1 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSAT I ON APPEALS BOARD

M a i k e l R e a z k a l l a h ) D ocket No

. 2 0 2 2

- 0 5

- 0 5 5 4

)

v. ) S tate File N o

. 2 8 5 4

- 2 0 2 2

)

A m a z o n

. c o m S e r v i c e s

, L L C

, e t a l

. )

)

)

Appeal from t he Court of Workers’ )

Compe n sat i on C l aims )

D a l e A

. T i p p s

, Judge )

A f f

i r m e d a n d C e r t i f i e d a s F i n a l

T h i s i s a n a p p e a l o f a c o m p e n s a t i o n o r d e r d e n y i n g w o r k e r s ’ c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s

. T h e

e m p l o y e e a l l e g e d h e s u f f

e r e d a n i n j u r y t o h i s r i g h t l e g r e s u l t i n g i n a n e e d f o r m e d i c a l

t r e a t m e n t

. T h e e m p l o y e r p r o v i d e d a p a n e l

, a n d t h e s e l e c t e d p h y s i c i a n o p i n e d t h e

e m p l o y e e ’ s c o m p l a i n t s w e r e n o t p r i m a r i l y d u e t o a w o r k i n j u r y

. F o l l o w i n g a

c o m p e n s a t i o n h e a r i n g

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d t h e e m p l o y e e f a i l e d t o p r o v e h i s a l l e g e d

i n

j u r y a r o s e p r i m a r i l y o u t o f a n d i n t h e c o u r s e a n d s c o p e o f h i s emp loyment a n d d e n i e d

b e n e f i t s

, a n d t h e e m p l o y e e h a s a p p e a l e d

. U p o n c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e r e c o r d

, w e

a f f

i r m t h e o r d e r a n d c e r t i f y i t a s f i n a l

.

Judge M e r e d i t h B

. W e a v e r del iver e d the opi nion of the Appeals Board in w h ich

P r e s i d i n g J u d g e T i m o t h y W

. C o n n e r a n d Ju d g e P e l e I

. G o d k i n j oin e d

.

M a i k e l R e a z k a l l a h

, S m y r n a

, Tenne s see, e m p l o y e e

- appe ll a n t

, p r o s e

S t e p h e n B

. M o r t o n

, N a s h v i l l e

, T e n n e s s e e

, f o r t h e e m p l o y e r

- a p p e l l e e

, A m a z o n

. c o m

S e r v i c e s

, L L C

Factual and Pr o cedu ral Ba ck grou nd

M a i k e l R e a z k a l l a h ( “ E m p l o y e e ” ) a l l e g e d h e s u f f

e r e d a w o r k

- r e l a t e d i n j u r y o n

D e c e m b e r 1 8

, 2 0 2 1

, w h i l e w o r k i n g f o r A m a z o n

. c o m S e r v i c e s

, L L C ( “ E m p l o y e r ” )

. E m p l o y e e

, w h o b e g a n w o r k i n g f o r E m p l o y e r o n D e c e mb e r 1 2

, 2 0 2 1

, i n i t i a l l y r e p o r t e d a

s t r a i n t o h i s r i g h t t h i g h a r e a f o l l o w i n g w o r k o n t h e p r o d u c t i o n l i n e

. H o w e v e r

, h e l a t e r

i n d i c a t e d i t w a s a n i n j u r y t o h i s l o w b a c k c a u s i n g s y m p t o m s i n h i s r i g h t l e g

. U p o n 

### FILED

Mar 25, 2024

10:26 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

APPEALS BOARD2 r e c e i v i n g h i s r e p o r t o f a n i n j u r y

, E m p l o y e r p r o v i d e d a p a n e l

, a n d E m p l o y e e s e l e c t e d D r

. H a r o l d V

. N e v e l s as h i s a u t h o r i z e d t r e a t i n g p h y s i c i a n

.

D r

. N e v e l s s a w E m p l o y e e o n De cember 3 0

, 2 0 2 1

. A t t h a t t i m e

, E m p l o y e e

r e p o r t e d n u m b n e s s a n d a “ c o l d s e n s a t i o n ” t o h i s r i g h t t h i g h a f t e r s i x d a y s a s a “ s o r t e r ”

w i t h E m p l o y e r

. D r

. N e v e l s s t a t e d

, “ I c a n n o t [ s i c ] c a l l t h i s a w o r k c o m p i n j u r y

, ” a n d

r e l e a s e d Employee t o f o l l o w u p w i t h a p r i m a r y c a r e p r o v i d e r r e g a r d i n g a p o s s i b l e

e l e c t r o l y t e i m b a l a n c e o r “ d e c o n d i t i o n i n g ” f o r w o r k

. F o l l o w i n g t h a t v i s i t

, E m p l o y e r

d e n i e d t h e c l a i m

, a n d E m p l o y e e f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r b e n e f i t determinat io n

. O n c e a d i s p u t e

c e r t i f i c a t i o n n o t i c e w a s i s s u e d

, E m p l o y e e f i l e d a r e q u e s t f o r e x p e d i t e d h e a r i n g

. A f t e r

n u m e r o u s d i s c o v e r y d i s p u t e s

, E m p l o y e e d i d n o t a t t e n d t h e e x p e d i t e d h e a r i n g

, a n d a s

s u c h

, t h e c o u r t s e t a c o m p e n s a t i o n h e a r i n g

. 1

A t t h e D e c e m b e r 7

, 2 0 2 3 c o m p e n s a t i o n h e a r i n g

, E m p l o y e e t e s t i f i e d o n h i s o w n

b e h a l f

, a n d E m p l o y e r o f f

e r ed i n t o e v i d e n c e a F o r m C

- 3 2 F i n a l M e d i c a l R e p o r t ( “ C

- 3 2 ” )

f r o m D r

. N e v e l s

. T h e C

- 3 2 r e f l e c t e d t h e p r i o r s t a t e m e n t s o f D r

. N e v e l s i n d i c a t i n g t h e r e

w a s n o w o r k i n j u r y

, n o d i s a b l e m e n t p r e v e n t i n g E m p l o y e e f r o m w o r k i n g

, a n d n o

p e r m a n e n t i m p a i r m e n t

. E m p l o y e e p r o v i d e d a C

- 3 2 f r o m D r

. J o h n B u r l e s o n

, a n

u n a u t h o r i z e d p h y s i c i a n h e s a w o n h i s o w n

, b u t i t w a s n o t a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e a s i t d i d

n o t s a t i s f y t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f T e n n e s s e e C o d e A n n o t a t e d s e c t i o n 5 0

- 6

- 2 3 5 ( c ) ( 1 )

. W i t h

n o m e d i c a l p r o o f e s t a b l is h in g t h a t E m p l o y e e ’ s a l l e g e d i n j u r y a r o se p r i m a r i l y o u t o f a n d

in the c o u r s e a n d s c o p e o f h i s e m p l o y m e n t

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d E m p l o y e e h a d n o t

m e t h i s b u r d e n o f p r o o f a n d e n t e r e d a c o m p e n s a t i o n o r d e r d e n y i n g b e n e f i t s

. E m p l o y e e

h a s appea led

.

S t a n d a r d o f R e v i e w

The standard we apply in reviewi ng a trial court’s decision presumes that t h e

court’s factual findings are correct unless the prep o nderance of t he evidence is otherwise.

S

ee Tenn. Code An n. § 5 0

- 6

- 239(c)(7) (202 3 ). Wh en t he tria l judge has had the

opportunity to observe a witness’s dem eanor and to hear in

- court t estimony, we gi v e

considerable deference to factual findings made by t h e trial c ourt

. Madden v

. Holland

Grp. of T enn., Inc. , 27 7 S.W. 3d 896, 898 (T enn. 2009). Ho wever, “[n]o similar

deference need be afforded the trial court’s findings based upon docume n tary evidence .”

Goodman v. Schwarz Paper Co. , No. W2016

- 02594

- SC

- R3

- W C , 2018 Te nn. LEXIS 8, at

*6 (Tenn. Worker s’ Comp. Panel J an. 18 , 2 018). Simi larly, the inte rpretat ion and

application of statutes and regulations are questi ons of law that are reviewe d de novo with

n o presumption of correctness afforded the trial court’s conclusio ns. See Mansel l v. Bridgestone Fi restone N. Am. Tire, LL C , 417 S.W. 3d 393, 399 (Te nn. 201 3). We are

1 Employee di d file an appeal of the order dismis sing his r eque st for expedited hearing but failed to pay

the fi ling fee or file an Affidavit of Indigency even aft er our issuance of a s h ow cause order. As such, we

dismissed that appeal on July 18, 2023

, without reaching the merits a nd r emanded the case

.3 also mindful of our obligation to construe the workers’ compensation stat u tes “fairly,

im p artially, and in accordance with basic principles of s t atutory c onst ruction” an d in a

way that d oe s not favor ei ther t he employee or the employ er. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50

- 6

- 116 (202 3 ).

Analysis

I n h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

, E m p l o y e e i d e n t i f i e s t h r e e i s s u e s : ( 1 ) t h e c o u r t ’ s e x c l u s i o n

o f D r

. B u r l e s o n ’ s C

- 3 2 f r o m e v i d e n c e ; ( 2 ) “ t a k i n g t h e d o c t o r [ ’ s ] r e p o r t f o r [ E m p l o y e r ]

e v e n t h o u g h I t o l d h i m t h a t t h e s i g n a t u r e [ i s ] n o t [ m i n e ] ; a n d ( 3 ) “ h i d i n g t h e [ n o t i c e ] o f

r e c e i p t b y t h e o t h e r p a r t y [ t o ] b r i n g w i t n e s s e s a n d vid i o [ s i c ] c a m e r a

. ” F o r i t s p a r t

, E m p l o y e r s u b m i t s t h e a p p e a l i s fri volous a n d s e e k s a n a w a r d o f i t s e x p e n s e s

.

O n a p p e a l

, E m p l o y e e d i d n o t f i l e a b r i e f

, n o r d i d h e f i l e a t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e h e a r i n g

. E m p l o y e e d i d s e n d a n e m a i l t o t h e C l e r k o f t h e W o r k e r s ’ C o m p e n s a t i o n A p p e a l s B o a r d

,

w h i c h a p p e a r s t o r e i t e r a t e h i s r e q u e s t t o h a v e D r

. B u r l e s o n ’ s C

- 3 2 a d m i t t e d a n d t o h a v e

t h e c o m p a n y p r e s e n t c e r t a i n w i t n e s s e s a n d e v i d e n c e h e a l l e g e s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h

s u b p o e n a s h e m a i l e d t o E m p l o y e r ’ s a t t o r n e y

. 2

I n t h e a b s e n c e o f a t r a n s c r i p t

, “the totality of the e vidence introduced i n the trial

court is unknown, a nd we de cline to s peculate as to the nature and extent of the pro of

presented to t h e trial court .” M eier v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc.

, No. 2015

- 02

- 0179,

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

. Bd. July

27, 2016). C onsistent w ith es tablished Tennessee law, we must presume that the trial

c ourt ’ s rulings we r e supported by s u f ficient evidence. See, e.g.

, Esta te of Cock ril l , N o.

M2010

- 0 066 3

- COA

- R3

- CV, 2010 Tenn. A p p. LE XIS 75 4

, at *11

- 12 (Tenn. Ct. App.

D ec. 2, 20 10) ( “ [W]here n o transcri p t or st ateme nt o f th e ev idence is filed, the appellate

c ourt is r equired to presum e that th e r ecord, had i t been properly pr eserved, w oul d ha ve

support ed t he action of the trial c ourt. ” ); Leek v . Powell , 884 S.W.2d 118, 1 21 (Ten n. Ct

. App. 199 4 ) ( “ In the absen ce of a tran scri p t o r statemen t of the evidence, we must

conc lusively pr esume that ever y f act admiss ib le under the plead ings was f oun d or should

h a ve b een found favorab ly t o the app ell ee. ” )

.

F u r t h e r

, o u r a b i l i t y t o d i s c e r n t h e fa ctual o r l e g a l iss ues for rev iew i s limited

. As

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

appellate, to resear ch or construct a l itigant ’ s ca se or arguments for him or her. ” Sneed v.

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

footage of the a ccident were a ddress ed by the trial court i n a Ma y 25, 2023 order . The tech n ical reco rd

contains various subpoenas ad dres sed to E mployer

, g enerall y, and later to Employer ’ s counsel

, requesting

the appearance of t he supervisor and a saf ety offici al allegedly present at the time of the a ccident , as well

as vi deo of the accident. I n the May 25 order, the trial c ourt exp lained the su bpoena proce dure under the

Bureau ’ s Rules and d enied Employee ’ s motion to comp el the appearance of those witnesses . Th at order

was not appealed

.4 Bd. of P rof’ l Responsibilit y o f the Sup

. C t. of Tenn. , 30 1 S. W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010).

Indeed, were we to search the recor d for possible errors and raise issues and arguments

for Employee , we would be acting as his c ounsel, which the law clearly prohibits. Web b

v. Sherrell , No. E 2013

- 02724

- CO A-R3- CV, 201 5 Te nn. 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 tr ial court ’ s decision regarding the a dmis sion or

excl usion of evidence is e ntrusted to the court ’ s discretion and will not be disturbed on

appeal unl ess 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 H end erson v. SAIA, Inc. , 318 S.W.3d 328, 335 (Te nn. 2010) (an

abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision causes a n injustice by ap plying

an incorr e ct legal s tandard, reach ing an il l og ical conclusion, or by resolving the case

based on a clear ly err oneous assessment o f the evidenc e). 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

prev iously, a frivolous appeal is one that is devoid of merit or br ought solely for delay.

Y

arbrough v. Protective Servs. Co., Inc. , No. 2015

- 08

- 0574, 2016 TN Wrk. Com p. App.

Bd. LEXIS 3, at *11 (Tenn. Workers ’ Comp. App. Bd. Jan. 25, 20 16); see also Burnette

v. WestRock , No. 2016

- 01

- 0670, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 66 , at *15

(Tenn. Worke rs ’ Comp. App. Bd. Oct. 31, 201 7) ( “ Stated another way, a fr ivolous app eal

is one that

. . . had n o reasonable chance of suc ceeding. ” (internal c itation and quotation

m arks omitted)). Litigants “s hould not be required to endure t he ha ssle and expense of

b aseless l itigation. Nor sho uld appellate courts be required to waste t ime and resources

on appeal s that have no realistic c hance of success. ” Y arbrough , 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 fi nd no indication in the record than Employee g ave not ice of his intent to use th e C

- 32 at le ast

tw enty days prior to th e date of intended use

. See Tenn

. Code Ann. § 50 -6- 235(c) ( 2) (2023).TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSAT I ON APPEALS BOARD

Maikel Reazkallah ) Docket No. 2022-05-0554

)

v. ) State File No. 2854-2022

)

Amazon.com Services, LLC, et al. )

)

)

Appe al 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 Appe als Board’s decision in the referenced

case was sent to th e following recipients by the following methods of service on this the 25th day

of March

, 202 4.

Name Certified

Mail First Class

Mail Via

Fax Via

Email Sen t 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

Kennet h 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, Worker s’ Compensation Appeals Board

220 French Landing Dr., Ste. 1-B

Nashville, TN 37243

Telephone: 615 -253-1606

Electronic Mail: WCAppeals .Clerk@tn.gov