1

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT MEMPHIS

FREDERICK JOHNSON, ) Docket No. 2018-08-1394

Employee, )

v. )

ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, ) State File No. 63023-2018

Employer, )

and )

FARMINGTON CASUALTY CO., ) Judge Deana C. Seymour

 Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER 

The Court convened an Expedited Hearing on August 30, 2019, to decide Mr. 

Johnson’s entitlement to medical and temporary disability benefits. Enterprise denied 

benefits, alleging that Mr. Johnson’s injuries resulted from prohibited “horseplay” that 

constituted willful misconduct. For the reasons below, the Court holds that Mr. Johnson 

is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits and grants his requested benefits.1

History of Claim

Mr. Johnson testified he worked for Enterprise as a service technician. On August 

20, 2018, he noticed a dollar coin on the floor of the wash bay. As his co-worker, Brikena 

Dimce, backed a van from the bay, Mr. Johnson yelled, “Don’t run over the dollar.” She 

stopped and opened her door. Mr. Johnson gestured toward the coin and told Ms. Dimce 

that he intended to get the dollar, but then he told her to go on. Before she closed her 

door, Ms. Dimce mistakenly “hit the gas” and struck Mr. Johnson. 

Upon learning of the accident, Manager DeAnthony Smith went to the wash bay. 

He discovered Mr. Johnson somewhat unresponsive, bleeding, and lying four to five feet 

from the front driver’s side of the van. He called 9-1-1, and an ambulance transported Mr. 

Johnson to Regional One Hospital.

 1 The parties stipulated to a weekly compensation rate of $155.04.

FILED

Sep 25, 2019

07:15 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS
2

According to hospital records, Mr. Johnson suffered scalp and facial lacerations,

cervical fractures, and disk extrusions at two levels. He received medication and physical 

therapy and was discharged on August 29.2

Mr. Johnson followed up twice with Dr. Fredrick Pharr. Dr. Pharr took him off 

work from September 20 to October 20, but Mr. Johnson did not resume work until 

November 6. He worked until March 16, 2019, when he decided he could no longer do 

his job. As a result, Enterprise terminated him for job abandonment.

Enterprise denied Mr. Johnson’s claim, contending that his injuries resulted from 

horseplay involving a prank he played on Ms. Dimce as she backed from the wash bay. 

He gestured and yelled, “You hit Darla” (their co-worker). According to Enterprise, Mr. 

Johnson’s actions panicked Ms. Dimce, and she mistakenly pushed the gas, striking Mr. 

Johnson. 

Mr. Smith testified that he told Mr. Johnson of Enterprise’s horseplay rule during 

orientation. He described Mr. Johnson as a good employee who did his best and liked to 

make others laugh. Mr. Smith did not witness the accident. He knew of no other incident

where Mr. Johnson engaged in horseplay, and he did not discipline Mr. Johnson after the 

accident. Following the accident, Mr. Smith searched for but could not find the coin Mr. 

Johnson described. He admitted someone could have picked up the coin without his 

knowledge.

Ms. Dimce testified she began working for Enterprise a month before the accident.

She stated that Albanian was her native language, and she had English language barriers. 

Ms. Dimce testified Mr. Johnson was kind, helpful, and never pranked her before the 

accident. He helped Ms. Dimce with her English and her driving skills. 

Ms. Dimce testified the accident occurred as she began backing from the wash 

bay. She understood Mr. Johnson to yell “You hit Darla” and saw him walking toward 

the front of the van, pointing behind it. Ms. Dimce panicked, opened her driver’s door to 

look behind the van, and accidently hit the gas instead of the brake. The van’s front 

driver’s side door hit Mr. Johnson and knocked him into a pole.

At first, Ms. Dimce thought Mr. Johnson was “playing with her” as Darla worked

inside the shop. However, when she visited Mr. Johnson in the hospital, he told her he 

was trying to tell her about a dollar coin lying on the ground behind the van. Ms. Dimce 

was unsure whether Mr. Johnson said “dollar” or “Darla.” She said she had no reason not 

 2 The emergency physician referred Mr. Johnson to a rehabilitation facility, but Enterprise denied

treatment. 
3

to believe Mr. Johnson said “dollar.” She also agreed the incident was an accident and

nobody meant for it to happen. 

Enterprise introduced a statement from Matt Sumler, who was installing a 

windshield for Enterprise when the accident occurred. Mr. Sumler reported he saw Ms. 

Dimce back from the wash bay and Mr. Johnson yell from the front of her van. 

According to Mr. Sumler, Ms. Dimce struck Mr. Johnson when he jokingly ran behind 

the van and bent over to act like Ms. Dimce hit something. 

Mr. Johnson responded with testimony that he did not “prank” Ms. Dimce, and he

understood the importance of prohibiting horseplay for employee safety. He testified Ms. 

Dimce misunderstood him and accidently pressed the gas resulting in the accident and his 

injuries.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Mr. Johnson must prove the essential elements of his claim. Scott v. Integrity 

Staffing Solutions, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *6 (Aug. 18, 2015). He 

must present sufficient evidence that he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. 

McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at 

*9 (Mar. 27, 2015).

Enterprise does not dispute that the incident occurred and Mr. Johnson was injured 

but argues the injury was the result of non-compensable “horseplay.” The Tennessee 

Supreme Court characterized horseplay resulting in injury as willful misconduct. Roberts 

v. Kroger Co., 832 S.W.2d 538, 541 (Tenn. 1992). Under Tennessee Code Annotated 

section 50-6-110(a)(1) (2018), no compensation shall be allowed for an injury due to an 

employee’s “willful misconduct.”

In Mitchell v. Fayetteville Pub. Utils., 368 S.W.3d 442, 453 (Tenn. 2012), the high 

court outlined the following four-point analysis of willful misconduct: (1) the employee’s 

actual, as opposed to constructive notice of the rule; (2) the employee’s understanding of 

the danger involved in violating the rule; (3) the employer’s bona fide enforcement of the 

rule; and (4) the employee’s lack of a valid excuse for violating the rule. 

Applying these factors, the Court finds Mr. Johnson had notice that Enterprise 

prohibited horseplay, demonstrated by his own admission and the testimony of his 

supervisor. Mr. Johnson also said he understood the danger involved in horseplay at 

Enterprise. Although Mr. Smith said he disciplined employees engaged in horseplay, the 

Court finds he spoke in generalities and later confirmed he never disciplined Mr. Johnson

for horseplay before or after the incident. Further, common sense dictates that a horseplay 

defense does not apply if an employer failed to prove horseplay occurred.
4

The Court recognizes that credibility is an integral issue in this case and finds Mr. 

Johnson, Ms. Dimce, and Mr. Smith credible witnesses. They testified calmly and 

confidently and were reasonable and forthcoming. See Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 

694-95 (Tenn. 2014). Mr. Sumler’s statement, in contrast, is suspect, as it portrayed a

completely different account from the other witnesses and placed Mr. Johnson behind the 

van. None of the other witnesses placed him there. Ms. Dimce and Mr. Johnson described 

impact by the driver’s door. Although Mr. Smith did not observe the impact, he located 

Mr. Johnson on the bay floor four or five feet to the side of the driver’s door. The Court 

finds Mr. Sumler’s statement lacks credibility and gives it no weight. 

Based on all the evidence, the Court cannot conclude that Mr. Johnson’s injuries 

resulted from horseplay. The evidence established his injuries resulted from Ms. Dimce’s 

improper driving and a miscommunication: he said “dollar,” and she thought he said 

“Darla.” Enterprise failed to prove Mr. Johnson engaged in willful misconduct. Thus, the 

Court finds Mr. Johnson is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. 

Mr. Johnson established entitlement to the medical expenses he incurred for 

treatment of his injuries. After his supervisor called 9-1-1, an ambulance transported him 

to the hospital, where he remained until August 29. According to his medical records, Mr. 

Johnson sustained substantial lacerations to his face and head, fractured vertebrae, and 

disk extrusions. The medical records also contain two follow-up visits, September 20 and 

October 4, for his work injuries.3 The medical expenses Mr. Johnson incurred for his 

injuries are justified, reasonable and necessary. The Court finds Mr. Johnson is likely to 

prevail at a hearing on the merits regarding entitlement to payment of his medical bills.

To receive temporary disability benefits, Mr. Johnson must show (1) he became 

disabled from work due to a compensable injury; (2) a causal connection exists between 

the injury and his inability to work; and (3) the specific duration of his disability. Jones v. 

Crencor, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 48, at *7 (Dec. 11, 2015).

Here, the medical proof established Mr. Johnson received inpatient care from 

August 20 to August 29 and was excused from work from September 20 to October 20 

for a total of five weeks and five days. Therefore, the Court holds Mr. Johnson proved 

entitlement to $885.95 in temporary total disability at this time. (Five weeks x $155.04 = 

$775.20, and five days x $22.15 per day = $110.75 ).

4

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

 3 The Court accepted the medical bills submitted by Mr. Johnson for identification only. However, the 

Court finds the dates of service correspond with his hospital stay and first follow-up visit. Thus, the Court 

allows the bills marked exhibit 3 into evidence for the limited purpose of reconciling the dates of service 

to the medical expenses Mr. Johnson claims.

4 Mr. Johnson did not prove work status from August 30 until September 19.
5

1. Enterprise shall pay for reasonable and necessary medical care Mr. Johnson 

incurred for inpatient treatment from August 20 to August 29, 2018, and two 

follow-up visits on September 20 and October 4 under Tennessee Code Annotated 

section 50-6-204.

2. Enterprise shall provide Mr. Johnson a panel of physicians from which he may 

select an authorized treating physician for reasonable and necessary treatment of

his work-related injuries under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-

204(a)(1)(A).

3. Enterprise shall pay Mr. Johnson temporary total disability benefits of $885.95 

under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(1)(A).

3. This case is set for a Status Hearing on November 4, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. Central

Time. You must call 615-532-9550 or toll-free at 866-943-0014 to participate 

in the Hearing. Failure to call might result in a determination of the issues 

without your participation.

4. Unless interlocutory appeal of the Expedited Hearing Order is filed, compliance 

with this Order must occur no later than seven business days from the date of entry 

of this Order as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(3). 

The Insurer or Self-Insured Employer must submit confirmation of compliance 

with this Order to the Bureau by email to WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov no 

later than the seventh business day after entry of this Order. Failure to submit the 

necessary confirmation within the period of compliance might result in a penalty 

assessment for non-compliance. For questions regarding compliance, please 

contact the Workers’ Compensation Compliance Unit via email at 

WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov.

ENTERED September 25, 2019.

 ___________________________________

JUDGE DEANA C. SEYMOUR

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
6

Appendix

Exhibits:

1. Regional One medical records

2. Regional One record dated September 20, 2018

3. Regional One bills (Collective) (ID only/limited purpose)

4. Drawing of car and scene from Mr. Johnson’s deposition

5. Drawing of car and scene from Ms. Dimce’s deposition 

6. Declaration of Matt Sumler

7. Mr. Johnson’s responses to Enterprise’s Request for Admissions

Technical Record:

 1. Petition for Benefit Determination

 2. Dispute Certification Notice

 3. Request for Expedited Hearing with Mr. Johnson’s Affidavit 

 4. Agreed Order Continuing Expedited Hearing Date

 6. Employer’s Tenn. Comp. R & Regs. 0800-02-21-.14(b) Disclosures

 7. Employer’s Expedited Hearing Brief

 8. Employee’s Pre-Expedited Hearing Submissions

 9. Order on Enterprise Rent-A-Car’s Motion to Compel Discovery

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify a copy of this Order was sent to the parties as indicated on September 25, 

2019. 

Name Certified 

Mail

Via

Fax

Via 

Email

Service sent to:

Emily Bragg, 

Employee’s attorney

X ebragg@forthepeople.com

Chris Rowe,

Employer’s attorney

X cgrowe@mijs.com

______________________________________

 Penny Shrum, Court Clerk

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

wc.CourtClerk@tn.gov