1

 

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Maikel Reazkallah ) Docket No. 2018-06-2210

)

v. ) State File No. 80107-2018

)

Imperial Guard & Detective )

Service, Inc., et al. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )

Compensation Claims )

Kenneth M. Switzer, Chief Judge )

Affirmed and Remanded

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee appeals the trial court’s order denying his 

request for medical treatment for alleged injuries to his legs and for temporary partial 

disability benefits. The employee was assaulted while in the course of his employment 

and was provided authorized care. He later asserted injuries to additional body parts and 

reasserted an entitlement to temporary disability benefits. Following an expedited 

hearing, the trial court found the employee had not presented sufficient evidence to entitle 

him to the requested benefits. The employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed 

the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and remand the case.

Presiding Judge Timothy W. Conner delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which 

Judge David F. Hensley joined. Judge Pele I. Godkin did not participate.

Maikel Reazkallah, La Vergne, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se

David Weatherman, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, Imperial Guard & 

Detective Service, Inc.

FILED

Jan 30, 2020

12:16 PM(CT)

TENNESSEE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

APPEALS BOARD
2

Memorandum Opinion1

Maikel Reazkallah (“Employee”) was employed as a security guard by Imperial 

Guard and Detective Service (“Employer”).2

 On April 21, 2018, Employee was assaulted 

while in the course of his employment, initially alleging injuries to his right hand and left 

knee. The claim was accepted as compensable, and Employer provided some medical 

treatment with Dr. Michael Ladouceur. In a prior expedited hearing, Employee requested 

certain medical benefits, including payment of an outstanding medical bill, which 

Employer agreed to provide. Employee also requested temporary disability benefits in 

the prior hearing as his hours had been reduced and, ultimately, he had been terminated. 

Because he acknowledged at the hearing that his reduced hours and subsequent 

termination were unrelated to his work injury, the trial court denied Employee’s request 

for temporary disability benefits. That order was not appealed.

Employee requested a second expedited hearing, seeking to compel Employer to 

provide medical treatment for injuries to both legs and to pay temporary partial disability 

benefits. Upon review of the medical records entered into evidence, the trial court 

concluded that, other than Employee’s testimony, there was no evidence that the need for 

additional medical treatment, if any, arose primarily from the work incident. 

Additionally, the court reiterated its prior finding that Employee’s reduced wages and 

subsequent termination were unrelated to his work injury and denied Employee’s request 

for temporary partial disability benefits.

Employee filed a notice of appeal, alleging a video recording existed that would 

establish he suffered injuries to both legs and stating that he would submit medical 

documentation supporting his request for additional medical care. On November 22, 

2019, Employee filed a request for an extension of time until January 15, 2020, to allow 

him to submit the purported video of the incident and additional medical reports. 

Considering the motion as one to supplement the record, we remanded the case to the 

trial court to rule on Employee’s request. The trial court denied Employee’s motion to 

supplement the record, and the appeal proceeded in due course.

It is unclear what relief Employee seeks on appeal, as he has raised no reviewable 

issues in his notice of appeal and has filed no brief on appeal. It appears that he wishes to 

submit additional proof, which the trial court has declined to accept to date. As we have 

explained previously, we will not consider evidence not presented to and considered by 

 1 “The Appeals Board may, in an effort to secure a just and speedy determination of matters on appeal and 

with the concurrence of all judges, decide an appeal by an abbreviated order or by memorandum opinion, 

whichever the Appeals Board deems appropriate, in cases that are not legally and/or factually novel or 

complex.” Appeals Bd. Prac. & Proc. § 1.3.

2 We have not been provided a transcript or a joint statement of the evidence. Thus, we have gleaned the 

facts from the pleadings, other filings, and the trial court’s order.
3

the trial court. See Hadzic v. Averitt Express, No. 2014-02-0064, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. 

App. Bd. LEXIS 14, at *13 n.4 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. May 18, 2015) (“[W]e 

will not consider on appeal testimony, exhibits, or other materials that were not properly 

admitted into evidence at the hearing before the trial judge.”).

Moreover, Employee has not filed a transcript of the hearing or a joint statement 

of the evidence. See Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-22-.02(1) (2018). Accordingly, 

we must presume the trial judge’s factual findings are supported by the record. Hale v. 

Prime Pkg. & Label, No. 2015-06-0150, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 22, at 

*13 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. July 16, 2015). See also, Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l 

Responsibility of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010) (“It is not the 

role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or construct a litigant’s case or arguments 

for him or her.”).

It is not our role to search the record for possible errors or to formulate 

Employee’s legal arguments in favor of his position where he has provided no 

meaningful argument or authority to support his position. Cosey v. Jarden Corp., No. 

2017-01-0053, 2019 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 3, at *8 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. 

App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2019). Were we to search the record for possible errors and raise issues 

and arguments for Employee, we would be acting as his counsel, which the law prohibits. 

Webb v. Sherrell, No. E2013-02724-COA-R3-CV, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645, at *5 

(Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2015).

We note that Employee is self-represented in this appeal, as he was in the trial 

court. Parties who decide to represent themselves are entitled to fair and equal treatment 

by the courts. Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d 222, 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). 

However, as explained by the Court of Appeals,

courts must also be mindful of the boundary between fairness to a pro se 

litigant and unfairness to the pro se litigant’s adversary. Thus, the courts 

must not excuse pro se litigants from complying with the same substantive 

and procedural rules that represented parties are expected to observe. . . .

Pro se litigants should not be permitted to shift the burden of the litigation 

to the courts or to their adversaries.

Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901, 903-04 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (citations omitted).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court and remand the 

case. Costs on appeal are taxed to Employee.
 

 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Maikel Reazkallah ) Docket No. 2018-06-2210

)

v. ) State File No. 80107-2018

)

Imperial Guard & Detective )

Service, Inc., et al. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )

Compensation Claims )

Kenneth M. Switzer, Chief 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 30th day 

of January, 2020.

Name Certified 

Mail

First Class 

Mail

Via 

Fax

Via 

Email

Sent to: 

Maikel Reazkallah X X 456 Cedar Park Circle

LaVergne, TN 37086

maikel.reazkallah@yahoo.com

David Weatherman X david.weatherman@zurichna.com

christi.thomas@zurichna.com

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