1 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSAT I ON APPEALS BOARD

S o n d r a L. C l a y b r o o k s ) D ocket No

. 2 0 2 0

- 0 6

- 0 4 8 9

)

v. ) S tate File N o

. 2 3 2 4 8

- 2 0 2 0

)

I n s i g h t G l o b a l

, L L C

, e t a l

. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )

Compensat ion Claim s )

R o b e r t V

. D u r h a m

, Judge )

A f f

i r m e d and Remanded

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

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

i n g r a n t i n g s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t t o t h e T e n n e s s e e S u b s e q u e n t I n j u ry a n d V o c a t i o n a l

R e c o v e ry F u n d

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

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

a c o n t i n u a n c e

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

b a t h r o o m

. Previously

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

, w h i c h w e

a f f

i r m e d

. O n r e m a n d

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

, a m o n g o t h e r

t h i n g s

, s e t a n e x p e d i t e d h e a r i n g a n d a h e a r i n g o n a M o t i o n f o r S u m m a ry J u d g m e n t t h a t

h a d b e e n f i l e d b y t h e S u b s e q u e n t I n j u ry a n d V o c a t i o n a l R e c o v e ry F u n d t o b e h e a r d o n

t h e s a m e d a y

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

, a l t h o u g h s h e w a s r e p o r t e d l y

p r e s e n t i n t h e b u i l d i n g

. S h e r e q u e s t e d a c o n t i n u a n c e i n w r i t i n g

, w h i c h t h e c o u r t d e n i e d

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

m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e r e q u e s t f o r e x p e d i t e d h e a r i n g

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

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

. The employ ee h as ap pealed. Having carefully rev iew ed the

record, we a f f

i r m the trial court’s decision

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

, and remand

the cas e

.

Judge M e r e d i t h B

. W e a v e r delivered t h e opinion of the Appeals Board in which

P r e s i d i n g Judge T i m o t h y W

. C o n n e r and Judge Pele I. Godkin joined.

S o n d r a L

. C l a y b r o o k s

, A n t i o c h , Tennessee, e m p l o y e e

- ap p e l l a n t

, p r o s e

L. Blair Cannon, Atlan ta, Georgia, fo r the employer

- appellee, Insight Global, L LC

Rona ld W. McNutt

, Nash ville, Tennes se e, for the appellee

, Tennessee Subsequent Injury

and Vocat i o nal Recovery Fund 

### FILED

May 30, 2023

02:07 PM(CT)

TENNESSEE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

APPEALS BOARD2 F a c t u a l a n d P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y

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

, w e s u m m a r i z e d

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

Sondra Claybrooks ( “ Employee ” ) asse rts she suffered var i o us injuries as

the result of a work

- related fall on May 9, 2019

, while working for In sight

Global, LLC ( “ Employer ” ) . Sinc e that tim e

, she has received tr eatment

from various medica l prov iders for symptoms related to her right han d,

r ight wrist, right el bow, hip, and low back

. On March 3, 2 021, the trial

court issued an expedited hearing order denying Employee ’ s claim for

te mporary di s a b ility benefits and pay ment of certain past me dical expense s.

That order was not appealed.

F o l l o w i n g t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e c o u r t ’ s e x p e d i t e d h e a r i n g o r d e r i n

M a r c h 2 0 2 1

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

p h y s i c i a n s

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

, a n d

w r i t t e n d i s c o v e r y r e q u e s t s

. T h e c o u r t s e t a p p r o x i m a t e l y e i g h t s t a tu s

h e a r i n g s b e t w e e n A p r i l 2 0 2 1 a n d D e c e m b e r 2 0 2 1

. I n N o v e m b e r 2 0 2 1

, E m p l o y e e f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r t e m p o r a ry disability a n d m e d i c a l b e n e f i t s

,

w h i c h t h e c o u r t t r e a t e d a s a r e q u e s t f o r a n e x p e d i t e d h e a r i n g

. T h e c o u r t s e t

s u c h a h e a r i n g f o r J a n u a r y 2 1

, 2 0 2 2

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

E m p l o y e e ’ s r e q u e s t o n t w o o c c a s i o n s

. F o l l o w i n g t h e c o u r t ’ s g r a n t i n g o f

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

, t h e c o u r t s e t s e v e r a l m o r e

s t a tu s h e a r i n g s

. I n A p r i l 2 0 2 2

, E m p l o y e e f i l e d t w o r e q u e s t s f o r e x p e d i t e d

h e a r i n g s a n d a m o t i o n t o c o m p e l d i s c o v e ry

.

On A ug ust 5, 2022, the trial c ourt conducted a he a r ing to address

E mployee ’ s motion to compe l discovery a n d a r e q u e s t f i l e d b y E m p l o y e r

f

o r a s c h e d u l i n g h e a r i n g

. During that hearing, Employee sta t ed she wis hed

to proceed with a se cond expedite d hearing to addre ss her claim for

additional medical benefits. T h e s e c o n d e x p e d i t e d h e a r i n g was s chedu led

for Se p t e mber 2 6, 2022

. T he Court also s et a s chedul ing h e a r in g to occur

telephonically on August 2 5, 2022

.

C l a y b r o o k s v

. I n s i g

h t G l o b a l

, L L C

, N o

. 2 0 2 0

- 0 6

- 0 4 8 9

, 2 0 2 2 T N W r k

. C o m p

. A p p

. B d

. L E X I S 3 9

, a t * 1

- 3 ( T e n n

. W o r k e r s ’ C o m p

. A p p

. B d

. O c t

. 2 8

, 2 0 2 2 ) ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d )

.

F o l l o w i n g t h e A u g u s t 2 5 h e a r i n g

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

,

a n d w e a f f

i r m e d t h a t o r d e r

, c o n c l u d i n g t h e c o u r t d i d n o t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n issuing a

s c h e d u l i n g o r d e r

. U p o n r e m a n d

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

, a m o n g

o t h e r t h i n g s

, s e t a n e x p e d i t e d h e a r i n g f o r M a r c h 6

, 2 0 2 3

. I n t h e m e a n t i m e

, t h e

S u b s e q u e n t I n j u ry a n d V o c a t i o n a l R e c o v e ry F u n d ( “ S I F ” ) f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y3 j u d g m e n t

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

i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t s h e i s

p e r m a n e n t l y a n d t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d

, a m a t e r i a l f a c t n e c e s s a ry t o t r i g g e r a n y o b l i g a t i o n s o n

t h e p a r t o f S I F

. T h e m o t i o n w a s s e t t o b e h e a r d o n t h e s a m e d a t e a s t h e e x p e d i t e d

h e a r i n g

.

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

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

o f m e d i c a l r e c o r d s

, a n d f u r t h e r s t a t e d i n h e r r e s p o n s e t h a t S I F s h o u l d n o t b e dismissed a s

i t “ d i d n o t o b j e c t w h e n a s k e d i n a h e a r i n g i n 2 0 2 2

. ” E m p l o y e e f u r t h e r a v e rr e d s h e w a s

“ d e n i e d a r e c o r d s r e v i e w [ a t a h e a r i n g i n A u g u s t 2 0 2 2 ]

. . . t h e r e f o r e I a m u n a b l e t o

p r o c e e d

. ”

T h e h e a r i n g o n M a r c h 6

, 2 0 2 3 b e g a n t i m e l y

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

c o u r t r o o m

. T h e c o u r t ’ s o r d e r r e c i t e s t h e e v e n t s o f t h a t d a y

, s t a t i n g t h a t a f t e r

approximately t e n m i n u t e s

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

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

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

c o m e i n t o t h e c o u r t r o o m

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

, t h e c o u r t a s k e d t h e

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

. T h e ba i li ff r e tu rn e d w i t h a n o t e f r o m

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

. T h e b a i l i f f t h e n i n d i c a t e d

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

.

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

r e q u e s t

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

. I t

p r o c e e d e d t o h e a r S I F ’ s m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t

. E m p l o y e r m a d e a n o r a l m o t i o n

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

, a t a m i n i m u m

, t h e r e q u e s t f o r a n e x p e d i t e d h e a r i n g

,

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

. T h e 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 S I F ’ s

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

, s t a t i n g t h a t E m p l o y e e “ d i d n o t s u b m i t a n y admissible

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

t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d f r o m h e r

. . . w o r k

- r e l a t e d f a l l

. ” I n a separa te o r d e r

, t h e c o u r t d e n i e d

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

, 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 t h e r e q u e s t

f

o r e x p e d i t e d h e a r i n g

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

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

.

Standard of Review

The grant or d enial of a motion for summary judgme nt is a matter of law that we

review de novo with no pre sumption that the trial court ’s conclusions are correct. See

Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC , 477 S.W.3d 235, 2 5 0 (Tenn. 2015).

Thus , we must “mak e a f resh determination of whether the re quirem ents of Rule 56 of the

Tennessee Rules of Civil Pr ocedure have been satisfied.” Id. In reviewing a trial court’s

decision on a motion for summary judgment, we are to revie w t he evidence in a light

m ost favor able to the nonmoving party and draw all reason able inferences in favor of the

nonmoving party. Lyles v. Titlemax of Tenn., I nc. , No. W2017

- 00873

- SC

- WCM

- WC,

2018 Tenn. LEXIS 520, at *5 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel Sept. 1 4, 2018).4 Moreover, a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for continuance is

reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v.

Friendship Home Health Agency, LLC , No. M2007-02787-COA-R3-CV, 2009 Tenn.

App. LEXIS 262, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2009). An appellate court may “f ind a n

abuse of discretion only if the [trial] court ‘ap plied incorrect legal standards, reached an

illogical conclusion, based its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evid enc e,

or employ[ed] reasoning th at causes an injustice to the complaining p arty.’” Wright ex

rel. Wright v. Wright , 337 S.W.3d 166, 176 (Tenn. 2011). Furthermore, a dismissal for

failure to prosecute is also reviewed on appeal under an abuse of discretio n standard.

Fischer v

. Sverdrup Tech., Inc. , No. M2010 -01095- WC -R3-WC, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 574,

at *5 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp Panel June 7, 2011). We ar e also mindful of our obligation

to construe the workers’ compensation statutes “fairly, impartially, and in ac cordance

with basic p rinciples of statutory construction” and in a way that does not favor either the

employee or the employer. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-116 (2022).

Analysis

In her notice of appeal, Employee states, “An independent, fair and impartial

judiciary is indispensable to our system of justice and in my opinion the system has

failed.” Employee did not identify any specific issue relative to either order from the

March 6, 2023 hearing in her notice of appeal, but Employee did file two additional

statements with the notice of appeal, as well as numerous medical records. 1 In the

statement dated March 16, 2023, Employee takes issue with the court’s accounting of the

circumstances of the morning of the hearing but does not deny that she was present in the

building and did not attend the hearing. In another statement, dated March 23, 2023,

Employee states, “The SIF should identify the injuries involved in this claim. If it is

asking to be relieved of these claims but has not provided a ny m edical treatment for the

injuries then it should be fined for not providing the panel of doctors. . . . I am requesting

temporary benefits and other benefits due to me be paid.” Employee has filed no

documents supporting any claim against SIF or pointing to any proof in the record of

permanent and total disability. SIF has asked that the trial court’s order granting it

summary judgment be affirmed. F or its part, Employer asks that Employee’s appeal be

deemed frivolous.

O n the date of the hearings, the court granted a motion for summary judgment,

granted an oral motion to dismiss the request for expedited hearing, and denied an oral

motion to dismiss the claim. Employee has made no filings addressing any of these

1 On May 16, 2023, Employee filed a m otion for an extension of ti m e to file her brief on appeal. The

nece ssity of the motion is unclear, as E mployee had previously filed a brief on April 4, 2023. On M ay 30, 2023, Employee filed a second bri ef

. Regardless of Emp loyee ’ s asserted ne ed for additional time,

both the motion and th e brief were filed well a fter the deadline to file a brief ha d expi red. See Tenn.

Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-22-.04(1). As such, the motion is here by denied

, and the second brief was not

considered for purposes of this ap peal.5 i s s u e s s p e c i f i c a l l y

. A s s u c h

, we are un a b le to di s ce rn any f a c tua l o r l e g a l iss ues for

revi ew

. As st at ed by the Tennessee Supreme Court, “ [i ] t is not the ro le of the co urts, trial

or appellate, to resear ch or construct a lit igan t ’ s c a se or arguments for him or her.” Snee d

v. Bd. of P ro f’ l Res p o nsi bil it y o f the Su p

. C t

. o f Ten n

. , 30 1 S

. W.3d 603 , 615 (Ten n.

2010). W e c a n n o t c o m b t h e recor d for po ss ible erro rs and raise issue s and arguments for

E m p l o y e e

, a s w e would t h e n be ac t ing a s h e r c ounsel, which the law clea rly prohi b its.

S

e e Webb v. Sh e r rell , N o. E20 13

- 027 2 4

- COA

- R 3

- CV, 2 0 1 5 Te nn . App. LE XI S 64 5

, at

*5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2015). A s m a n d a t e d b y Tennessee Co de Annotated sectio n

50

- 6

- 239(c)(7) , we must presume the tr ial c ourt’ s factual findings are correct, u nless the

prepo n dera n ce of t he e vid e nc e i s othe r w i se.

S

u m m a r y J u d g

m e n t M o t i o n

A l t h o u g h E m p l o y e e ’ s ap p e a l l a c k s s p e c i f i c i t y i n identifying t h e i s s u e s s h e i s

s e e k i n g t o ap p e a l

, i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , we must “make a fresh

determination of w hether the requirement s of Rul e 5 6 of the T e n nes see Rules of Civil

Procedure h ave been satisfied.” Rye , 477 S.W.3d at 250. The Ten nessee Supreme Court

has explained the requirements for a movant to prevail on a motion for summary

judgment as follows :

[W ]hen the mo ving party d oes not be ar the bur d e n o f proof at trial, the

moving p arty may satisfy its burden of production either (1) b y affirmatively negating an essential element of the nonmoving party ’ s claim

or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving part y ’ s evidenc e at the

su m mary ju dgm ent stage i s in sufficient to establish the no nmoving party ’ s

claim or defense. We reiterate that a moving party seeking summary

judgment by attacking the nonmoving party ’ s ev idence must do more than

make a conclusory asser tion that s um mary judg m ent is app ropriate o n thi s

basis. Rather, Tennessee Rule 56.03 req uires the moving party to support

its motion wit h “a separa te concise s tatemen t o f material f act s as to which

the moving party contends there is no genuine issue for trial.” Tenn. R.

Civ

. P. 56.03

. “ Each fa c t is to be set forth i n a separate, numbered

paragraph and supported by a specific citation to the record.” I d

.

Rye

, 477 S.W.3d at 264

- 65. If the movant is successful in meeting that burden, t he

nonmoving party cannot rely on mere allegation s but must d emonstr ate the exist e n ce of

sp ecific facts in the record tha t could lead a rational trier of fact to find in favor of the

nonmoving party . Such evidence must be presented through affid avits or other means as

specified in Rule 56

. I d. at 265. Furt hermor e

, as re lev ant to the i ssues pr esently before

us on appeal, R ule 56.04 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure pr ovides, in part:

Subject to the moving party’s compliance with Rule 56 .03, the judgment

sought shall be rendered forth with if the pleadings, deposit ion s, answers t o6 interr ogatories, 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. The tria l court

shal l state th e legal gr ou nds upon which the court denies or grants the

motion, which shall be included in the order reflecting the court’s ruling.

In i ts motion, SIF asserted Employee had no expert medical proof that her fall at

work resulted in an impairment that rendered her permanently and totally disabled as

required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-208(a). In response, Employee filed

medical records, but the court was unable to consider them, stating it is allowed only to

“consider ‘pleadings, depositions , a nswers t o interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with the af fidavits, if any .’ M edical records , standing alone, are not included in

that list. ” See Sa deekah v. Abdelaziz d/b/a Home Furniture and Mor e , No. 2020 -06-

0218, 2021 TN W rk . Comp. Ap p. B d. LEX I S 19, at *13 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App.

Bd. June 22, 2021) (internal citation omitted). Moreover, Employee did not identify any

admissible evidence that would create a genuine issue of material fact regarding SIF’s

potential liability.

T he trial court considered the admissible evidence before it, and it noted

Employee had offered no expert proof of permanent and total disability that could

support a claim against SIF. In short, we find no error with the trial court’s decision in

this regard.

Motion to Continue and Dismissal of Request for Expedited Hearing

To the extent the denial of Employee’s motion to continue is being appealed, we

find no abuse of discretion. The hearing had been set for several months and, despite

Employee being present in the building, she failed to appear before the trial court. The

trial court further noted that there had also been numerous delays in the case. As we have

explained previously, a trial court has “ discretion in controlling the pace of litig a tion an d

i n effici e ntly disposing of its cases. ” Smith v. The Newman Grp., LL C , No. 2015 -08-

0075 , 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 30, at *9 (Tenn . Wor kers’ Comp. App. Bd.

Sept. 21, 2015 ). Considering the totality of the circumstances, we find no error in the

court’s denial of the motion for continuance.

Employer also made an oral motion to dismiss Employee’s request for an

expedited hearing for failure to prosecute under Rule 41.02 of the Tennessee Rules of

Civil Procedure, as well as a motion to dismiss the claim in its entirety. Although the

order from the court does not outline specifically the basis of dismissing the request for

expedited hearing, Employee has not shown, and we cannot find, that the court abused its

discretion in doing so. The record contains numerous instances of delays caused by

Employee’s actions as discussed above, including Employee’s failure to appear on the

date of her previously scheduled expedited hearing. Employee submitted no proof of7 illness to the trial court that could have supported her motion for continuance, and she

declined to present her motion in person despite being present in the building.

Accordingly, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the request

for hearing because the prosecuting party failed to appear.

Frivolous Appeal

Employer asks that we find this appeal frivolous, as there is “no coherent

explanation as to the basis of her appeal . . . .” As we have note d previously, a frivolous

appeal is one that is dev o id of merit or bro u gh t solely for delay. Yarbrough v. Protective

Ser vs. Co., Inc. , No. 2015 -08- 0574, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 3, at *11

(Tenn. Workers ’ Comp. App. Bd. Jan. 2 5, 2016) ; see al so Bu rnette v. WestR ock , No.

2016-01- 0670, 2017 T N Wrk. C omp. App. Bd. LEXI S 66, at *15 (Tenn. Workers’

Comp. App. Bd. Oct. 31, 2017) (“Stated another way, a frivolous appeal is o ne

that . . . had no reasonable chance of s ucceeding.” (inter nal citation and quot ation marks

omitted)). Litigants “ should not be re q uired to endure th e hass le and expense of baseless

litigation. Nor should appellate courts be required to waste time and resources on appeals

that have no realistic ch ance of success

. ” Yarbrough , 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd.

LEXIS 3, at *10

- 11 ( in ternal citations omitted). W e a gree that Employe e presented no

reviewable issues or legal argument on appeal and that this appeal had no realistic chance

of success. Thus, we conclude Emplo yee ’s appeal is devoi d of merit and is frivolous

. However, we ex ercise o ur discretion not t o award attorneys’ fees and costs on this

occasion.

Conclusion

Fo r the for e going reasons, w e af firm the decision of th e trial court an d r emand t he

case. Costs on appeal have been waived.TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSAT ION APPEALS BOARD

Sondra L. Claybrooks ) Docket No. 2020-06-0489

)

v. ) State File No. 23248-2020

)

Insight Global, LLC, et al. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )

Compensation Claims )

Robert V. Durham, Judge )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Ap peals Board’s decision in the referenced

case was sent to th e following recipients by the following methods of service on this the 30th day

of May , 2023.

Name Certifie

d Mail First Class

Mail Via

Fax Via

Email Sen t to:

Sondra L. Claybrooks X slclay2228@gm ail.com

L. Blair Cannon X blair.cannon @thehar tford.com

Ron ald McNutt, Attorney, Sub sequent

Injury and Vocational Recovery Fund X ronald

. mcnutt@tn .gov

Robert V. Du rham

, 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