1

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT COOKEVILLE

MICHAEL SLEZAK, ) Docket No 2020-04-0091

Employee, )

v. ) State File No. 20396-2020

RYDER INTEG. LOGISTICS, INC. )

Self-Insured Employer, ) Judge Robert Durham

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS

This case came before the Court on January 25, 2021, for an Expedited Hearing. 

Mr. Slezak seeks an order that Ryder authorize medical treatment with a physician he 

chose and temporary disability benefits for thoracic back pain he alleges is due to an 

injury caused by a co-worker’s misbehavior. The Court holds that Mr. Slezak is not 

likely to prevail at trial in proving entitlement to the requested relief.

History of Claim

On November 7, 2019, a co-worker playfully ran into Mr. Slezak, striking him in 

the mid-back.

1 The blow pushed Mr. Slezak several steps forward, but it did not knock 

him down. After a few days, Mr. Slezak reported mid-back pain to his supervisor. He

then talked with Tom Beardsley, Ryder’s Safety Manager, whom he said directed him to 

American Family Care (AFC) for treatment.2

Mr. Slezak treated with Nurse Practitioner Daniel Fox at AFC. He complained of 

worsening mid-back pain that interfered with his sleep. On exam, Mr. Fox noted 

parascapular tenderness and spasm. He diagnosed back pain, prescribed medication, and 

placed restrictions, which Ryder accommodated. A week later, Mr. Slezak returned still 

 1 For the Expedited Hearing, Ryder stipulated that an incident occurred on November 7. The parties also 

stipulated to a $681.51 compensation rate. Willful misconduct was not a defense.

2 Mr. Slezak claimed that after he returned, Mr. Beardsley offered a Choice of Physician form. He 

admitted he agreed to AFC. Mr. Beardsley testified he didn’t recall the sequence of events regarding the 

panel. Ryder submitted an unsigned Choice of Physician form into evidence.

FILED

Feb 03, 2021

01:07 PM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS
2

complaining of back pain but wanting to attempt full duty. Mr. Fox released him without 

restrictions on a trial basis for a week.

One week later, Mr. Slezak returned to AFC and saw Dr. Chris Kromer, a general 

practitioner. Dr. Kromer noted that Mr. Slezak said his pain was minimal and the exam 

was normal. He released Mr. Slezak from care to return to full duty. Mr. Slezak disputed 

these findings, testifying that his pain had worsened. 

Mr. Slezak said he attempted full duty, but his pain increased significantly. He 

told his manager, and they made another appointment with Dr. Kromer for February 10, 

2020. Dr. Kromer noted complaints of intermittent thoracic pain without radiation that 

worsened with work activity. He did not observe any objective abnormalities, and 

thoracic x-rays were normal. He again released Mr. Slezak from care to return to full 

duty.

Despite this release, Mr. Slezak told Mr. Beardsley that he did not feel he was able 

to work at full duty due to his back pain. Mr. Beardsley replied that he would be 

terminated if he did not return to work. Mr. Slezak refused, and Ryder fired him on 

February 17. 

Ryder later allowed Mr. Slezak to return to Dr. Kromer in April. Mr. Slezak 

complained of almost continuous intrascapular back pain, but Dr. Kromer did not observe 

any abnormalities. He diagnosed “unspecified” back pain and once more released him

from care to return to full duty. He recommended Mr. Slezak follow-up with his primary 

care physician.

Instead, he saw an orthopedist, Dr. Ethan Kellum, in May. He told Dr. Kellum 

that he suffered from thoracic pain that had worsened since the work injury. Dr. Kellum 

noted full thoracic range of motion, although Mr. Slezak felt pain with palpation or when 

turning to the left. A thoracic MRI also revealed a mild disc protrusion at T4-5 with

minimal cord compression on the left. Dr. Kellum diagnosed thoracic back pain and 

prescribed steroids and physical therapy.

Dr. Kellum then wrote a letter stating that, based on Mr. Slezak’s history of being 

struck in the mid-back, he felt that “his pain was caused by an [sic] exacerbated” by the 

work injury.

Mr. Slezak returned in August, and his pain had improved by 90%. On exam, Dr. 

Kellum noted mild tenderness with palpation and full range of motion with mild pain. He 

diagnosed “thoracolumbar pain—mostly resolved.” Mr. Slezak reported doing “fairly 

well” in November, although he suffered an exacerbation in physical therapy. Dr. 

Kellum again diagnosed thoracolumbar pain and continued conservative treatment.
3

In December, Dr. Kromer responded to a “check-the-box” letter from Ryder, to 

which it attached the May MRI report. Dr. Kromer checked “no” when asked if he noted 

any objective findings that were primarily caused or attributable to Mr. Slezak’s work 

injury and if he believed that his April 2020 symptoms were primarily caused by the 

work incident. He also agreed that he did not intend to “refer” Mr. Slezak through 

workers’ compensation when he suggested that he follow up with his primary care 

physician, since he did not believe the claimed work injury warranted additional 

treatment.

Finally, Mr. Slezak testified that he did not work due to the work injury from 

February 10 until November 7, 2020, when he took another job. However, he admitted 

that no doctor has taken him off work or placed restrictions since Dr. Kromer’s February 

10 release. Mr. Slezak admitted his pain was improved but maintained he required 

continued care with Dr. Kellum.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Mr. Slezak must present evidence from which this Court can determine that he is 

likely to prove at trial that he is entitled to medical and temporary disability benefits. See 

McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at 

*9 (Mar. 27, 2015). The parties stipulated that a co-worker struck him in the back. The 

dispute is whether this incident caused his complaints following Dr. Kromer’s release.

To prove causation, Mr. Slezak must show to a reasonable degree of medical 

certainty that his work injury contributed more than fifty percent in causing his continued 

mid-back pain, considering all causes. “Reasonable degree of medical certainty” means 

“it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or 

uncertainty.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2020). Given that the standard 

requires “medical certainty,” causation must be shown through an expert medical 

opinion. Id.

When confronted with conflicting opinions, the Court has discretion to determine 

which opinion to accept. Bass v. The Home Depot U.S.A, Inc., 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. 

App. Bd. LEXIS 36, at *9 (May 26, 2017). When doing so, the Court may consider, 

among other things, “the qualifications of the experts, the circumstances of their 

examination, the information available to them, and the evaluation of the importance of 

that information by other experts.” Id.

Here, both Dr. Kromer and Dr. Kellum treated Mr. Slezak several times, and both 

reviewed the MRI report. Unlike Dr. Kellum, Dr. Kromer is not an orthopedist, but his 

causation opinion is presumed correct since he was the authorized physician. Tenn. Code 

Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E).
4

The Court finds the language the doctors used in giving their opinions to be the 

critical difference. Dr. Kromer’s opinions, as framed by the “check-the-box” letter, track 

the statutory causation language. Dr. Kellum’s opinion does not specifically state 

whether he believes the work incident was the primary cause of Mr. Slezak’s complaints, 

considering all causes. Dr. Kellum did not have to necessarily use specific statutory

language for the Court to find causation. See Thysavathdy v. Bridgestone Ams. Tire 

Operations, No. M2017-01575-SC-R3-WC, 2018 TN LEXIS 313, at *26 (Tenn. 

Workers’ Comp. Panel June 8, 2018). However, if he had used that language, the Court 

would have given his opinion more weight. The Court holds Dr. Kellum’s opinion is not 

enough to overcome the presumption afforded Dr. Kromer’s.

3

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED THAT:

1. Mr. Slezak’s request for additional workers’ compensation benefits is denied.

2. This case is set for a Scheduling Hearing on Thursday, March 23, 2021, at 

10:30 a.m. Central Time. The parties must call 615-253-0010 to participate. 

Failure to appear might result in a determination of the issues without the 

party’s participation.

ENTERED on February 3, 2021.

_____________________________________

ROBERT DURHAM, JUDGE

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

APPENDIX

Technical Record:

1. Petition for Benefit Determination

2. Dispute Resolution Statement

3. Dispute Certification Notice

4. Show Cause Order

5. Request for Expedited Hearing

6. Ryder’s Response to Request for Expedited Hearing

7. Motion to Present Witness Testimony by Telephone

 3 Even if Mr. Slezak had prevailed on causation, he did not have any medical proof of a disability from 

working after Dr. Kromer’s release. Thus, he still would not have been entitled to temporary disability 

benefits.
5 

Exhibits: 

1. First Report of Injury 

2. Employee Choice of Physician Form (unsigned) 

3. Notice of Denial and Amended Notice of Denial 

4. Mr. Slezak’s Affidavit 

5. American Family Care Records

6. Job Description 

7. Statement of Incident Form 

8. Employment Record 

9. Fitness for Employment Examination 

10.Additional American Family Care Records 

11.MRI Report 

12. Dr. Kellum’s Records 

13.Termination Letter 

14.Medical Bills (for identification only) 

15.Ryder’s Submission of Evidence 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that a copy of the Order was sent as indicated on February 3, 2021. 

Name Certified 

Mail

Via 

Email

Email Address

Michael Slezak X X 422 Winningham Cemetery Road

Jamestown, TN 38556 

MikeSlezak2111@yahoo.com

Stephen Morton X stephen@mgclaw.com

amber.dennis@mgclaw.com

_____________________________________ 

 PENNY SHRUM, Court Clerk 

WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov