1

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT MURFREESBORO

DEBORAH BRATCHER, ) Docket No. 2019-05-0373

Employee, )

v. )

)

YATES SERVICES, LLC, ) State File No. 21633-2018

Employer, )

And )

)

TRAVELERS INDEM. CO., ) Judge Dale Tipps

Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING REQUESTED BENEFITS

This case came before the Court on August 22, 2019, for an Expedited Hearing on

whether Ms. Bratcher is entitled to additional medical or temporary disability benefits. 

To receive these benefits, Ms. Bratcher must be likely to establish at a hearing on the 

merits that her time off work and her need for additional medical treatment arose

primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. For the reasons below, 

the Court holds Ms. Bratcher failed to meet this burden and is not entitled to the 

requested benefits at this time.

History of Claim

Ms. Bratcher suffered a work injury on March 19, 2018. Yates accepted the injury 

and provided treatment for her neck and shoulder pain. Her first authorized provider, 

Premise Health, ordered shoulder and neck MRIs. It then treated Ms. Bratcher with antiinflammatory medication and physical therapy before referring her to an orthopedist.

Yates provided an orthopedic panel, and Ms. Bratcher selected Dr. Timothy 

Steinagle. He first saw her on June 6 for complaints of right-shoulder pain. He noted the 

cervical MRI was normal, but the shoulder MRI showed mild tendinosis of the rotator 

cuff with no evidence of a tear. Dr. Steinagle saw no evidence of nerve root 

impingement and diagnosed rotator cuff strain. He administered an injection, referred 

FILED

Aug 27, 2019

10:30 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS
2

Ms. Bratcher to physical therapy, and assigned light-duty restrictions.

Ms. Bratcher returned to Dr. Steinagle on July 19 and reported no improvement. 

He noted full range of motion and good strength and concluded, “Mild rotator cuff 

tendinosis seen on MRI with no evidence of underlying tear or surgical pathology. Has 

completed an adequate amount of treatment for work related RC tendonitis. Continued 

subjection complaint of shoulder pain and dysfunction not substantiated by objective 

physical findings.” He also noted preexisting arthritis of the AC joint.1 Dr. Steinagle 

concluded that he had nothing further to offer Ms. Bratcher and released her. He added, 

“She may follow up with her personal physician for evaluation and treatment of 

preexisting AC arthritis.”

Ms. Bratcher sought treatment on her own from other providers and introduced 

several partial medical records at the hearing.2 One of these is a February 5, 2019 returnto-work form signed by Dr. Jonathan Head, which noted, “Patient’s shoulder and chest 

pain is probably work related.” In Ms. Bratcher’s FMLA forms, Dr. Head also checked

“yes” to the question, “Is the disability work related?” She further introduced a March 11 

MRI report from Nashville General Hospital that states, “Question tiny avulsion of the 

supraspinatus tendon footprint and small labral tear.”

Ms. Bratcher testified that she returned to work after Dr. Steinagle released her but

eventually requested FMLA leave because of her continuing neck and shoulder problems. 

Yates terminated her employment after the leave expired. She requested that the Court 

order Yates to provide additional medical treatment and temporary disability benefits.

Yates contended that it accepted Ms. Bratcher’s claim and provided all benefits to 

which she is entitled. It argued she failed to prove she is likely to establish that her need 

for any additional treatment arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her

employment. For these reasons, it asked the Court to deny her request.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Ms. Bratcher must provide sufficient evidence from which this Court might 

determine she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-

239(d)(1) (2018); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. 

Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015). To prove a compensable injury, Ms. Bratcher

must show that her alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of 

her employment. To do so, she must show, “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty 

that it contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need 

 

1 Dr. Steinagle also assessed noncompliance because he understood that Ms. Bratcher failed to attend her 

therapy sessions. Ms. Bratcher denied this. She testified convincingly that she requested the rescheduling 

of the fourth week of therapy and eventually completed it.

2 The Court summarizes only the relevant medical records.
3

for medical treatment, considering all causes.” “Shown to a reasonable degree of medical 

certainty” means that, in the opinion of the treating physician, it is more likely than not 

considering all causes as opposed to speculation or possibility. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 

50-6-102(14).

Yates does not dispute that an injury occurred. The question, therefore, is whether 

Ms. Bratcher appears likely to prove at a hearing on the merits that her work injury 

primarily caused her current symptoms or need for treatment. The Court cannot find at 

this time that she is likely to meet this burden.

The Court accepted several medical records into evidence. Yates relied on Dr. 

Steinagle’s conclusions that: 1) Ms. Bratcher has completed an adequate amount of 

treatment for her work-related tendonitis; 2) the objective physical findings do not 

support her continued complaints; and 3) she suffers from preexisting AC joint arthritis. 

Because Ms. Bratcher selected Dr. Steinagle from a panel of physicians, his opinion is 

presumed correct. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E). Thus, the question is 

whether Ms. Bratcher submitted sufficient information to overcome this presumption.

To make this determination, the Court turns to the records of Dr. Head, the only 

other physician to comment on the cause of Ms. Bratcher’s condition. He stated that her

shoulder and chest pain “is probably work related,” and he indicated on the FMLA form 

that her disability was work-related. However, whether an injury is related to an 

employee’s work is no longer the legal standard for determining compensability. Rather, 

as noted above, the current statute requires proof that the injury arose primarily out of 

and in the course and scope of employment. Thus, the fact that Dr. Head felt Ms. 

Bratcher’s condition was related to her work is insufficient, without more, to overcome 

the presumption of Dr. Steinagle’s opinion.

Ms. Bratcher appeared sincere in her belief that her work activities caused her 

current condition. However, the Court must abide by the causation requirements of the 

Workers’ Compensation Law and cannot infer from the mere existence of her condition 

that it arose primarily out of her employment. Because Ms. Bratcher failed to present 

any evidence that her current need for treatment arose primarily out of her work injury, 

the Court cannot find at this time that she appears likely to prevail on a claim for

additional medical benefits.

Similarly, the Court must deny Ms. Bratcher’s request for temporary disability 

benefits at this time because she has not yet demonstrated that the medical restrictions 

that led to her termination arose primarily out of the work injury.
4

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows: 

1. Ms. Bratcher’s claims against Yates and its workers’ compensation carrier for the 

requested medical and temporary disability benefits are denied at this time. 

2. This matter is set for a Scheduling Hearing on October 17, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. You 

must call toll-free at 855-874-0473 to participate. Failure to call might result in a 

determination of the issues without your further participation. All conferences are 

set using Central Time. 

ENTERED August 27, 2019. 

_____________________________________ 

 Judge Dale Tipps 

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims 

APPENDIX 

Exhibits: 

1. Affidavit of Deborah Bratcher 

2. Records from Nashville General Hospital 

3. Work note from Dr. Jonathan Head 

4. Records from Dr. Timothy Steinagle 

5. Wage Statement 

6. Records from FNP Deborah Smith 

7. Appointment reminders from Dr. Philip Elizondo 

8. March 19, 2018 Form C-42 

9. June 1, 2019 Form C-42

10. FMLA correspondence between Deborah Bratcher and Laurel Black 

11. Disability Accommodation Request Form

12. Medical Release Forms

13. FMLA forms 

Technical record:

1. Petition for Benefit Determination 

2. Dispute Certification Notice

3. Request for Expedited Hearing 

4. Employer’s Position Statement
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the Expedited Hearing Order was sent as indicated on

August 27, 2019.

Name Certified 

Mail

Email Service sent to:

Deborah Bratcher X Genuinelyhonest803@gmail.com

John R. Rucker III, Esq.

Employer Attorney

X john@johnlewisattorney.com

_____________________________________

Penny Shrum, Clerk of Court

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov