1 

AT NASHVILLE 

CHARLES JENKINS-QUEEN, III, ) Docket No. 2019-06-0971 

Employee, )

v. )

MEDICAL NECESSITIES & 

SERVICES, LLC, 

Employer, 

BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Carrier.

) 

) 

)

State File No. 30370-2018 

) 

) 

) 

)

Judge Joshua Davis Baker 

____________________________________________________________________ 

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER 

____________________________________________________________________ 

The Court convened an expedited hearing on July 30, 2020, to determine whether 

Mr. Jenkins-Queen is likely to prove at a final hearing that he suffered a compensable 

aggravation of a preexisting condition that would entitle him to temporary disability 

benefits and surgery. In Mr. Jenkinsthat his claim suffers from two significant cracks his own credibility problems, and 

the fact that another physician recommended the same procedure in 2012 that Mr. JenkinsQueen now attempts to link to work at Medical Necessities. The Court holds he is unlikely 

to prove he suffered a compensable aggravation and denies his requested relief at this time. 

 

Claim History

Medical Necessities hired Mr. Jenkins-Queen to deliver and install medical

equipment. In 2018, he alleged work injuries from two incidents: one when he slipped and 

fell on ice, and another when a customer yanked his arm to pull him out of a vehicle.1

 

1

 At the hearing, the Court consolidated docket no. 2019-06-0765 and state file no. 3609-2018 into docket

no. 2019-06-0971 and state file no. 30370-2018, as both cases have common questions of law. 

FILED

Aug 27, 2020

09:52 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS
2 

Medical Necessities accepted both claims and provided treatment with Dr. Edward 

Mackey, an experienced spine surgeon. After roughly ten months of treatment, Dr. Mackey 

recommended an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for a disc extrusion at

level C5-6 of his spine. During nearly ten months of treatment, Dr. Mackey did not know 

that his patient had a 2012 cervical injury. 

In fact, Mr. Jenkins-Queen had two preexisting injuries. Dr. Brian Cuddy 

performed an ACDF at C6-7 in 2001. Then, in 2012, he prescribed extensive conservative 

treatment for a disc extrusion the same disc extrusion Dr. Mackey treated as a presumed 

work injury in 2018. Like Dr. Mackey, Dr. Cuddy recommended an ACDF at C5-6 for the 

disc extrusion. Because Mr. Jenkins-Queen could not afford the surgery, he received 

epidural steroid injections instead, until he moved to another state about a year later. 

 Dr. Christopher Kauffman, a spine surgeon, examined Mr. Jenkins-Queen, reviewed 

his medical records, and testified about the preexisting injuries. He compared the 2012 

and 2018 MRIs and noticed 

the osteophyte or arthritic process. Therefore, he did not believe either work injury 

necessitated the recommended surgery or caused anything other than a cervical sprain or 

strain. Rather, he believed the 2001 fusion caused stress on the adjacent level at C5-6, 

making it more arthritic and creating the disc extrusion seen in 2012. 

 About a month after that evaluation, Medical Necessities confronted Dr. Mackey 

initially agreed. On a March 24, 2019 

questionnaire, he marked that he could not state with reasonable medical certainty that the 

work injuries necessitated the recommended surgery, nor could he state the cause of the 

C5-6 condition. 

 However, just four days later, Dr. Mackey changed that opinion. When asked 

during his deposition about this change, he explained that speaking to Mr. Jenkins-Queen 

during a March 28 office visit had persuaded him Kauffman] made it

sound like [Mr. Jenkins-Queen] was persisting in his symptoms. [Mr. Jenkins-Queen] 

made it clear that he was asymptomatic for four years. 

Mr. Jenkins-Queen worked at full duty before the 

accident and sought no treatment during the intervening years, Dr. Mackey concluded the 

work injuries had permanently aggravated his preexisting injury. 

This point was so important to his opinion that Dr. Mackey invited defense counsel

to prove to him that Mr. Jenkins-Queen received treatment or had symptoms from 2013 to 

2017. Counsel responded that he might not have sought treatment during that period 

because he could not afford it, rather than because he did not need it. Similarly, Dr. 

Kauffman offered that may have 

need for medical treatment. 

 
3 

Ultimately, Dr. Mackey did not identify anything that differed between the MRIs

and treatment records from 2012 and 2018. On cross-exam, he acknowledged that Mr. 

Jenkins-Queen had a disc protrusion at C5-6 causing radicular symptoms in his upper 

extremities in the C6 distribution in 2012, and he has that same problem now. 

In addition to the previous injuries, Mr. Jenkinof his credibility. Medical Necessities presented evidence suggesting he has

misrepresented facts for personal or financial gain, often at

expense. Mr. Jenkins-Queen convictions for arson with intent to 

defraud, theft and forgery. He intentionally set fire to his home for insurance money; he 

he forged court

documents to shift responsibility for a burdensome credit card debt to an ex-girlfriend. Mr. 

Jenkins-Queen acknowledged identity and using aliases to evade law 

enforcement. He also admitted falsifying resumes or employment applications to conceal

gaps in his employment history due to incarceration. 

Most recently, Rebecca Hughes, who dated Mr. Jenkins-Queen for two years after 

his work injuries, claimed via deposition that he manipulated her into fully supporting him, 

exploited her permission to use a vehicle and credit cards, and left her bankrupt. She said 

that he drove her car to Georgia and lived there for weeks at a time toward the end of their 

relationship. He told her his son needed him and that he would soon return to Tennessee 

with the car. She now believes that he just wanted to continuing using her car and credit

cards. Concerning her credit cards, Ms. Hughes said a hardware store called her once to 

ensure that a purchase made on her credit card in Georgia was authorized. Mr. JenkinsQueen spoke to her from the store and convinced her he needed lumber. She later 

discovered instead he had purchased gift cards. According to Ms. Hughes, she could not

file criminal charges against him, because she had authorized the purchase. 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

 

 The central focus of Mr. Jenkinsof his preexisting condition that arose primarily from his employment, thereby 

entitling him to corrective surgery and temporary disability benefits. To succeed, he must

present evidence showing he would likely prevail at a final hearing in proving an 

aggravation of his preexisting condition arose primarily from his work. See Tenn. Code 

Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2019); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. 

Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *9 (Mar. 27, 2015). 

 This claim is determined by two intertwined elements: Mr. Jenkinsand the medical proof. The Court finds neither in his favor. 

 Turning first to credibility, Mr. Jenkins-Queen is not credible. Although he testified 

steadily, calmly and was somewhat forthcoming about his past, the weight of his misdeeds
4 

and their deceptive nature cast doubt on his truthfulness and the veracity of his statements

to Dr. Mackey about the condition of his neck. 

Dr. Mackey stated that Mr. Jenkins-Queen suffered a work-related aggravation of 

his preexisting neck condition that required surgery. As the authorized treating physician, 

the law presumes his causation opinion is correct and his treatment recommendations are 

reasonable and necessary. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E). Because the linchpin 

that he was

Mr. 

Jenkins- the Court found Mr. Jenkins-Queen non-credible, the 

 

disagrees with his reasoning. recovery for 

an aggravation of a preexisting condition it can be shown to a reasonable degree of 

medical certainty that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope 

at § 50-6-102(14)(A). Although Dr. Mackey used the word 

in his deposition, he failed to identify how the work accident aggravated, 

worsened, or changed Mr. Jenkins- condition. Further, he also agreed 

that the MRIs from 2012 and 2018 show the same injury and need for treatment without

any identifiable anatomical change. 

Dr. Kauffman, on the other hand, reviewed the same evidence but reached a 

different conclusion. Like Dr. Mackey, he could not determine how the work injury 

aggravated Mr. Jenkins-Queen preexisting condition. He also agreed that the 2012 and 

2018 MRIs showed the same injury and need for treatment without evidence of anatomical

change. In the end, Dr. Kauffman believed Mr. Jenkins-Queen suffered only a cervical

sprain or strain, which required no surgery. 

These competing opinions leave the Court with a choice, and the Court chooses Dr. 

Kauffman. A trial court generally has the discretion to choose which expert to accredit when 

there is a conflict of expert opinions. Kellerman v. Food Lion, Inc., 929 S.W.2d 333, 335 

(Tenn. 1996).

 In comparing the two opinions, the only real difference between them comes from

statements about his neck condition before 

getting hurt at work. As the Court found his testimony non-credible, the Court discounts

this record, Mr. JenkinsQueen cannot show a likelihood of success at a final hearing. 

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. The Court denies Mr. Jenkins-Queen
5 

2. The Court sets this claim for a scheduling hearing on October 19, 2020, at 9:00 

a.m. Central Time. The parties must call (615) 741-2113 or toll-free at (855) 874-

0474 to participate. Failure to call might result in a determination of the issues

without participation. 

ENTERED August 27, 2020. 

___________________________________ 

 Joshua Davis Baker, Judge 

 
6 

APPENDIX 

Exhibits

1. First Report of Injury 

2. Wage Statement

3. Choice of Physician 

4. Deposition of Dr. Edward Mackey 

5. Deposition of Dr. Christopher Kauffman 

6. Rule 72 Declaration of Rebecca Hughes

7. Deposition of Ms. Rebecca Hughes

8. Video of Phone Call between Mr. Jenkins Queen and Ms. Hughes

9. Medical Records

10.

11. Resume of Mr. Jenkins Queen 

12. Employment Application of Mr. Jenkins Queen 

13.Complaint from the Circuit Court of Davidson County 

Technical Record 

1. Petition for Benefit Determination 

2. Dispute Certification Notice 

3. Request for Expedited Hearing 

 
7 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on August 27, 2020. 

Name Certified 

Mail

Via 

Fax

Via 

Email

Service sent to:

Andrea Stilgenbauer, 

Employee

 X andrea@poncelaw.com, 

Andrew@poncelaw.com

Catherine Dugan, X Cate@petersonwhite.com 

Kristina.boyd@petersonwhite.com

 ____________________________________________ 

Penny Shrum, Court Clerk

 Court of 

 Wc.courtclerk@tn.gov