tenn. 

Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2015). 

 The trial court determined that Employee did not present sufficient evidence to 

establish that his cellulitis resulted from an insect bite or that such a bite, if one did occur, 

arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. While it is not 

necessary for an injured worker to prove every element of his or her claim by a 

preponderance of the evidence in order to obtain relief prior to trial at an expedited 

hearing, it is necessary for the injured worker to come forward with sufficient evidence 

from which the trial court can determine the employee is likely to prevail at a hearing on 

the merits consistent with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(1). McCord v. 

Advantage Human Resourcing, No. 2014-06-0063, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. 

LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Mar. 27, 2015). The trial court 

concluded that Employee failed to meet that burden. The record does not preponderate 

against that finding. Thus, the trial court’s decision is affirmed. 

Conclusion 

 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate 

against the trial court’s decision or violate any of the standards identified in Tennessee 

Code Annotated section 50-6-217(a)(3). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision 

and remand the case for any further proceedings that may be necessary. 
5 

 
 

 

 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD 

Randall Harper ) Docket No. 2015-06-1067

) 

v. )

) State File No. 47262-2015

USF Holland Trucking Company ) 

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 18th day of December, 2015. 

Name Certified 

Mail 

First Class 

Mail 

Via 

Fax 

Fax 

Number 

Via 

Email 

Email Address 

Randy Harper X randharper2@gmail.com 

Stephen Heard X skheard@cornelius-collins.com 

Robert Durham 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

Deputy 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