1

AT NASHVILLE 

VINCENT TAYLOR, 

 Employee, 

) 

) 

Docket No. 2019-06-0165 

v. ) State File No. 78226-2014 

AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTION, 

 Employer. 

) 

) Judge Joshua Davis Baker 

) 

COMPENSATION ORDER 

The Court held a compensation hearing on August 20, 2020, to consider Mr. 

partial and temporary disability benefits for an alleged 

work-related back injury at American Tire Distributors (ATD). He also asks the Court to 

order ATD to repay his private insurance for the cost of his medical treatment. ATD denies

it owes Mr. Taylor anything because he failed to prove medical causation of his back injury. 

The Court holds that Mr. Taylor proved medical causation of his injury, and ATD must

pay permanent-partial and temporary-total disability benefits. The Court further holds

ATD must reimburse Mr. Ta

Claim History 

Mr. Taylor worked in the warehouse for ATD; his primary duty was sorting tires

for shipment. He earned an average of $889.63 per week. 

Mr. Taylor worked the overnight shift on September 25 to 26, 2014, then went home 

to sleep. Upon awakening, his back hurt so badly he had trouble getting out of bed. 

Fortunately, he was off for the weekend, but he went to the emergency room on Monday, 

September 29, when the pain continued and worsened. 

diagnosed sciatica and discharged him that same day. 

FILED

Nov 02, 2020

10:28 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS
2

 On September 30, Mr. Taylor filled out an accident report at work listing September 

25 as the date of injury. He could not give a time, as he did not notice his injury until

September 26. He maintained, however, that it must have happened while he was sorting 

tires. 

Mr. Taylor saw panel physician, Dr. William Dutton, on October 3. The records

from that visit listed his date of injury as September 25 and noted his statement that he 

section documents

Mr. Taylor follow-up with his primary care doctor. Dr. Dutton 

released Mr. Taylor from his care, and he received no further care 

Mr. Taylor went back to work but returned to the emergency room on October 7. 

He complained that he felt recurring pain upon returning to work and, after work, awoke 

with pain radiating down his left side that caused him to experience difficulty walking and 

lifting weight. The emergency room again diagnosed sciatica and excused him from work 

until October 13. 

Mr. Taylor never went back to work after October 7 but received short- and longterm disability payments up until the summer of 2015. Mr. Taylor paid for the disability 

policies. 

 On October 14, Mr. Taylor went to see his primary care doctor, Shuaib Mohyuddin, 

and used his private insurance to pay for treatment. Dr. Mohyuddin diagnosed lumbar 

radiculopathy, excused Mr. Taylor from work until October 20, and scheduled a return visit

in three weeks. When he returned, Mr. Taylor reported improvement in his pain but also a 

new symptom, his leg to his feet. 

Because of his progressing symptoms, Mr. Taylor went to see Dr. Sanat Dixit in 

November, and again paid with his health insurance. Dr. Dixit took Mr. Taylor off work 

and recommended an MRI. The MRI results showed Mr. Taylor had an extruded disc and 

radiculopathy as well as a foot-drop. He performed a microdiscectomy later that month. 

He eventually released Mr. Taylor on March 30, 2015, to return to work with a restriction 

of lifting no more than fifty pounds, but did not release him to full duty work until October 

of 2015. 

treating doctor who testified condition 

injury and surgery to work because Mr. Taylor never described a specific work event that

injured him. 

 Dr. David West conducted a medical records review but never examined Mr. Taylor. 

Based on his review, Dr. West believed that Mr. Taylor injured his back at work resulting 
3

in disc herniation that led to his surgery. He assigned a seven-percent impairment rating. 

On cross-examination, however, Dr. West agreed that he could not determine any 

inconsistencies among the injury histories Mr. Taylor provided because Dr. West never 

examined him. 

Dr. Robert Landsberg examined Mr. Taylor and completed a medical evaluation. 

He feel that his problem all started with the work injury, lifting heavy tires at

surgery. He further stated it would have been reasonable for Mr. Taylor to be off work 

or on restricted duties from September 26, 2014, to March 2015. He additionally said he 

would have assigned no permanent restrictions on Mr. Taylor other than to be careful in 

his activities. 

Dr. Landsberg also stated that all the care Mr. Taylor received for this back injury 

was reasonable and necessary. Dr. Landsberg reviewed the bills Mr. Taylor paid through 

his private insurance, and he stated the total charges of $64,705 were normal and 

customary. He assigned an eight-percent impairment rating. 

The parties stipulated to several important issues. They agreed to: a weekly 

compensation rate of $593.09; Mr. Taylor reached maximum medical improvement on 

October 12, 2015; and he was not entitled to any permanent-partial disability benefits

beyond the initial award. 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

Mr. Taylor requested permanent partial and temporary disability benefits as well as

continuing medical care for his back and reimbursement to his private insurance for 

payments the insurer made. To prevail, he must initially prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that his back injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his

employment. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2019); Panzarella v. Amazon.com, 

Inc., No. E2017-01135-SC-R3-WC, 

May 16, 2018). 

 The Te

. . . arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, that causes

injury must

be caused 

in the course and scope of employment only if it has been shown by a preponderance 

of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing 

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2019). 

September 25 sorting tires. The following day, he awoke with severe back pain and had 
4

trouble getting out of bed. He timely reported the injury, and although he could not

pinpoint the exact moment his injury occurred, he identified a specific set of events at work 

that immediately preceded and produced his back pain. Further, he provided the factual

testimony concerning his work on the day of the accident and his condition the next day. 

physical condition is competent testimony that is not to be disregarded. Limberakis

v. Pro-Tech Security, Inc., 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 53, at *6 (Sept. 12, 

2017). The Court finds his testimony credible. 

Mr. Taylor also proved the medical cause of his injury by a preponderance of the 

evidence. Proving medical causation requires an expert

that the employment contributed mor injury. 

A reasonable degree of medical certainty means that it is

more likely than not all causes, as opposed to 

speculation or possibility. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(B)-(D). 

Here, three doctors gave depositions: Dr. Dutton, Dr. West, and Dr. Landsberg. Dr. 

Dutton, the authorized treating physician saw Mr. Taylor only once and released him to 

return to work, finding West

testified that Mr. Taylor herniated a disc in his back while working, which led to his

surgery. 

foot drop, leading to the surgery. 

When a Court receives competing testimony from physicians, it must determine 

which testimony to accept based on a variety of factors, including the qualifications of the 

physicians, the circumstances of their examination, the information available to each 

physician, and the importance of that information in the view of other experts. See Orman 

v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 803 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tenn. 1991). Of the three, the Court

opinion. 

he based it on the 

erroneous conclusion that Mr. Taylor never cited a specific work event, despite the office 

note that

although he causally related Mr. 

exam discounts

his opinion, especially because he took no medical history. 

reasonable. He 

recognized that Mr. Taylor identified lifting tires as the cause of his injury when he first

visited Dr. Dutton. He also gave a thorough explanation of how the injury progressed over 
5

time and resulted in surgery. In short, his opinion best explains

testimony about his accident and deteriorating condition. 

Regarding permanent partial disability benefits, Dr. Landsberg assigned an eightpercent impairment rating. The Court accredits his impairment opinion and orders ATD 

to pay Mr. Taylor $21,351.24 (36 weeks x $593.09 per week) in permanent partial

disability benefits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-207(3)(A). Although Mr. Taylor did not

reach maximum medical improvement until October 12, 2015, the parties stipulated he is

not entitled to any additional benefits. 

AT

this Court rejects. ATD argued that because Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-

by the treating 

defense, the Court turns to the rules of statutory construction. 

re Adoption of

A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793, 808 (Tenn. 2007) (citing State ex rel. Rector v. Wilkes, 436 

S.W.2d 425, 427 (Tenn. 1968)). To that end, unless the language is ambiguous, the Court

within the context of the entire statute without any forced or subtle construction 

citing State v. Flemming, 19 S.W.3d 

195, 197 (Tenn. 2000). The Court must also construe statutes in the context of the other 

sections of the statute. First Tenn. State Bank, N.A. v. Dougherty, 963 S.W.2d 507, 509 

(Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). 

In considering these requirements, the Court holds the statute stands as a directive 

requiring treating physicians to provide an impairment rating in all cases, even if the 

opinion is that the employee has no permanent impairment. This conclusion is evident

when subsection 50-6-204(k)(1) is read in the context of the entire section. For example, 

subsection 50-6-204(d)(5) allows parties to apply to the Medical Impairment Rating 

Registry for an opinion when there are differing opinions on permanent impairment. This

subsection assumes a party may seek an impairment rating from a non-treating physician. 

Additionally, accepting ATD

on medical causation grounds based on an opinion from a treating physician from

any case. This is not a result the legislature 

intended. 

Turning to temporary total disability benefits, Mr. Taylor mustshow (1) he istotally 

disabled and unable to work due to a compensable injury, (2) the work injury and inability 

to work are causally connected, and (3) the duration of the disability to recover benefits. 
6

Jewell v. Cobble Constr. and Arcus Restoration, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS

1, at *21 (Jan. 12, 2015). The Court holds Mr. Taylor carried his burden. 

Mr. Taylor hurt himself while lifting tires on the overnight shift ending on the 

morning of September 26, 2014. He reported the injury on September 29, but then returned 

to work until visiting the emergency room on October 7. Afterward, the medical records

show several doctors took him off work, with Dr. Landsberg stating his absence from work 

until March 31 reasonable under the circumstances. 

This is a period of twenty-five weeks. The Court credits his testimony and orders ATD to 

pay Mr. Taylor temporary total disability benefits of $15,417.61 (25 weeks x $593.09 per 

week). The Court must deny Mr. Taylor any permanent partial disability benefits after 

March 31, as Dr. Landsberg said he would not have imposed any activity restrictions on 

Mr. Taylor after that date except to be careful in his activities.

1

Although Mr. Taylor received short- and long-term disability payments over his

period of temporary disability, Mr. Taylor said he paid for the policies. Thus, ATD cannot

deduct these payments. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-114(b) (providing for an offset only 

Finally, Mr. Taylor seeks reimbursement to his private insurance for care paid for 

of these services. 

such 

medical and surgical treatment . . . made reasonably necessary by accident as defined in 

at § 50-6-

reputable physicians . . . from which the injured employee shall select one (1) 

to be the treating ph at 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(i). If an employer fails to provide a 

panel, it risks having to pay for all reasonable and necessary medical expenses incurred by 

an employee for treatment with an unauthorized physician, and also risks having to provide 

continuing care with the unauthorized physician. See Young v. Young Elec., 2016 TN Wrk. 

Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *16-17 (May 25, 2016). 

Here, ATD provided Mr. Taylor a panel, but the selected physician dismissed his

complaints as not work-related after only one visit. Mr. Taylor continued to suffer, so he 

Mr. Taylor received from private providers was all reasonable and necessary. 

He further reviewed the bills, totaling $64,705, and stated the charges were normal and 

1

 Although Dr. Mohyuddin placed temporary restrictions on Mr. Taylor according to the medical records, 

the doctor did not testify, so the Court did not consider those restrictions in awarding temporary-total

disability benefits. 
7

customary for the treatment. Based on this evidence, the Court holds Mr. Taylor had no 

choice but to seek unauthorized care. Accordingly, his decision to seek unauthorized care 

was reasonable, and the Court orders that

the cost of this care. 

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. ATD shall provide Mr. Taylor a panel of three physicians for continuing treatment

of his back if Mr. Taylor requests additional treatment. 

2. ATD shall pay Mr. Taylor $21,351.24 in permanent partial disability benefits. 

3. ATD shall pay Mr. Taylor $15,417.62 in accrued temporary disability benefits. 

4. medical

treatment. 

5. Attorney Luvell Glanton shall receive a fee of twenty percent of the permanent

partial disability award, or $4,270.25, and twenty percent of the temporary disability 

award, or $3,083.52. 

6. Costs of $150.00 are assessed against ATD under Tennessee Compilation Rules and 

Regulations 0800-02-21-.07 (August 2019), for which execution might issue as

necessary. 

7. ATD shall file a completed Form SD-2 within five days after this order becomes

final. 

8. Unless appealed, the order shall become final thirty days after issuance.

ENTERED November 2, 2020.

_____________________________________ 

 Joshua Davis Baker, Judge 
8

APPENDIX

Exhibits:

1. Deposition of Dr. Robert Landsberg 

2. Deposition of Dr. William Dutton dated December 18, 2017 

3. Deposition of Bryan Garrison 

4. ATD Employee Incident Report 

5. Concentra Patient Information Form

6. Petition for Benefit Determination filed May 20, 2015 

7. Responses 

8.

9. ATD Payroll Record 

10.Deposition of Dr. William Dutton dated October 27, 2017 

11.Deposition of Dr. David West and attached exhibits

Technical Record: 

1. Petition for Benefit Determination filed March 19, 2018 

2. Dispute Certification Notice filed November 15, 2018 

3. Dispute Certification Notice filed May 29, 2020 

4. Request for Scheduling Hearing 

5. Scheduling Order entered 

6.

7.

Costs 

8.

and Costs 

9. Notice of Intent to Use Business Records 

10.

11.Order Granting Motion to Strike entered 

12.

13. to Exclude Causation Testimony of Dr. William J. 

Dutton 

14.

15.

16. Exclude Testimony of 

Dr. William Dutton 
9

17.

of Intent to Use Business Records 

18.Order Granting Motion for Relief from Scheduling Hearing Order and 

Continuance 

19.

20.

21.Order Granting Motion to Continue 

22.Motion to Quash the Subpoenas of Anna Mueller or for Protective Order 

23.Agreed Protective Order Limiting the Deposition of Anna Mueller 

24.Order Denying Motion for Penalty 

25.Order Setting Mediation entered 

26.Amended Scheduling Hearing Order 

27.

List and Pre-Hearing Statement filed 

28.

29.

30.Order Denying Motion to Strike 

 
10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on November 2, 2020. 

Name Certified 

Mail

Via 

Fax 

Via 

Email

Service sent to:

Luvell Glanton, 

Attorney 

 X glantonfirm@gmail.com 

John Lewis, Attorney X john@johnlewisattorney.com 

______________________________________ 

 PENNY SHRUM, COURT CLERK

 wc.courtclerk@tn.gov