TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD 

Patrick Riley 

V. 

Group Electric, et al. 

Appeal from the Court of Workers' 

Compensation Claims 

Kenneth M. Switzer, Chief Judge 

) Docket No. 2015-06-0886 

) 

) State File No. 48657-2015 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Affirmed and Remanded - Filed July 5, 2016 

In this interlocutory appeal, the employer disputes whether it should be required to 

provide medical benefits for the employee's alleged work-related injury. The employee 

reported suffering an injury to his left wrist and hand arising primarily out of and 

occurring in the course of his employment as a journeyman electrician. The employer 

denied the claim, asserting there is no evidence that a work injury actually occurred. 

Following an expedited hearing, the trial court ordered the employer to provide a panel of 

orthopedic physicians to treat the employee's injury, reserved ruling on the employee's 

request for temporary disability benefits, and denied the employee's request for 

reimbursement of past medical and mileage expenses. The employer has appealed. 

Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court's decision and remand the 

case for further proceedings as may be necessary. 

Judge David F. Hensley delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board, in which Judge 

Marshall L. Davidson, III, and Judge Timothy W. Conner joined. 

T. Ryan Malone, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellant, Group Electric

Michael Fisher, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employee-appellee, Patrick Riley 

Factual and Procedural Background 

Patrick Riley ("Employee") alleges he injured his left hand and wrist on June 8, 

2015, while working for Group Electric ("Employer") as a journeyman electrician. He 

1 
hospital

 at nine o

clock that morning. 

Employee sought care at Summit Medical Center Emergency Room for left wrist 

pain on June 9, 2015. Medical records from that date reflect that he "denies injury," that 

he complained of ''wrist injury (pain w/o injury)," that the mechanism of injury was 

"unknown," and that Employee had experienced pain and swelling in his left wrist for 

three days. The emergency room record also indicates the injury was not work-related. 

When confronted with this information at the expedited hearing, Employee 

testified he had told the attending medical care providers at the emergency room that his 

left elbow had been sore for about three days, but he denied telling them his hand and 

wrist had been injured three days prior to his visit. He further testified that he informed 

all the providers at the emergency room that he had injured his wrist at work. He was 

released from the emergency room with a diagnosis of arthritis and bursitis with possible 

gout of the left wrist. In addition to being referred for an orthopedic consult, the record 

indicates a follow-up ''with Dr. Dube has been arranged and [patient] is in agreement." 

Employee testified that the emergency room provider "recommended that [he] go to Dr. 

Dube to have fluid drawn off [his] wrist," and that because ''they wanted either $300 cash 

up front or insurance" he was not able to get the recommended treatment. 

Employer filed a Notice of Controversy on June 25, 2015, which stated there were 

"[n]o medical records received to support compensability." Employee testified, however, 

that the project manager came to the worksite "several weeks" after the alleged injury and 

instructed him to seek treatment at Concentra Medical Center. The first of Employee's 

visits to Concentra occurred on June 30, 2015, at which time the treating nurse 

practitioner noted Employee had a left wrist injury as a result of blunt trauma sustained 

while installing wiring. The record from that visit reflects the injury was ''the result of a 

direct blow. Occurred while at work." Despite its June 25, 2015 Notice of Controversy, 

Employer provided a panel of physicians from which Employee chose Dr. Rosa Stone on 

July 1, 2015. 

Employee returned to Concentra on July 3, 2015, and was seen by Dr. Joseph 

Speake, who, although agreeing with the assessment from the previous visit, observed 

that Employee became defensive when questioned about his injury. The medical record 

states that the "[ s ]tory of injury and exam don't seem to correlate very well." Employee 

acknowledged in his testimony at the expedited hearing that he became defensive with 

2 
Although Employee had an MRI on June 29, 2015, he never discussed the results of that 

test with Dr. Stone because she declined to continue treating him. Employer filed a 

Notice of Denial of Claim for Compensation on August 19, 2015, stating "[n]o 

compensable accident. Does not meet statutory definition of accident." Employee has 

not received medical care for his injury since the August 19, 2015 denial of the claim. 

In August 2015, Employee's counsel sent a letter to Dr. Speake asking him 

whether, "assuming the patient's history is accurate," Employee's left hand and wrist 

injury "arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment on or about 

June 8, 2015." Dr. Speake replied to the question by checking "yes" and drew an arrow 

to and circled the phrase "assuming the patient's history is accurate." On October 23, 

2015, Dr. Reddy signed an affidavit that expressed, among other things, her opinion "to a 

reasonable degree of medical certainty that the necessity for the treatment reflected in the 

Concentra medical records to [Employee's] left hand and wrist is causally related to and 

results from his work-related injury of June 8, 2015." 

Following Employee's filing of a petition for benefit determination and the 

parties' unsuccessful mediation, Employee requested an expedited hearing, which was 

held on April 26, 2016. The trial court subsequently issued an order requiring Employer 

to provide Employee a panel of orthopedic specialists. The trial court reserved ruling on 

Employee's request for temporary disability benefits and denied Employee's request for 

reimbursement of medical and mileage expenses, finding Employee had presented 

insufficient evidence to establish his entitlement to those benefits. 1 Employer has 

appealed the trial court's order. 

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) (2015). The trial court's 

1 Employee has not appealed the trial court's ruling reserving the issue of temporary disability benefits or 

its denial of Employee's request for reimbursement of medical and mileage expenses. Thus, we need not 

address these issues at this time. 

3 
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 

Employer identified several issues in its notice of appeal; however, in its brief on 

appeal, Employer limited the disputed issues to whether Employee "carried his burden of 

establishing causation," and to whether the trial court erred in admitting Dr. Speake's 

"opinion letter' and Dr. Reddy's affidavit into evidence.2 With respect to the latter issue, 

in its order granting medical benefits, the trial court addressed in detail Employer's 

objections to Dr. Speake's "opinion letter" and its objections to Dr. Reddy's affidavit. 

Although it admitted both documents into evidence, the trial court agreed with Employer 

that Dr. Speake's "opinion letter" was "of little or no probative value" and placed "no 

weight upon it." Similarly, the trial court admitted Dr. Reddy's affidavit into evidence, 

but "place[d] no weight upon it due to its inaccuracies." Based on the trial court's 

determination to place no weight on either exhibit, the error, if any, in admitting those 

exhibits was harmless. 3 

With respect to the first stated issue, Employer asserts two separate arguments 

concerning whether Employee "carried his burden of establishing causation." First, 

Employer argues the trial court erred in determining that Employee carried his burden of 

2 In addition to the issues specified and argued in its brief on appeal, Employer asserted in its notice of 

appeal that the trial court erred in "refusing to permit the Employer to obtain an [independent medical 

examination]" and in "finding that the Employer failed to introduce evidence rebutting the claimant's 

version of how the injury occurred." These issues are not discussed or mentioned in Employer's brief 

and, therefore, we assume Employer has abandoned them. See Appeals Board Prac. & Proc. § 5.1 ("All 

briefs pertaining to the appeal of an interlocutory order "shall include . . . a statement of the issue( s) 

presented for review on appeal" and "an argument, citing appropriate statutes, case law, or other 

authority."). 

3 We do not intend to suggest that the trial court erred in admitting either document. Rather, we simply 

decline to address the merits of these issues as they are unnecessary for a resolution of the appeal. 

4 
Human Resourcing, No. 2014-06-0063, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *9 

(Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Mar. 27, 2015). Specifically, we have determined that, 

at an expedited hearing, an employee need not prove each and every element of his or her 

claim by a preponderance of the evidence in order to obtain temporary disability benefits 

or medical benefits. Id. Instead, we have emphasized that, at the expedited hearing 

stage, an employee has the burden to come forward with sufficient evidence from which 

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

merits consistent with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(l). Id. Thus, 

while an injured worker retains the burden of proof at all stages of a workers' 

compensation claim, a trial court can grant relief at an expedited hearing if the court is 

satisfied that an employee has met the burden of showing that he or she is likely to 

prevail at a hearing on the merits. Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-239(d)(l) (2014). 

However, "[t]his lesser evidentiary standard ... does not relieve an employee of 

the burden of producing evidence of an injury by accident that arose primarily out of and 

in the course and scope of employment at an expedited hearing, but allows some relief to 

be granted if that evidence does not rise to the level of a 'preponderance of the 

evidence."' Buchanan v. Carl ex Glass Co., No. 2015-01-0012, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. 

App. Bd. LEXIS 39, at *6 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Sept. 29, 2015). It is our 

responsibility to conduct an in-depth examination of the trial court's factual findings and 

conclusions, see Wilhelm v. Krogers, 235 S.W.3d 122, 126 (Tenn. 2007), within the 

mandate set out in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 50-6-217(a)(3), as referenced 

above, and 50-6-239(c)(7) (2015). Section 50-6-239(c)(7) provides a presumption "that 

the findings and conclusions of the workers' compensation judge are correct, unless the 

preponderance of the evidence is otherwise." Furthermore, when the trial court has seen 

and heard the witnesses, considerable deference must be afforded the trial court's factual 

findings. Tryon v. Saturn Corp., 254 S.W.3d 321, 327 (Tenn. 2008). 

Thus, in the instant case, the issue before the trial court was not whether Employee 

established medical causation by a preponderance of the evidence or whether he 

presented competent medical proof establishing that he suffered a workplace injury. 

Rather, the issue for the trial court was whether Employee presented sufficient evidence 

to show that he would likely prevail at a hearing on the merits in establishing the 

occurrence of a compensable injury as prescribed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 

50-6-239( d)( 1 ). On appeal, we must assess whether the evidence presented in the trial 

5 
left wrist against the electrical disconnect box, and that he informed his supervisor on the 

morning after the injury that he had hurt himself. Employer presented no testimony from 

Employer's supervisor or any other witness that the injury did not occur at work or that it 

occurred in some manner other than as Employee testified. Rather, Employer relied on 

the medical records from Employee's visit to the emergency room to support its assertion 

that Employee was not injured at work. Employee testified regarding the information in 

those medical records, and the trial court accepted his testimony, finding him to be 

credible. While there are discrepancies between the account of the injury in the 

emergency room records and Employee's description of how the injury occurred, the trial 

court was aware of those discrepancies and chose to accredit Employee's testimony 

concerning the incident. The trial court considered the documentary evidence in 

conjunction with Employee's testimony and determined Employee was a credible witness 

and had met the "lesser evidentiary standard" required at an expedited hearing. 

Accordingly, having independently assessed where the preponderance of the evidence 

lies, we find no error in the trial court's order. 

Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the evidence does not preponderate against 

the trial court's decision at this interlocutory stage of the case. Nor does the trial court's 

decision violate any of the standards set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-

217(a)(3). The trial court's decision is affirmed and the case is remanded for any further 

proceedings that may be necessary. 

6 

David F. Hensley, Judge 1' 

Workers' Compensation Appeals Board 
 

 

 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD 

Patrick Riley ) Docket No. 2015-06-0886

 ) 

v. ) 

 ) State File No. 48657-2015

Group Electric ) 

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 5thdate day of July, 2016. 

Name Certified 

Mail 

First Class 

Mail 

Via 

Fax 

Fax 

Number 

Via 

Email 

Email Address 

Michael Fisher X mfisher@ddzlaw.com 

Nicholas J. Peterson X nicholas.peterson@petersonwhite.com 

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