1

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS 

AT NASHVILLE 

MARCOS SOSA MARTINEZ, ) Docket No. 2021-06-0071

Employee, )

v. ) State File No. 80044-2021

HALLORAN INVESTMENT 

PROPERTIES, LLC,

Employer.

)

)

)

Judge Joshua Davis Baker

___________________________________________________________________

COMPENSATION ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

____________________________________________________________________

On April 18, 2023, the Court heard Halloran’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Halloran argued affirmative evidence that negated essential elements of Mr. Sosa 

Martinez’s claim and showed there was no genuine issue for trial. Mr. Sosa Martinez did 

not produce specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. So, the Court grants summary 

judgment to Halloran and dismisses this claim with prejudice. 

Claim History

Mr. Sosa Martinez alleged in his petition that he was Halloran’s employee. He wrote

that lifting heavy rocks at a Halloran jobsite in August 2020 caused him back pain that 

developed into paralysis, requiring emergency medical treatment three months later. 

According to the Rule 72 declaration of Michael Halloran, who owns Halloran 

Investment Properties, LLC, Mr. Sosa Martinez worked as its independent contractor on 

masonry projects. 

Mr. Martinez underwent emergency surgery. His diagnosis and medical records 

suggested to Dr. Heather Cappello that his condition resulted from a bacterial infection, 

not masonry work. She signed an affidavit that explained the bacterial infection’s effect on 

his spine as follows:

FILED

Apr 27, 2023

02:26 PM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS
2

Untreated bacterial infections for prolonged periods spread throughout the 

body, as this infection did in Mr. Martinez. Pain is typically located in the 

infected disc space where Mr. Martinez had evidence of multiple abscesses 

from advanced imaging. The pain from the infected spine progressively 

worsens to weakness in the lower extremities resulting in eventual paralysis 

when left untreated due to the nature of the spread throughout the 

bloodstream. 

According to Dr. Cappello’s affidavit, “Mr. Martinez did not develop a spinal 

infection from heavy lifting or a work-related injury. The disease process developed from 

an untreated bacterial infection that progressively worsened due to the nature of the disease 

process.” Dr. Cappello concluded that his “conditions were not more than 50% caused by 

an alleged work accident, or work related duties, considering all other causes.” 

The Court denied expedited relief, finding Mr. Sosa Martinez was unlikely to 

prevail at a final hearing on compensability. It also entered a partial scheduling order, 

directing the parties to complete lay witness depositions by a certain deadline.

Halloran filed this motion for summary judgment with a Statement of Undisputed 

Material Facts, which cited to Dr. Cappello’s affidavit and to Mr. Halloran’s declaration.

Concerning his status as an independent contractor rather than an employee, the statement 

of material facts said that Mr. Sosa Martinez worked as a mason that Halloran hired on a 

project-by-project basis. Further, he supplied his own tools except for any large equipment. 

He also hired helpers to assist him and could work for others if he wished. 

Halloran sent Mr. Sosa Martinez, who is self-represented, a copy of Rule 56.

However, Mr. Sosa Martinez did not oppose the motion with a written response. 

At the hearing, Mr. Sosa Martinez said he did not respond to the motion because he 

did not have an opinion from another doctor and experienced significant personal stress 

concerning family outside the United States. 

Law and Analysis

To oppose summary judgment, a party must file a response “not later than five days 

before the hearing[.]” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.03 (2022). Halloran properly sent a copy of Rule 

56 to Mr. Sosa Martinez. Yet Mr. Sosa Martinez did not file a response. Therefore, 

Halloran’s motion for summary judgment is unopposed. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-

02-21-.18(1)(d) (February, 2022).

Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there 
3

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment 

as a matter of law.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04. 

Halloran must do one of two things to prevail: (1) submit affirmative evidence that 

negates an essential element of Mr. Sosa Martinez’s claim, or (2) demonstrate that his 

evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of his claim. Tenn. Code Ann. § 

20-16-101 (2022); see also Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 

235, 264 (Tenn. 2015). 

Here, Halloran submitted affirmative evidence negating essential elements of Mr. 

Sosa Martinez’s claim, including medical causation and his employment relationship. 

Specifically, Dr. Cappello’s affidavit affirms that Mr. Sosa Martinez cannot prove 

medical causation, which requires an expert’s testimony to a “reasonable degree of medical 

certainty” that the employment “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . 

. . need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(C). 

According to her affidavit, he needed medical treatment for an infection unrelated to work. 

Further, Mr. Halloran’s declaration shows that Mr. Sosa Martinez did not have the

requisite employment relationship for a compensable claim. To recover workers’

compensation benefits, a claimant must be an employee and not an independent contractor.

Peters v. Mitchell d/b/a A Clean Connection, LLC, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 

7, at *7 (Feb. 8, 2016).

Halloran met its burden with affirmative evidence, so Mr. Sosa Martinez “may not 

rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleading.” Rye, at 265. Rather, he must 

produce affidavits, pleadings, depositions, responses to interrogatories, or admissions that 

set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.06. 

If not, “summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered” against him. Id.

Here, Mr. Sosa Martinez did not oppose Halloran’s motion with specific facts to 

show a genuine issue exists for trial. Rather, his allegations are his claim’s only 

underpinning, and allegations alone cannot survive summary judgment. Two material 

facts, that Mr. Sosa Martinez was an independent contractor and that he did not suffer a 

work-related injury, are undisputed and leave no genuine issue for trial. Thus, Halloran is 

entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. 

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Mr. Sosa Martinez’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits is dismissed with 

prejudice to its refiling.

2. Unless appealed, this order shall become final thirty days after issuance.
4

3. The filing fee of $150.00 is taxed to Halloran Investment Properties, LLC under 

Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.07, to be paid to the 

Court Clerk and for which execution might issue as necessary.

4. Halloran Investment Properties, LLC shall prepare and file the SD-2 with the Court 

Clerk within ten days of this order becoming final.

ENTERED April 27, 2023. 

___________________________________

Joshua Davis Baker, Judge

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on April 27, 2023.

Name Certified 

Mail

Via

Fax

Via 

Email

Service sent to:

Marcos Sosa Martinez,

Employee

X Mmartinez5708894@gmail.com

John Lewis,

Employer’s Attorney

X john@johnlewisattorney.com

____________________________________________

Penny Shrum, Court Clerk

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

Wc.courtclerk@tn.gov
LB-1099 rev. 01/20 Page 1 of 2 RDA 11082 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation

www.tn.gov/workforce/injuries-at-work/ 

wc.courtclerk@tn.gov | 1-800-332-2667 

Docket No.: ________________________

State File No.: ______________________ 

Date of Injury: _____________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

Employee

v.

___________________________________________________________________________ 

Employer

Notice is given that ____________________________________________________________________ 

[List name(s) of all appealing party(ies). Use separate sheet if necessary.]

appeals the following order(s) of the Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims to the 

Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (check one or more applicable boxes and include the date filestamped on the first page of the order(s) being appealed):

□ Expedited Hearing Order filed on _______________ □ Motion Order filed on ___________________

□ Compensation Order filed on__________________ □ Other Order filed on_____________________

issued by Judge _________________________________________________________________________. 

Statement of the Issues on Appeal 

Provide a short and plain statement of the issues on appeal or basis for relief on appeal: 

________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

Parties

Appellant(s) (Requesting Party): _________________________________________ ☐Employer ☐Employee 

Address: ________________________________________________________ Phone: ___________________ 

Email: __________________________________________________________ 

Attorney’s Name: ______________________________________________ BPR#: _______________________ 

Attorney’s Email: ______________________________________________ Phone: _______________________ 

Attorney’s Address: _________________________________________________________________________ 

* Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellant *
LB-1099 rev. 01/20 Page 2 of 2 RDA 11082 

Employee Name: _______________________________________ Docket No.: _____________________ Date of Inj.: _______________ 

Appellee(s) (Opposing Party): ___________________________________________ ☐Employer ☐Employee 

Appellee’s Address: ______________________________________________ Phone: ____________________ 

Email: _________________________________________________________ 

Attorney’s Name: _____________________________________________ BPR#: ________________________ 

Attorney’s Email: _____________________________________________ Phone: _______________________ 

Attorney’s Address: _________________________________________________________________________ 

* Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellee *

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, _____________________________________________________________, certify that I have forwarded a 

true and exact copy of this Notice of Appeal by First Class mail, postage prepaid, or in any manner as described 

in Tennessee Compilation Rules & Regulations, Chapter 0800-02-21, to all parties and/or their attorneys in this 

case on this the __________ day of ___________________________________, 20 ____. 

 ______________________________________________ 

[Signature of appellant or attorney for appellant]