1

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Maikel Reazkallah ) Docket No. 2022-05-0554

)

v. ) State File No. 2854-2022

)

Amazon.com Services, LLC, et al. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )

Compensation Claims )

Dale A. Tipps, Judge )

Affirmed and Certified as Final

This is an appeal of a compensation order denying workers’ compensation benefits. The

employee alleged he suffered an injury to his right leg resulting in a need for medical

treatment. The employer provided a panel, and the selected physician opined the

employee’s complaints were not primarily due to a work injury. Following a

compensation hearing, the trial court found the employee failed to prove his alleged

injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment and denied

benefits, and the employee has appealed. Upon careful consideration of the record, we

affirm the order and certify it as final.

Judge Meredith B. Weaver delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which 

Presiding Judge Timothy W. Conner and Judge Pele I. Godkin joined.

Maikel Reazkallah, Smyrna, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se

Stephen B. Morton, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, Amazon.com

Services, LLC

Factual and Procedural Background

Maikel Reazkallah (“Employee”) alleged he suffered a work-related injury on

December 18, 2021, while working for Amazon.com Services, LLC (“Employer”).

Employee, who began working for Employer on December 12, 2021, initially reported a

strain to his right thigh area following work on the production line. However, he later

indicated it was an injury to his low back causing symptoms in his right leg. Upon

FILED

Mar 25, 2024

10:26 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

APPEALS BOARD
2

receiving his report of an injury, Employer provided a panel, and Employee selected Dr.

Harold V. Nevels as his authorized treating physician.

Dr. Nevels saw Employee on December 30, 2021. At that time, Employee

reported numbness and a “cold sensation” to his right thigh after six days as a “sorter”

with Employer. Dr. Nevels stated, “I can not [sic] call this a work comp injury,” and

released Employee to follow up with a primary care provider regarding a possible

electrolyte imbalance or “deconditioning” for work. Following that visit, Employer

denied the claim, and Employee filed a petition for benefit determination. Once a dispute

certification notice was issued, Employee filed a request for expedited hearing. After

numerous discovery disputes, Employee did not attend the expedited hearing, and as

such, the court set a compensation hearing.

1

At the December 7, 2023 compensation hearing, Employee testified on his own

behalf, and Employer offered into evidence a Form C-32 Final Medical Report (“C-32”)

from Dr. Nevels. The C-32 reflected the prior statements of Dr. Nevels indicating there

was no work injury, no disablement preventing Employee from working, and no

permanent impairment. Employee provided a C-32 from Dr. John Burleson, an

unauthorized physician he saw on his own, but it was not admitted into evidence as it did

not satisfy the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-235(c)(1). With

no medical proof establishing that Employee’s alleged injury arose primarily out of and

in the course and scope of his employment, the trial court determined Employee had not

met his burden of proof and entered a compensation order denying benefits. Employee

has appealed.

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) (2023). 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). 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 

1 Employee did file an appeal of the order dismissing his request for expedited hearing but failed to pay

the filing fee or file an Affidavit of Indigency even after our issuance of a show cause order. As such, we

dismissed that appeal on July 18, 2023, without reaching the merits and remanded the case.
3

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 (2023).

Analysis

In his notice of appeal, Employee identifies three issues: (1) the court’s exclusion

of Dr. Burleson’s C-32 from evidence; (2) “taking the doctor[’s] report for [Employer]

even though I told him that the signature [is] not [mine]; and (3) “hiding the [notice] of

receipt by the other party [to] bring witnesses and vidio [sic] camera.” For its part,

Employer submits the appeal is frivolous and seeks an award of its expenses.

On appeal, Employee did not file a brief, nor did he file a transcript of the hearing.

Employee did send an email to the Clerk of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board,

which appears to reiterate his request to have Dr. Burleson’s C-32 admitted and to have

the company present certain witnesses and evidence he alleges are consistent with

subpoenas he mailed to Employer’s attorney.

2

In the absence of a transcript, “the totality of the evidence introduced in the trial 

court is unknown, and we decline to speculate as to the nature and extent of the proof 

presented to the trial court.” Meier v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., No. 2015-02-0179, 

2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 30, at *3 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. July 

27, 2016). Consistent with established Tennessee law, we must presume that the trial 

court’s rulings were supported by sufficient evidence. See, e.g., Estate of Cockrill, No. 

M2010-00663-COA-R3-CV, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 754, at *11-12 (Tenn. Ct. App. 

Dec. 2, 2010) (“[W]here no transcript or statement of the evidence is filed, the appellate 

court is required to presume that the record, had it been properly preserved, would have 

supported the action of the trial court.”); Leek v. Powell, 884 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tenn. Ct.

App. 1994) (“In the absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence, we must 

conclusively presume that every fact admissible under the pleadings was found or should 

have been found favorably to the appellee.”).

Further, our ability to discern the factual or legal issues for review is limited. As 

stated by the Tennessee Supreme Court, “[i]t is not the role of the courts, trial or 

appellate, to research or construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her.” Sneed v. 

2 The issues Employee attempts to raise regarding the issuance of subpoenas for witnesses and video 

footage of the accident were addressed by the trial court in a May 25, 2023 order. The technical record 

contains various subpoenas addressed to Employer, generally, and later to Employer’s counsel, requesting 

the appearance of the supervisor and a safety official allegedly present at the time of the accident, as well 

as video of the accident. In the May 25 order, the trial court explained the subpoena procedure under the 

Bureau’s Rules and denied Employee’s motion to compel the appearance of those witnesses. That order 

was not appealed.
4 

Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010). 

Indeed, 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 clearly prohibits. Webb 

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

Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2015). 

 The only issue contained in the trial court’s order which Employee has raised on 

appeal is the exclusion of Dr. Burleson’s C-32. Although Employee attempted to file Dr. 

Burleson’s C-32 and his records, the C-32 did not contain a statement of Dr. Burleson’s 

qualifications as required by the applicable statute. Counsel for Employer properly 

objected to its admissibility.

3

 A trial court’s decision regarding the admission or 

exclusion of evidence is entrusted to the court’s discretion and will not be disturbed on 

appeal unless the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90, 116 

(Tenn. 2008). We can find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s exclusion of Dr. 

Burleson’s C-32. See Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328, 335 (Tenn. 2010) (an 

abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision causes an injustice by applying 

an incorrect legal standard, reaching an illogical conclusion, or by resolving the case 

based on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence). As such, we agree with the 

trial court that Employee provided no medical proof to rebut the presumption afforded 

Dr. Nevels under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(12)(E), and we find no 

error in the trial court’s denial of benefits. 

 Finally, we conclude Employee’s appeal is frivolous. As we have noted 

previously, a frivolous appeal is one that is devoid of merit or brought solely for delay. 

Yarbrough v. Protective Servs. Co., Inc., No. 2015-08-0574, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. 

Bd. LEXIS 3, at *11 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Jan. 25, 2016); see also Burnette 

v. WestRock, No. 2016-01-0670, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 66, at *15 

(Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Oct. 31, 2017) (“Stated another way, a frivolous appeal 

is one that . . . had no reasonable chance of succeeding.” (internal citation and quotation 

marks omitted)). Litigants “should not be required to endure the hassle and expense of 

baseless litigation. Nor should appellate courts be required to waste time and resources 

on appeals that have no realistic chance of success.” Yarbrough, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. 

App. Bd. LEXIS 3, at *10-11 (internal citations omitted). However, under these 

circumstances, we exercise our discretion and decline to award expenses as requested by 

Employer. 

Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the court’s order and certify it as final. Costs 

on appeal have been waived. 

3 We also find no indication in the record than Employee gave notice of his intent to use the C-32 at least 

twenty days prior to the date of intended use. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-235(c)(2) (2023).
 

 

 

 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Maikel Reazkallah ) Docket No. 2022-05-0554 

) 

v. ) State File No. 2854-2022 

)

Amazon.com Services, LLC, et al. ) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ ) 

Compensation Claims ) 

Dale A. Tipps, 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 March, 2024. 

Name Certified 

Mail 

First Class 

Mail 

Via 

Fax 

Via 

Email 

Sent to: 

Maikel Reazkallah X X X maikel.reazkallah@yahoo.com

100 Bungalow Ct., Smyrna, TN, 37167

Stephen B. Morton X stephen.morton@mgclaw.com

Dale A. Tipps, 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