1

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT NASHVILLE 

Miguel Garcia Carrillo, ) Docket No. 2021-06-1167

Claimant, )

v.

Carlos Sanchez Hurtado, a/k/a Carlos 

Ramirez Rios, Gilberto Cavazos, 

Kosinski Homes, Kosinski Properties 

LLC, Hartford Casualty Insurance 

Company, and Hartford Underwriters 

Insurance Company,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

State File No. 800727-2022

 800658-2021

 800657-2021

Judge Kenneth M. Switzer

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER FOR MEDICAL BENEFITS

Miguel Garcia Carrillo broke his arm and leg while working at a construction site. 

The parties agree on that fact, but they disagree regarding which of them, if any, is 

responsible for workers’ compensation benefits. The respondents raise a variety of 

defenses.

The Court held an evidentiary hearing on May 18, 2023, and finds that Carlos 

Hurtado Sanchez a/k/a Carlos Ramirez Rios, who is uninsured, directly employed Mr. 

Carrillo, and the statutory employer is Gilberto Cavazos. Therefore, Mr. Cavazos and/or 

his carrier, Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, must provide a panel of 

orthopedists.

However, on this record, Mr. Carrillo has not met his burden to show he is entitled 

to payment of past medical bills or past temporary disability benefits, so those requests are 

denied at this time.

Claim History

Mr. Carrillo testified that Mr. Rios hired him. On August 28, 2021, Mr. Carrillo

was injured when he fell from a roof while framing a garage. Mr. Rios was present when 

FILED

May 25, 2023

12:04 PM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS
2

the accident occurred and had been directing the work. Mr. Carrillo considered Mr. Rios 

his “boss/supervisor,” and he was in charge of the project.

Mr. Carrillo went to the emergency room after the accident and remained 

hospitalized. He did not work for some time after his discharge. However, he did not offer

records documenting the treatment he received or whether a physician restricted him from 

working. Mr. Carrillo incurred medical bills for the treatment, which apparently remain 

unpaid.

Mr. Carrillo testified that Mr. Rios paid him a daily rate of $150 and supervised his 

work. Mr. Rios testified that he paid Mr. Carrillo $13 per hour, and they worked nine- to 

ten-hour days. Mr. Rios determined the length of the workdays and when they took breaks. 

Mr. Rios provided some of the tools, but Mr. Carrillo brought some of his own tools as 

well.

Mr. Rios testified that he was hired by Gilberto Cavazos, who paid him by the job 

and did not supervise his work. Mr. Rios confirmed that he hired Mr. Carrillo without 

consulting Mr. Cavazos. Mr. Rios said that on the day of the accident, he told Mr. Carrillo 

to stay on the ground, but he ignored that instruction. After the accident, he gave Mr. 

Carrillo an unspecified amount of money to help pay rent.

Mr. Rios does not have insurance; a Bureau investigator confirmed that fact. Along 

these lines, Mr. Rios testified that he warns all persons that he hires to be careful because 

he is uninsured.

Mr. Cavazos is insured by Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company. Although 

Mr. Cavazos attended the hearing, he did not testify.

Mr. Carrillo sought payment of past medical bills and temporary disability benefits 

for the time he was unable to work.1

The respondents, except for Mr. Rios, argued that they did not employ Mr. Carrillo. 

They questioned whether Mr. Carrillo disregarded instructions that would have prevented 

the accident. They further challenged the employment relationships between Mr. Carrillo 

and Mr. Rios, and Mr. Rios and Mr. Cavazos. They additionally argued that Mr. Carrillo 

1 The Court excluded from evidence the medical bills because they did not meet the requirements of 

Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.16(2)(b) (February, 2022) (medical bills are 

self-authenticating and admissible when signed by a physician or accompanied by a form signed by a 

medical provider or records custodian certifying that the bills are true and accurate); and see Eaves v. 

Ametek, Inc., 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 53, at *8-9 (Sept. 14, 2018) (medical bills must be 

accompanied by proof that they are reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the work accident to be 

admitted into evidence).
3

did not comply with procedural rules or satisfy his burden of proof by introducing 

admissible medical records or bills.2

From a procedural standpoint, Mr. Carrillo first named Mr. Rios and Kosinski 

Properties as his employer in his petition for benefit determination. He filed two amended 

petitions later identifying Mr. Rios as the “direct employer,” “Kosinski Homes” and 

“Kosinski Properties” as a “builder,” along with their carrier. He also named “Gilberto 

Cavazos” as a “subcontractor.”

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

The Workers’ Compensation Law states that “the employer” must furnish medical 

treatment, free of charge to “the employee,” made reasonably necessary by a work 

accident. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(a)(1)(A) (2022). The central issue in this case is,

who is the “employer” that must furnish treatment?

An “employee” is a person in the service of an employer under a contract of hire 

either written or implied. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(10)(A). In Black v. Dance, 643 

S.W.2d 654, 657 (Tenn. 1982), the Tennessee Supreme Court explained that “the word 

‘hire’ imports remuneration or compensation.” Thus, “[i]n order for one to be an employee 

of another for purposes of our Worker’s Compensation Law, it is, therefore, required that 

there be an express or implied agreement for the alleged employer to remunerate the alleged 

employee for his services[.]” Id.

Here, Mr. Carrillo testified that he and Mr. Rios agreed that Mr. Carrillo would work 

on the home construction project. They disagreed on his rate of pay ̶$150 per day versus 

$13 per hour for a nine to ten-hour workday—but the small difference in the amount is 

irrelevant to the larger point that these two parties agreed that Mr. Rios paid Mr. Carrillo 

to work on the project. The Court finds Mr. Carrillo was Mr. Rios’s employee. Mr. Rios 

was the immediate employer and is uninsured.

Mr. Carrillo made his claim against Mr. Rios “in the first instance” as “the 

immediate employer.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-113(c). However, a “principal contractor, 

intermediate contractor or subcontractor shall be liable for compensation to any employee 

injured while in the employ of any of the subcontractors of the principal contractor, 

intermediate contractor or subcontractor[.]” Id. at -113(a).

Case law explains that section 50-6-113 “prevents employers [from] avoiding 

workers’ compensation liability simply by contracting out work.” Osbourne v. Starrun, 

2 Mr. Cavazos’s attorney moved for involuntary dismissal after Mr. Carrillo testified, asserting that he did 

not satisfy his burden. The Court denied the motion because this case is at the interlocutory stage, and this 

is a nonfinal order, so involuntary dismissal is inappropriate. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 239(d)(3).
4

Inc., No. E2018-00282-SC-R3-WC, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 656, at *9 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. 

Panel Oct. 19, 2018). The section’s purpose is “to protect employees of irresponsible and 

uninsured subcontractors by imposing ultimate liability on the presumably responsible 

principal contractor, who has it within his power, in choosing subcontractors, to pass upon 

their responsibility and insist upon appropriate compensation for their workers.” Blackwell 

v. Comanche Constr., Inc., No. W2012-01309-COA-R9-CV, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 251, 

at *13-14 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).

The section “operates by passing along to upstream contractors the responsibility 

either to require their immediate contractors or subcontractors to provide workers’

compensation coverage to their own employees or to be responsible for the coverage 

themselves.” Id. at *14. Further, section -113 “is said to deem such a principal contractor 

to be the injured employee’s ‘statutory employer.’” Id.

Here, Mr. Rios testified that Mr. Cavazos hired him as an independent contractor. 

However, this label and the nature of their working relationship are irrelevant for purposes 

of section -113. Looking at the plain language of the statute, section -113 does not require 

employment relationships among all respondents but instead envisions the hiring of 

“subcontractors.” If the Court were to accept Mr. Cavazos’s contention that hiring Mr. 

Rios as either a “subcontractor” or “independent contractor” would end the ability to pass 

liability to upstream contractors, it would subvert the very purpose of section -113. 

Workers would be left unprotected from uninsured contractors.

Mr. Cavazos cited no case law to support his interpretation of section -113. Rather, 

longstanding law supports the rule that a principal contractor, intermediate contractor, or 

subcontractor cannot evade liability through the use of independent contractors. See

Stratton v. United Inter-Mountain Tel. Co., 695 S.W.2d 947, 953 (Tenn. 1985) (A contract 

between an immediate employer and a principal contractor that characterizes the immediate 

employer as the primary employer’s independent contractor did not insulate the primary 

contractor from liability). Therefore, the Court finds that Mr. Cavazos is the statutory 

employer.

As to the remaining defenses, the respondents argued that Mr. Carrillo did not file 

a witness or exhibit list. He was not required to file an exhibit list. See Tenn. Comp. R. & 

Regs. 0800-02-21.15(1) (February, 2022). Moreover, his hearing request listed potential 

witnesses in compliance with the rule.

As for the contention that Mr. Carrillo did not follow Mr. Rios’s instructions, “[o]ne 

of the fundamental purposes of workers’ compensation law is to compensate employees 

for work-related injuries irrespective of fault.” Lang v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 170 S.W.3d 

564, 572 (Tenn. 2005) (Emphasis added). Further, “[A]n employee’s negligent conduct is 

not a defense to a claim for workers’ compensation benefits and to succeed on this defense, 

the employer must establish that the employee willfully violated a known safety rule.” 
5

Oglesby v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 34, at *13 

(July 19, 2018). Here, no respondent introduced evidence of willful misconduct, nor was 

that defense listed on the dispute certification notice. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-

239(b)(1).

Therefore, the Court holds that Mr. Cavazos and his insurer are responsible for 

benefits. The question then becomes, which benefits must they provide?

Mr. Carrillo, as the employee in a workers’ compensation case, has the burden of 

proving all essential elements of his claim for benefits. Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, 

2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *6 (Aug. 18, 2015). He also must show at 

an expedited hearing that he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. Tenn. Code 

Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1).

Turning first to medical benefits, section 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(i) states that an 

employer “shall designate a group of three (3) or more independent reputable physicians . 

. . from which the injured employee shall select one (1) to be the treating physician.” Under 

this subdivision, Mr. Cavazos must offer a panel of orthopedic specialists, from which Mr. 

Carrillo may select a treating physician. The treating physician shall evaluate him, 

determine if any further treatment is necessary, and assign an impairment rating. Tenn. 

Code Ann. § 50-6-204(k)(1).

As for past treatment, “an employer who does not timely provide a panel of

physicians risks being required to pay for treatment an injured worker receives on his own.” 

Ducros v. Metro Roofing and Metal Supply Co., 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS

62, at *10 (Oct. 17, 2017). However, Mr. Carrillo did not offer medical bills in an 

admissible form, so the Court cannot order payment at this time. He may secure additional 

documentation to authenticate these bills and seek payment, as well as reimbursement for 

the out-of-pocket expenses he paid for medications, at a later hearing.

Mr. Carrillo also requested temporary disability benefits. He must prove (1) total 

disability from working as the result of a compensable injury; (2) a causal connection 

between the injury and the inability to work; and (3) the duration of the period of disability. 

Mollica v. EHHI Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Advanced Home Care Mgmt. Inc., d/b/a Encompass 

Home Health, 2020 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 22, at *7 (Apr. 21, 2020).

Mr. Carrillo offered no admissible proof that he suffered a compensable injury that 

totally disabled him from work or of the duration of his disability. His testimony alone is 

insufficient, so this request is denied at this time. As with the medical bills, he may obtain 

this essential medical proof and renew this request at a later hearing.

A final concern is referrals for the consideration of penalties.
6

Turning first to Mr. Rios, he testified candidly and at times against his own interest, 

and he gave Mr. Carrillo financial assistance after the accident. Regardless, as a 

construction services provider, the Workers’ Compensation Law requires that he have 

insurance. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-902(a). His failure to do so subjects him to a penalty

under section 50-6-118. That same subdivision calls for a penalty when an employer fails

to provide medical treatment, a panel, and/or temporary total disability benefits, or fails to 

comply with a court order. Mr. Rios might have violated all these requirements and should 

be investigated for the potential imposition of penalties.

As for Mr. Cavazos and his carrier, the Court has rejected their defense that it was 

not responsible for benefits to Mr. Carrillo due to Mr. Rios’s status as his independent 

contractor. The defense overlooked case law contrary to this argument. Mr. Cavazos and 

his carrier have likewise failed to provide medical treatment, a panel, and/or temporary 

total disability benefits. They, too, should be investigated for potential penalties under the 

same provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Gilberto Cavazos and his carrier must offer a panel of orthopedists within ten 

business days of this order, for Mr. Carrillo to select a physician for any reasonable 

and necessary medical treatment causally related to the work injury under Tennessee 

Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(1)(A). They shall immediately schedule an 

appointment once Mr. Carrillo makes his selection.

2. As described above, the case is referred to the Compliance Program for 

consideration of penalties levied against Mr. Rios and Mr. Cavazos and/or Hartford 

Underwriters Insurance Company.

3. The Court sets a status hearing on August 7, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. Central Time. 

You must dial (615) 532-9552 or (866) 943-0025 to participate. The respondents 

must arrange for a court-certified or -registered interpreter.

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). Mr. 

Cavazos and/or his carrier 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 may 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.
7

ENTERED May 25, 2023.

________________________________________

JUDGE KENNETH M. SWITZER

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

Appendix

Technical record: (Excludes all attachments)

1. Petition for Benefit Determination, September 21, 2021

2. Amended Petition for Benefit Determination, December 14, 2021

3. Amended Petition for Benefit Determination, December 14, 2021

4. Amended Petition for Benefit Determination, February 1, 2021, and translation

5. Order Granting Motion to Withdraw

6. Dispute Certification Notice

7. Order Setting Status Hearing

8. Order on Status Hearing, July 18, 2022

9. Hearing Request 

10.Order on Status Hearing, August 30, 2022

11.Order on Status Hearing, September 9, 2022

12.Order Resetting Status Hearing and Referring the Case for Consideration of 

Penalties, December 20, 2022

13.Order Resetting Status Hearing

14.Order Setting Expedited Hearing

15.Defendant Kosinski Properties, LLC’s Position Statement

16.Kosinski Properties, LLC’s Supplemental Position Statement

17.Gilberto Cavazos’s Expedited Hearing Position Statement

18.Unnamed Defendant The Hartford’s Position Statement for Expedited Hearing

19.Subpoena

Evidence:

1. Declaration of Mr. Carrillo

2. Expedited Request for Investigation Report
8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this order was sent as indicated on May 25, 2023.

Name Certified 

Mail

Regular 

mail

Email Sent to

Miguel Carrillo, 

employee

X X Carrillo1500angel@gmail.com

3834 Faulkner Dr.

Nashville TN 37211

Carlos Sanchez 

Hurtado, a/k/a 

Carlos Ramirez 

Rios, respondent

X 335 Flora Maxwell Road

Nashville TN 37211

Gilberto Cavazos

and Hartford 

Underwriters 

Insurance Company, 

respondents

X Nmcintire@howell-fisher.com

Kosinski Properties, 

LLC/Kosinski 

Homes, respondents

X dana@stokeswiliams.com

Carla@stokeswilliams.com

Hartford Cas. Ins. 

Co., respondent

X Kenny.veit@leitnerfirm.com

Laura.bassett@leitnerfirm.com

Compliance 

Program

X WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov

_______________________________________

PENNY SHRUM

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]