1

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Jeannie Hart ) Docket No. 2018-07-0436

)

v. ) State File No. 17700-2018

)

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp., et al. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ ) Heard October 15, 2020

Compensation Claims ) via WebEx

Allen Phillips, Judge )

Affirmed as Modified and Certified as Final

This appeal concerns the appropriate medical impairment rating for an employee who 

sustained a work-related shoulder injury. The employer asserts the trial court erred in 

awarding permanent benefits based upon a six percent medical impairment rating because 

a portion of the rating was attributable to a non-work-related condition. The employee 

contends the authorized treating physician’s opinion that the employee had a six percent 

impairment is presumed correct under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(k)(7) 

and that the employer did not produce competent evidence to rebut the presumption. 

Following a compensation hearing, the trial court determined the employee established by 

a preponderance of the evidence that the distal clavicle resection, performed to treat the 

employee’s pre-existing AC arthrosis, was reasonably necessary medical treatment as a 

result of the work injury, and it awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on the

full impairment rating assigned by the authorized physician. The employer has appealed. 

Having carefully reviewed the record, we modify the trial court’s award of permanent 

disability benefits and certify as final the trial court’s order as modified.

Judge Pele I. Godkin delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which Presiding Judge

Timothy W. Conner and Judge David F. Hensley joined.

Hailey H. David, Jackson, Tennessee, for the employer-appellant, ThyssenKrupp Elevator 

Corp.

Jonathan L. May, Memphis, Tennessee, for the employee-appellee, Jeannie Hart

FILED

Nov 25, 2020

11:20 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

APPEALS BOARD
2

Factual and Procedural Background

The underlying facts in this case are not in dispute. On March 6, 2018, Jeannie Hart 

(“Employee”) injured her left shoulder reaching for a piece of metal that slipped off her 

engraving station in the course and scope of her employment with ThyssenKrupp Elevator 

Corp. (“Employer”). The injury was accepted as compensable, and Employee received 

authorized medical care from Dr. Jason Hutchison.

Dr. Hutchison first saw Employee on March 29, 2018, and he diagnosed her with 

rotator cuff syndrome, medial epicondylitis, and a medial flexor strain in her elbow. Xrays of her left shoulder revealed “moderate AC arthritis.” Dr. Hutchison ordered an MRI,

which revealed “a tear along the base of the superior labrum, AC arthritis with hypertrophy, 

and some tendinitis of the rotator cuff.” After reviewing the MRI, Dr. Hutchison diagnosed 

Employee with a superior labral tear, rotator cuff syndrome, and acromioclavicular arthritis 

(“AC arthritis”). He prescribed physical therapy and assigned temporary work restrictions. 

On May 21, Employee returned to Dr. Hutchison with continued complaints. Dr. 

Hutchison recommended surgery and subsequently performed a subpectoral biceps 

tenodesis and debridement of the labrum with subacromial decompression and distal 

clavicle resection.

Following surgery, Employee was placed in a sling and began another course of 

physical therapy. After reporting some burning and numbness down her arm, EMG and 

nerve conduction studies were performed to “rule out cervical radiculopathy.” Test results 

were interpreted as normal, and Employee continued with physical therapy, making “slow 

gains . . . [until] she plateaued.” Thereafter, Employee underwent a repeat MRI of her

shoulder and a functional capacity evaluation that resulted in the placement of permanent 

lifting restrictions. Dr. Hutchison subsequently placed Employee at maximum medical 

improvement and assigned a six percent medical impairment rating. In his medical report,

Dr. Hutchison explained the basis for his impairment rating using the American Medical 

Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Sixth Edition (“AMA 

Guides”):

Based upon [the AMA Guides], permanent impairment for the upper 

extremity in the shoulder, according to page 390 subheading 15 2E, when 

multiple pathologies co-exist, the most significant is used. In her situation, 

it would be the SLAP tear, which we treated according to page 404 that is a 

Class 2, 3% and she would adjust up based upon the net adjustment formula

to Class 5. Alternatively, because we did do a distal clavicle resection, given 

her severe AC arthrosis, which again was not work related but was 

significant pathology and was treated concomitantly[], we could go to page 

403, table 15-5, that is a 10% whole person. Based upon the fact that she did 

end up with restrictions and continued pain that we could not explain, I am 

going to use this rating as the more significant because I think it is more 
3

appropriate for her level of dysfunction, so 10% off the distal clavicle on 

page 403 is our rating; that is a 6% whole person according to table 15-11, 

page 420.

(Emphasis added.)

Employee returned to Dr. Hutchison in October 2019 reporting that she was doing 

well until “[three] weeks ago when her pain came back” and then gradually worsened. Dr. 

Hutchison noted the shoulder exam looked “quite good” based upon appearance and range 

of motion, but added that complaints of pain in the upper arm were “disproportionate” from 

what he would expect. Dr. Hutchison expressed some doubts about the severity of 

Employee’s complaints, given his observations on physical exam. He noted her symptoms 

seemed “very non-physiologic and would fit more with something inflammatory such as 

her fibromyalgia or direct more to her previous injury or surgery.” Dr. Hutchison 

prescribed medication and referred Employee for a second opinion if her pain persisted.

Employee saw Dr. Mark Harriman on December 19, 2019, for a medical evaluation 

at Employer’s request. Dr. Harriman documented Employee’s complaints involving arm 

pain, noting “[t]here were no findings whatsoever in the glenohumeral joint or shoulder 

region where the other part of her surgery was performed.” Dr. Harriman reported 

Employee’s left arm symptoms “seem[ed] out of proportion to any physical exam 

findings,” and he did “not have an explanation for her symptoms.” He recommended an 

MRI of Employee’s arm, which was performed on January 10, 2020, and revealed no 

abnormalities. Following a telephonic consult on January 13, 2020, Dr. Harriman released 

Employee to full duty.

In a February 10, 2020 deposition, Dr. Hutchison described the distal clavicle 

resection surgery he performed and the basis for the six percent impairment rating he 

assigned. Specifically regarding the surgery, he testified to “performing a biceps tenodesis 

and debridement of the labrum,” explaining that he “removed the biceps, debrided the 

labrum so it scars back down, and then tenodesed the biceps.” Dr. Hutchison also 

performed a subacromial decompression, which he described as “basically opening up the 

subacromial space which is where the rotator cuff lives,” and a distal clavicle resection, 

“which is where you take out a distal 8 millimeters of the clavicle in the setting of an AC 

arthritis so that the bones are no longer touching one another and thereby less 

symptomatic.”

Dr. Hutchison agreed that “each element of [the] procedure . . . performed was 

designed specifically to address the symptoms that [Employee] was complaining of 

following [her] work injury.” He testified that Employee continued to have more pain and 

symptoms, including numbness in her hands, which concerned him. Dr. Hutchison 

acknowledged that, going into surgery, he wanted to “leave no stone unturned” and to “fix 

everything that can be fixed.” He testified that the distal clavicle resection was something 
4

he did “in hopes of relieving [Employee’s] pain,” and that it was “appropriate when you 

have someone who has rotator cuff tendinitis that is persistent and not improving as 

[Employee] did.” Dr. Hutchison stated he likely would not have recommended or 

performed a distal clavicle resection absent Employee’s work injury, since it is likely he 

would not have seen her had she not been injured at work.

Dr. Hutchison also testified that he performed surgery on Employee’s shoulder 

because of her labral tear and biceps pathology resulting from the work injury and not 

because of the pre-existing AC arthrosis seen on the MRI. He stated that, generally, it 

would be his opinion that the rating for the labral tear “is the proper rating.” However, he 

chose to use the distal clavicle impairment rating because Employee “consistently 

presented with poor shoulder function,” and he “felt her outcome was poor and [the rating

was] justified.” Dr. Hutchison also agreed that the rating for the distal clavicle was “related

to [Employee’s] AC arthrosis,” which he acknowledged “was not work-related.” On crossexamination, he testified that the six percent rating to the body was “not entirely 

representative of just the work-related problem” and took into account “some preexisting 

condition” separate from Employee’s work injury. When questioned, Dr. Hutchison 

agreed that the AMA Guides directs providers to “pick the highest causally related

impairment” when assigning an impairment for a patient with multiple diagnoses. 

(Emphasis added.)

Dr. Hutchison explained there were two methods by which he could have rated 

Employee: (1) for the labral tear and subpectoral tenodesis, which he described as the “true 

injury [Employee] had at work,” or (2) for the distal clavicle resection necessitated by the 

AC arthrosis. Dr. Hutchison testified that “based on everything that I had seen with 

[Employee] and what we saw on the FCE that [three] percent was too low. So I chose to 

use the distal clavicle as it related to the rating. And came up with a [six] percent whole 

person,” adding it was “most appropriate for the outcome she had.”

At trial, the sole issue was the extent of Employee’s permanent medical impairment. 

Employee argued Dr. Hutchison’s opinion assessing a six percent impairment is presumed 

correct under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(k)(7), absent rebuttal by a 

preponderance of the evidence. Employer asserted a three percent impairment rating was 

proper because that rating considered only work-related conditions. Following the hearing, 

the trial court concluded Employee “established by a preponderance of the evidence that 

the distal clavicle resection was reasonably necessary medical treatment.” In its order, the 

trial court stated that “[t]he authorized treating physician testified he would not have 

performed the distal clavicle resection but for the work injury. Additionally, [Dr. 

Hutchison] explained why he performed the procedure, specifically, to improve 

[Employee’s] loss of function due to the injury. It was not done solely because of pain 

complaints.” The court noted Dr. Hutchison’s opinion was the only expert opinion in the 

record and awarded Employee permanent partial disability benefits based upon a six

percent impairment rating. Employer has appealed.
5

Standard of Review

The standard we apply in reviewing a trial court’s decision presumes that the court’s 

factual findings are correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(7) (2019). When the trial judge has had the opportunity 

to observe a witness’s demeanor and to hear in-court testimony, we give considerable 

deference to factual findings made by the trial court. Madden v. Holland Grp. of Tenn., 

Inc., 277 S.W.3d 896, 898 (Tenn. 2009). However, “[n]o similar deference need be 

afforded the trial court’s findings based upon documentary evidence,” Goodman v. 

Schwarz Paper Co., No. W2016-02594-SC-R3-WC, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 8, at *6 (Tenn. 

Workers’ Comp. Panel Jan. 18, 2018), or deposition testimony, see Brees v. Escape Day 

Spa & Salon, No. 2014-06-0072, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 5, at *16 (Tenn. 

Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Mar. 21, 2015) (“[T]he trial court occupies no better position 

than this Appeals Board in reviewing and interpreting documentary evidence.”). Similarly,

the interpretation and application of statutes and regulations are questions of law that are 

reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness afforded the trial court’s conclusions. 

See Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393, 399 (Tenn. 

2013). We are also mindful of our obligation to construe the workers’ compensation 

statutes “fairly, impartially, and in accordance with basic principles of statutory 

construction” and in a way that does not favor either the employee or the employer. Tenn. 

Code Ann. § 50-6-116 (2019).

Analysis

Employer contends the trial court erred in awarding permanent disability benefits 

based on a six percent rating because the preponderance of the evidence established that 

the six percent rating improperly accounted for non-work-related conditions “and was 

given in contradiction to the clear instructions of the AMA Guides.” More specifically,

Employer asserts the trial court erred in three ways: (1) by improperly considering

Employee’s non-work-related conditions; (2) by relying on a rating given contrary to clear 

instructions in the AMA Guides; and (3) by improperly relying on a rating that the 

physician admits was given due to pain despite the directive of Tennessee Code Annotated 

section 50-6-204(k)(3) not to consider pain when calculating impairment.

Citing Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(k)(7), Employee argues that, 

because Dr. Hutchison is the authorized physician, his “opinion of the injured employee’s 

permanent impairment rating shall be presumed to be the accurate impairment rating,” and 

is rebuttable only by “the presentation of contrary evidence that satisfies a preponderance 

of the evidence standard.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(k)(7). Further, Employee 

maintains that, even if Dr. Hutchison improperly calculated the impairment rating,

Employer failed to present expert medical proof to support an alternative award. Employee 

insists that “mere cross-examination” is insufficient to overcome the presumption of 

correctness attributable to the authorized physician’s opinion on the issue of impairment, 
6

noting Dr. Hutchison “had numerous opportunities to change his opinion [and] he did not 

do so.” We agree with Employer’s contention that the six percent impairment rating 

improperly includes conditions that Employee did not prove arose primarily out of her 

employment.

Causation

In determining whether the trial court improperly relied on non-work-related 

conditions in its award of benefits, we must first address causation. For a work injury to 

be compensable, it must be shown “by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering 

all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(B). A disability arising from a compensable 

work injury must be proven “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty,” Tennessee Code 

Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(C), which requires testimony from a physician that the 

condition giving rise to the disability was causally related to the work injury “more likely 

than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or possibility,” Tennessee Code 

Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(D).

It is undisputed that Employee sustained a compensable work-related injury to her 

left shoulder, resulting in a labral tear and biceps tendinitis. After Employee failed to 

improve with conservative treatment, Dr. Hutchison determined that surgical intervention

was appropriate, testifying that “[a] labral repair versus biceps tenodesis was the indication 

for surgery.” It is also undisputed that Employee’s AC arthrosis was not a work-related 

condition. Moreover, the record contains no lay or expert medical testimony suggesting 

that Employee’s AC arthrosis was aggravated or exacerbated by Employee’s work 

incident.

However, that does not end the inquiry. As the trial court observed, it is wellestablished Tennessee law “that all the medical consequences and sequelae that flow from 

the primary injury are compensable.” Rogers v. Shaw, 813 S.W.2d 397, 400 (Tenn. 1991). 

At the same time, as Employer pointed out in its brief, “an injury or condition that exists 

collateral to the injury causally related to an injured worker’s employment is not 

compensable,” and “[w]orkers’ compensation coverage is not the equivalent of general 

health and accident insurance.” (Citations omitted.) No evidence was presented in this 

case supporting a finding that the AC arthrosis, which necessitated the distal clavicle 

resection, “flowed from” the primary injury. Thus, the question is whether the distal 

clavicle resection was merely collateral to the work injury or whether the need for that 

additional treatment was caused by or “made reasonably necessary” by Employee’s work 

accident. An injury arises out of employment when a causal connection exists between the 

conditions of the work performed and the resulting injury. Clark v. Nashville Mach. 

Elevator Co., 129 S.W.3d 42, 47 (Tenn. 2004). Further, medical causation of an injury 

must be established by expert medical testimony in all but the most obvious cases. See, 

e.g., Cloyd v. Hartco Flooring Co., 274 S.W.3d 638, 643 (Tenn. 2008).
7

Employer maintains that Employee’s AC arthrosis and distal clavicle resection were

collateral to her work-related injuries and are not compensable. Dr. Hutchison’s opinion, 

which is the only medical opinion in the record addressing causation, supports that 

assertion. Dr. Hutchison stated in a May 22, 2019 report that Employee’s distal clavicle 

resection was performed due to her severe AC arthrosis “which . . . was not work related.” 

In addition, Dr. Hutchison testified that the distal clavicle excision rating he assigned was 

related to Employee’s AC arthrosis, which was not a work-related condition. In short, our 

review of the record reveals no evidence of a causal link between Employee’s March 6 

work incident and the AC arthrosis that led to the need for the distal clavicle resection.

Dr. Hutchison testified it was “unlikely” he would have recommended performing 

the distal clavicle resection absent Employee’s work injury. He acknowledged that, on its

own, the distal clavicle “probably would not have been surgically repaired” and agreed it

“would be fair” to say the distal clavicle resection was performed because of Employee’s

work injury, noting that, “without the work injury, I probably am not seeing [Employee].”

We conclude Dr. Hutchison’s testimony was insufficient to establish a causal link between 

the work accident and the need for the distal clavicle resection and does not satisfy the 

requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14).

In his May 2019 report, Dr. Hutchison provided a detailed description of 

Employee’s surgery, including the “distal clavicle resection, given [Employee’s] severe AC 

arthrosis, which again was not work related but was significant pathology and was treated 

concomitantly.” (Emphasis added.) Dr. Hutchison testified he performed surgery on

Employee’s shoulder because of the labral tear and biceps pathology, not because of the 

AC arthrosis seen on her MRI. He also testified that the impairment rating for the distal 

clavicle resection was related to Employee’s AC arthrosis, which was not a work-related 

condition. Thus, there is no evidence in the record that Employee’s distal clavicle resection 

was made necessary by the work injury. The fact that both procedures were performed 

during the same surgery is not sufficient to establish causation. Dr. Hutchison’s testimony, 

when taken as a whole, fails to provide the necessary causal link between the work injury 

and the distal clavicle resection.

In its order, the trial court attempted to distinguish this case from Sanchez v. Saturn 

Corp., No. M2003-01894-WC-R3-CV, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 711 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. 

Panel Aug. 31, 2004). In Sanchez, after the employee sustained a work-related biceps 

rupture and potential rotator cuff tear, the treating physician performed a subacromial

decompression, distal clavicle resection, and debridement of the employee’s shoulder area.

Id. at *3. After the treating physician failed to provide an impairment rating for the distal 

clavicle surgery, the employee saw another doctor who provided an impairment rating for 

the surgery based upon his interpretation of the AMA Guides as “dictating an impairment 

because the resection was performed.” Id. at *4. Subsequently, the treating physician 

“explicitly refuted” the second doctor’s testimony as to causation and testified instead that 

the employee’s distal clavicle resection had “nothing to do with the biceps rupture.” Id. at 
8

*9. Following its consideration of competing medical opinions, the trial court accredited 

the opinion of the treating physician over the opinion of the second doctor and denied 

benefits for the distal clavicle resection. Id. Finding the employee failed to meet his burden 

in showing the preponderance of the evidence was otherwise, the Supreme Court’s Special 

Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed the trial court and concluded the distal 

clavicle resection was not causally related medical treatment made reasonably necessary 

by the work accident. Id.

Here, the trial court concluded “the opposite is true,” noting that “[t]he authorized 

treating physician testified he would not have performed the distal clavicle resection but 

for the work injury.” However, the trial court’s characterization of this testimony does not 

take into account the entirety of Dr. Hutchison’s explanation, which indicated that, without 

the work injury, Employee would not have been his patient. This testimony explains how 

Dr. Hutchison came to perform the procedure in question, but it does not provide a causal 

connection between the work injury and the need for the distal clavicle procedure. When

considered as a whole, it is clear that Dr. Hutchison repeatedly testified the need for the 

distal clavicle resection was due to a pre-existing condition that was not work related. 

Based upon our review of the record, we conclude the evidence preponderates against the 

trial court’s finding that Employee’s distal clavicle resection was reasonably necessary 

medical treatment causally related to her work-related injuries.

Impairment Rating

Having concluded the evidence fails to establish Employee’s distal clavicle 

resection was causally related to her work injury, we turn to whether the court erred in 

awarding benefits based on a six percent impairment rating. Dr. Hutchison testified there 

were two ways he could have assessed Employee’s impairment. The first was “based on 

her labral tear and the subpectoral tenodesis,” which Dr. Hutcheson testified “is the injury 

as it pertains to what [he] believe[d], the pop she felt and the true injury she had at work.” 

(Emphasis added.) The second method was to provide a rating that took into account

Employee’s AC arthrosis and the distal clavicle resection. Dr. Hutchison acknowledged 

that the AMA Guides instruct physicians to use the higher of two ratings when there are 

multiple pathologies. He testified he chose to use the rating associated with the distal 

clavicle resection because he believed it was “the most appropriate for the outcome 

[Employee] had,” testifying as follows:

Q: The distal clavicle excision rating that you gave, you state here in your 

explanation that was related to her AC arthrosis.

A: Correct.

Q: Which was not work-related.
9

A: Correct.

Q: Okay. So the 6 percent rating to the body is not entirely representative of 

just the work-related problem?

A: Correct.

Q: It takes into account some preexisting condition that has nothing to do 

with the work injury?

A: Yes.

Q: So the rating that takes into account just the work-related problem, 

according to the instructions in the Guides, would be 3 percent to the 

body?

A: Correct.

Q: And the Guides do tell us at page 387 that when a patient has different 

diagnoses, that you’re supposed to pick the highest causally related 

impairment. Correct?

A: Correct.

As previously noted, the record contains no evidence of a causal link between 

Employee’s AC arthrosis and the work incident, and there is no proof that the need for the 

distal clavicle resection was the direct and natural consequence of Employee’s 

compensable work injuries. Moreover, no evidence was presented showing the AC 

arthrosis was aggravated or advanced by the work accident. Thus, we conclude a causally

related impairment rating cannot be based upon Employee’s AC arthrosis and distal 

clavicle resection.

Finally, although we agree that judges and attorneys are not well-suited to giving 

medical opinions, see Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, No. 2015-01-0055, 2015 TN 

Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *8 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015),

we do not agree that accepting Employer’s position in the instant case would mark a 

significant departure from well-established law or that it would open the door to legal 

professionals offering expert medical opinions. We also find no merit in Employee’s 

contention that, in order to rebut the presumption of correctness afforded an authorized 

physician’s opinion as to impairment, a dissatisfied party must procure a contrary opinion 

from another expert. Nor do we agree that eliciting testimony from an expert on crossexamination is per se insufficient to rebut the presumption, as Employee insists. In this 

case, there is a single authorized physician who provided an impairment rating on a Form 
10

C-32 Final Medical Report. After submitting that form, that physician was deposed, and 

his testimony is clear and unequivocal that: (1) the six percent rating he assigned 

contemplated the distal clavicle resection performed for Employee’s AC arthrosis and (2)

this condition was not causally related to the work injury. Dr. Hutchison’s testimony is 

likewise clear that, with respect to Employee’s work-related injuries, she has a three

percent permanent partial impairment.1

 We therefore conclude Employer sufficiently 

rebutted the portion of Dr. Hutchison’s direct testimony regarding the six percent 

impairment rating during cross-examination and, as a result, Employee is entitled to 

permanent partial disability benefits based on a three percent medical impairment. We 

modify the trial court’s award to reflect that conclusion.

2

Conclusion

We modify the trial court’s award of permanent partial disability benefits to reflect 

an award of three percent permanent partial disability totaling 13.5 weeks of benefits and

certify the trial court’s order, as so modified, as final. Costs on appeal are taxed to 

Employee.

1 We note that our decision as to the extent of impairment does not depend on a conclusion that Employee 

does not have a six percent medical impairment. Rather, we conclude that, of the total impairment rating,

only a portion of that impairment, as identified by the authorized physician, is related to the work injury. 

Thus, we do not conclude that the physician assigned an incorrect impairment rating. Instead, consistent 

with the physician’s testimony, we conclude only a portion of that impairment is attributable to the work 

injury.

2 Our conclusion that Employee failed to establish causation for the impairment resulting from her AC 

arthrosis and distal clavicle resection pretermits Employer’s issue questioning whether Dr. Hutchison 

improperly considered Employee’s pain complaints in calculating Employee’s impairment.
 

 

 

 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD 

Jeannie Hart ) Docket No. 2018-07-0436 

) 

v. ) State File No. 17700-2018 

)

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp., et al. ) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ ) Heard October 15, 2020 

Compensation Claims ) via WebEx

Allen Phillips, Judge ) 

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 25th day 

of November, 2020. 

Name Certified 

Mail

First Class 

Mail

Via 

Fax

Via 

Email

Sent to: 

Jonathan L. May

Sandra Haynes

X jmay@forthepeople.com

shaynes@forthepeople.com

Hailey H. David

Joanna Smith

X davidh@waldrophall.com

smithj@waldrophall.com

Allen Phillips, Judge X Via Electronic Mail

Kenneth M. Switzer, Chief Judge X Via Electronic Mail

Penny Shrum, Clerk, Court of 

Workers’ Compensation Claims

X penny.patterson-shrum@tn.gov

 

Olivia Yearwood

Clerk, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board

220 French Landing Dr., Ste. 1-B 

Nashville, TN 37243 

Telephone: 615-253-1606 

Electronic Mail: WCAppeals.Clerk@tn.gov