1 

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS 

AT MURFREESBORO 

BELINDA LEMAIRE, ) Docket No.: 2021-05-0969 

Employee, 

v. 

) 

) 

LOWE’S INVESTMENT 

CORPORATION, 

) 

) 

) 

State File No.: 45689-2020 

Self-Insured Employer. ) 

) 

Judge Thomas Wyatt 

 

COMPENSATION ORDER 

On June 6, 2023, the Court held a Compensation Hearing in which Belinda Lemaire 

sought a change in treating physicians and permanent disability benefits. Lowe’s 

Investment Corporation argued that a change in physicians is not warranted because the 

authorized physician remains available and willing to treat her. It also raised several issues 

regarding her disability benefit claim, including the correct impairment rating on which to 

base her award; the applicable compensation rate; and her entitlement to a resulting award. 

For the reasons below, the Court denies Ms. Lemaire’s request for a change of physicians, 

but awards her permanent partial disability benefits. 

History of Claim 

 Ms. Lemaire is sixty-six years old with a high school diploma. She sustained injury 

at Lowe’s on July 10, 2020, when a load of shelving fell onto her right foot. Since the 

injury, she has experienced deadness, burning, coldness, tingling, and pain in her right 

lower extremity. Other than temporary improvement in physical therapy, her symptoms 

remain unchanged. 

Lowe’s accepted the injury as compensable and authorized care with podiatrist Dr. 

FILED

Jun 20, 2023

02:00 PM(ET)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS
2 

Matthew Neuhaus.1 He diagnosed contusions and a right-foot stress fracture plus reflex 

sympathetic dystrophy.2 He took Ms. Lemaire off work, and Lowe’s paid $341.91 per 

week in temporary disability benefits. X-rays of the right foot showed “osteopenia 

throughout the foot.” Dr. Neuhaus ordered physical therapy that temporarily relieved Ms. 

Lemaire’s pain. However, her pain returned when her physical therapy ended, so Dr. 

Neuhaus recommended pain management. 

Ms. Lemaire selected Dr. Jeffrey Hazlewood from a panel of pain management 

physicians. He saw her in October 2020 and immediately suspected that she had Complex 

Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) in her right lower extremity. He testified that CRPS 

occurs when the “autonomic nervous system just goes haywire.” 

Dr. Hazlewood ordered acupuncture and H wave treatments, but Ms. Lemaire 

discontinued them because they increased her symptoms. He also offered nerve blocks 

and neuromodulator medications, but she declined those over concerns about side effects 

and contraindications due to her glaucoma. 

Dr. Hazlewood finalized his CRPS diagnosis a year later after a psychological 

evaluation showing that Ms. Lemaire did not intentionally embellish her symptoms nor 

suffer from psychological conditions that might supplant her physical injury. He stated 

that he diagnosed her with CRPS, even though it is a controversial diagnosis, after 

thoroughly following accepted diagnostic protocols. 

Dr. Hazlewood placed Ms. Lemaire at maximum medical improvement on August 

4, 2021. He gave her a four-percent impairment under the Sixth Edition of the AMA 

Guides, finding four objective indicators of CRPS—edema and changes in skin 

temperature, color, and texture. Due to her CRPS, Dr. Hazlewood permanently restricted 

Ms. Lemaire from climbing ladders, pushing, pulling, or lifting over fifteen pounds; from 

standing or walking more than fifteen minutes of any given hour; and from sitting more 

than three hours of any six- or eight-hour period. Finally, he instructed her to elevate her 

right leg and use a crutch as needed. 

Ms. Lemaire testified that she attempted to return to Dr. Hazlewood for treatment 

after her maximum medical improvement date. However, a case manager told her, “The 

doctors are finished with you.” Lowe’s later agreed to authorize her return to Dr. 

Hazlewood. 

In February 2022, Dr. Hazlewood noted no changes in her physical findings, 

recommended home exercises, and discussed medication use. He also responded to Ms. 

1 Lowe’s stipulated that Ms. Lemaire’s injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of 

employment. 

2

 Dr. Hazlewood referred to this condition as Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. 
3 

Lemaire’s questions about his medical findings, impairment rating, and difficulties with 

her workers’ compensation claim. 

Ms. Lemaire requested treatment with another physician because Dr. Hazlewood 

provided no new treatment options. However, Dr Hazlewood testified he was willing to 

continue treating her “if she came back to me saying, ‘Dr. Hazlewood, I need further 

treatment. I’ve decided I want further treatment.’” He stated he would consider ordering 

a nerve block but thought the chance of it helping at this point is only five percent. He 

would also consider prescribing neuromodulators, cognitive behavioral therapy, and 

physical therapy to complement home exercises. He testified that if those treatments did 

not help, “I just don’t know much else to do.” 

In September 2022, Ms. Lemaire saw podiatrist Dr. Reece Rickertsen on her own. 

He performed x-rays of both feet that showed “[m]oderate degenerative changes . . . 

throughout the midfoot and rear foot. Bone is significantly washed and osteopenic in 

nature.” The x-rays of the left foot were “normal.” 

Moving now to Ms. Lemaire’s claim for permanent disability benefits, Dr. 

Hazlewood returned her to work under restrictions shortly after he began treating her.3 Ms. 

Lemaire attempted to work restricted duty for more than a year. She experienced severe 

pain when working and at times had to walk away from customers because her pain brought 

her to tears. Christine Wade, a scheduler for Lowe’s, testified that she observed the 

problems Ms. Lemaire experienced while working and offered to give her a wheelchair no 

longer used by Ms. Wade’s father. 

Ms. Lemaire testified that the pain and other symptoms caused by her CRPS 

significantly impaired not only her work activities but also her activities of daily living. 

She has difficulty walking, especially for long distances and on uneven surfaces, which 

negatively impacts doing housework, shopping for groceries, and interacting with her 

grandchildren. She has difficulty entering, exiting, and operating a vehicle. She applied 

for and received a handicap placard because of her CRPS. 

While she worked restricted duty, Ms. Lemaire called in sixty-five times to report 

she was unable to work scheduled shifts. Some of the absences were weather-related, but 

most were because of her CRPS. 

Between April 2 and 10, 2022, Ms. Lemaire did not call to report her absences from 

six consecutive scheduled shifts. She testified that she did not know she was on the 

schedule but conceded she had access to her work calendar to check if she was on the 

calendar those dates. In fact, Lowe’s scheduler sent Ms. Lemaire the following text 

3

 Lowe’s paid temporary total disability benefits when Lemaire missed work due to her injury. Ms. Lemaire 

did not prove entitlement to further temporary total disability benefits. 
4 

message after her second failure to report an absence: “Hi Belinda. This is Christine Wade 

calling to check on you. Is everything ok? It is not like you not to call in.” 

Ms. Lemaire testified that it became difficult to get through to Lowe’s management 

to report absences. She presented three recorded call-ins to show the difficulty she 

encountered in reporting absences. However, she was able to report her absences on the 

dates of those calls. Ms. Lemaire did not testify that she responded to Ms. Wade’s text 

message about not calling in, and she offered no direct explanation for why she did not 

report her absences. 

Lowe’s terminated Ms. Lemaire under its attendance policy after her sixth failure to 

call in an absence.4 

In support of her claim for permanent disability benefits, Ms. Lemaire sought to 

admit a C-32 Standard Form Medical Report completed and signed by orthopedist Dr. H. 

James Wiesman, Jr., whom she saw for an independent medical examination. She filed the 

C-32 on April 12, 2023, under a document entitled “Notice of Filing.” Under the same 

notice, she also filed Dr. Wiesman’s Final Medical Report, typewritten report, and 

curriculum vitae. 

Lowe’s objected to the C-32 because Ms. Lemaire did not file a document 

specifically stating that she intended to use the C-32 at trial. It did not argue failure of 

service or surprise that Ms. Lemaire sought to introduce the form at trial. Lowe’s also 

objected on hearsay grounds. The Court took the objections under advisement but upon 

consideration overrules them.5 

Dr. Wiesman saw Ms. Lemaire on February 7, 2023, and performed a physical 

examination. His report discussed his review of records of Drs. Hazlewood, Neuhaus, and 

Rickertsen. He completed and signed the C-32 and Final Medical Report on April 6. He 

dated and signed his report on April 7. All signatures are notarized. 

In the C-32 and Final Medical Report, Dr. Wiesman agreed with Dr. Hazlewood 

that Ms. Lemaire attained maximum medical improvement on August 4, 2021. He rated 

her impairment for her CRPS at twenty percent under the Sixth Edition of the AMA Guides.

Dr. Wiesman discussed the basis of his impairment rating and noted it differed from 

Dr. Hazlewood’s rating because he found ten symptoms supporting CRPS: mottled skin 

color; cool skin temperature; edema; dry or overly moist skin; smooth or nonelastic skin 

texture; soft tissue atrophy; especially at the digit tips; joint stiffness and decreased passive 

4

 Ms. Wade testified that Lowe’s policy stated that three consecutive no call/no show incidents are 

considered job abandonment. 

5

 The Court will discuss the decision to overrule the objection later in the order. 
5 

motion; blemished, curved, or talonlike nails; hair growth changes; and radiographs 

showing trophic bone changes or osteoporosis. Dr. Hazlewood had only noted four 

findings, making his rating lower under the Guides. 

Dr. Hazlewood testified that he more accurately rated Ms. Lemaire’s impairment

because his examination was performed on the date of maximum medical improvement. 

He stated that the findings made by Dr. Wiesman several months later could have been 

caused by disuse or factors not related to CRPS. Dr. Wiesman stated that rating Ms. 

Lemaire’s impairment later than Dr. Hazlewood gave a better account of how CRPS 

affected her over time. 

Regarding the applicable compensation rate, Lowe’s claimed entitlement to the 

Social Security offset, which reduces the rate to $108.36 per week. In October 2022, Ms. 

Lemaire began receiving $2,024.10 per month in Social Security Retirement benefits. She 

testified that she filed for her Social Security one year early because she lost her job at 

Lowe’s. 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

At a Compensation Hearing, Ms. Lemaire must prove all aspects of her case by a 

preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code. Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2022). Specifically, 

she must prove entitlement to treatment by another physician and permanent disability 

benefits. 

Objection to Dr. Wiesman’s C-32 

Before deciding the substantive issues, the Court considers Lowe’s objections to Dr. 

Wiesman’s C-32. Lowe’s first objected because Ms. Lemaire did not file a document 

stating her intent to use the form at trial. 

Tennessee Code section 50-6-235(c)(2) states that a C-32 is admissible “if notice of 

intent to use the sworn statement is provided to the opposing party or counsel not less than 

twenty (20) days before the date of the intended use.” The statute does not specify a 

mechanism for the requisite notice. 

The filing of medical records in the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims does 

not happen in a vacuum. The Court’s rules require that parties file and serve medical 

records intended for use at a hearing no later than ten days before the hearing. Tenn. Comp. 

R. & Regs. 0800-02-21-.16(2)(a) (February, 2022). The Scheduling Order makes the same 

requirement. Because no other reason for filing medical records exists, Ms. Lemaire’s 

timely filing and service of Dr. Wiesman’s C-32 gave Lowe’s ample notice that she 

intended to use the form and its attachments at trial. Lowe’s knowledge of Ms. Lemaire’s 

intent to use the C-32 is confirmed by the fact that Lowe’s discussed Dr. Wiesman’s C-32 
6 

in its pre-trial brief filed fourteen days before the hearing. 

The Court also overrules Lowe’s hearsay objection to Dr. Wiesman’s report. The 

C-32 provides a section for a narrative discussion of the course of the physician’s treatment. 

That space is blank on the form completed by Dr. Wiesman. The report, filed at the same 

time and under the same cover as the C-32, describes Dr. Wiesman’s examination, his 

review of the medical records, and his opinions regarding diagnosis and impairment rating. 

It bears Dr. Wiesman’s notarized signature, as does the C-32. Based on the above facts, 

the Court holds that Dr. Wiesman prepared the report in conjunction with his completion 

of the C-32. For that reason, the report is admissible as part of the C-32. See Cowan v. 

Knox Cnty., No. E2015-00405-SC-RS-WC, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 121, at *23-25 (Tenn. 

Workers’ Comp. Panel Feb. 24, 2016) (A report addressing questions raised in response to 

a C-32 was not admissible because it was not a part of the C-32). 

Ongoing Medical Treatment 

Ms. Lemaire seeks to replace Dr. Hazlewood as her treating physician because he 

offered no new treatment options when she last saw him. However, she acknowledged that 

he earlier offered her nerve blocks and prescription medication, which she declined. Dr. 

Hazlewood testified he is willing to continue treating Ms. Lemaire if she is willing to 

participate in the treatment. 

An employee’s obligation to accept treatment from a panel-selected physician is a 

benchmark of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204. A change 

in physicians is not warranted unless the authorized physician is unable, unavailable, or 

refuses to treat. 

Here, Dr. Hazlewood remains able, available, and agreeable to treat Ms. Lemaire. 

Her decision to decline his offered treatment is an insufficient ground to support a change 

of physician. See Cook v. Newton Nissan of Gallatin/Newton Ford, LLC,2023 TN Wrk. 

Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 12, at *21-22 (Feb. 22, 2023). For the above reasons, the Court 

denies Ms. Lemaire’s request for a change of her treating physician. 

Permanent Partial Disability Benefits 

Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3) calls for disability benefits when an 

employee’s partial disability is adjudged permanent. Here, both medical experts found that 

Ms. Lemaire retains permanent physical impairment due to her work-related CRPS. Thus, 

the statute provides her an original award of disability benefits calculated by multiplying 

the applicable impairment rating by 450 weeks and then multiplying that number of weeks 

by the applicable compensation rate. Id. 

The Court must first determine the appropriate impairment rating. The treating 
7 

physician, Dr. Hazlewood, concluded that Ms. Lemaire retains a four percent rating. As 

treating physician, his rating is presumed correct unless rebutted by “a preponderance of 

the evidence[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(k)(7). Ms. Lemaire urged the Court to award 

her benefits based on Dr. Wiesman’s rating of twenty-percent impairment. 

In deciding whether she rebutted Dr. Hazlewood’s rating, the Court considers Ms. 

Lemaire’s testimony. The Court observed her as she testified, and she appeared to be in 

both physical and emotional pain. Still, she stayed focused on the task of providing 

pertinent facts and was forthcoming in responding to cross-examination. 

 

The Court finds Ms. Lemaire’s testimony about the impact of her injury and the pain 

she endures credible. The evidence at the hearing corroborated Ms. Lemaire’s testimony 

on this point. Lowe’s scheduler testified she observed the impact of Ms. Lemaire’s 

symptoms on her work activities and was moved to offer her a wheelchair. Three wellqualified physicians diagnosed her with CRPS, a controversial diagnosis, and Dr. 

Hazlewood placed significant permanent restrictions on her activities because of the 

diagnosis. The Court was impressed with Ms. Lemaire’s attempt to continue working 

despite the pain she endured from her CRPS.6 

In considering competing ratings, the Court considers the qualifications of the 

experts, the circumstances of their evaluations, and the information available to them. 

Ledford v. Mid-Georgia Couriers, Inc., 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd LEXIS 28, at *7 

(June 4, 2018). 

Both rating physicians are well-qualified. Dr. Hazlewood saw Ms. Lemaire more 

often than Dr. Wiesman, but Dr. Wiesman saw her more recently. The Court finds the 

timing of the examinations important in explaining the level of impairment to which Ms. 

Lemaire testified during the hearing. While Dr. Hazlewood questioned whether Dr. 

Wiesman’s additional findings were due to disuse rather than CRPS, the Court finds that 

Dr. Hazlewood placed significant permanent restrictions on Ms. Lemaire’s activities due 

to her CRPS. Thus, Ms. Lemaire’s reduced use of her right foot was directly caused by 

her work-related CRPS. Finally, the Court also credits Dr. Wiesman’s impairment rating 

over that given by Dr. Hazlewood because Dr. Wiesman gave her credit in the rating 

process for x-rays showing bone changes in Ms. Lemaire’s right foot, while Dr. Hazlewood 

did not.7 

Based on the above factors, the Court holds that Dr. Wiesman’s impairment rating 

better assesses the extent of impairment endured by Ms. Lemaire, considering his rating 

with Ms. Lemaire’s credible testimony. The preponderance of the evidence is that Ms. 

6

 The Court also recognizes the effort of Lowe’s and Ms. Wade to accommodate the restrictions placed on 

Ms. Lemaire’s activities.

77 The Guides makes radiographic changes a factor in the percentage of impairment assigned for CRPS. 
8 

Lemaire’s award of permanent partial disability benefits should be based on Dr Weisman’s 

twenty-percent rating. Thus, she is entitled to ninety weeks of permanent partial disability 

benefits. 

The Court now turns to the compensation rate issue. Lowe’s contended that it is 

entitled to an offset for its contribution to her Social Security retirement benefits. 

Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(4)(A)(i) established the Social 

Security offset against permanent total disability benefits when, on the date of injury, an 

employee is within five years of her date of eligibility for full Social Security retirement 

benefits. In McCoy v. T.T.C. Ill., Inc., 14 S.W.3d 734, 737 (Tenn. 2000), the Supreme 

Court applied the offset to permanent partial disability benefits and held the employer’s 

contribution is fifty percent of the Social Security benefit received by the employee. Based 

on the above authority, the Court holds that Lowe’s is entitled to the Social Security offset 

because Ms. Lemaire was within five years of the date of her entitlement to full retirement 

benefits on the date of her injury and now receives those benefits. 

Based on Ms. Lemaire’s monthly Social Security benefit of $2,024,10, the Court 

holds that the employer’s weekly contribution to that benefit totals $233.55 ($2,024.10 

times 12 divided by 52 divided by 2). Thus, after applying the offset against the 

compensation rate of $341.91, Ms. Lemaire’s compensation rate is reduced to $108.36 per 

week. 

However, the Court must also consider the minimum compensation rate. Tennessee 

Code Annotated section 50-6-102(16) defines the minimum compensation rate as “fifteen 

percent (15%) of the state’s average weekly wage.” According to the Bureau’s statistics, 

the minimum weekly compensation rate on Ms. Lemaire’s date of injury is $149.10. Thus, 

the Court awards original permanent partial disability benefits of $13,519.00 ($149.10 

times 90). 

Finally, the Court denies Ms. Lemaire’s claim for a resulting award. Tennessee 

Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(D)(ii) states that an employee cannot receive a 

resulting award of permanent partial disability benefits when “[t]he employee’s loss of 

employment is due to the employee’s misconduct[.]” The evidence showed that Lowe’s 

provided restricted-duty employment to Ms. Lemaire until she failed to call in to report her 

absences from six consecutive scheduled shifts. The Court holds that an employee’s 

violation of an employer’s attendance policy constitutes misconduct connected with the 

employment. For that reason, Ms. Lemaire is not entitled to a resulting award. 

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows: 

1. Ms. Lemaire is entitled to an original award of permanent partial disability 

benefits totaling $13,519.00.
9 

2. Ms. Lemaire is entitled to ongoing medical benefits for her injury and resulting 

CRPS with Dr. Hazlewood.

3. Lowe’s shall pay the $150.00 filing fee to the Clerk of the Court of Workers’ 

Compensation Claims within five business days of entry of this order under 

Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.06. Lowe’s shall 

complete and file an SD-2 documenting the conclusion of this case within ten 

days of the date this order becomes final. Unless appealed, this order becomes 

final thirty days after the date of issuance.

ENTERED June 20, 2023. 

_____________________________________ 

 Judge Thomas Wyatt 

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims 
10 

APPENDIX

Technical record: 

1. Petition for Benefit Determination

2. Dispute Certification Notice

3. Motion to Withdraw

4. Order for Substitution of Counsel of Record

5. Notice of Appearance

6. Scheduling Order

7. Revised Scheduling Order

8. Order Referring Case to Mediation

9. Post-Discovery Dispute Certification Notice

10. Pre-Compensation Hearing Statement

11.Employer’s Witness and Exhibit List

12.Employee’s Witness and Exhibit List

13.Employee’s Pre-Hearing Brief

14.Employer’s Pre-Hearing Brief

15.Employee’s Pre-Hearing Brief

Exhibits: 

1. Wage Statement

2. Employee’s Choice of Physician form—Dr. Hazlewood

3. Employee’s Choice of Physician form—Dr. Neuhaus

4. Final Medical Report—Dr. Hazlewood

5. Final Medical Report—Dr. Wiesman

6. Social Security Notice of Award

7. Photographs of Ms. Lemaire’s feet and legs

8. Dr. Hazlewood’s impairment rating, restrictions, and February 2, 2022 office 

note

9. MMC Podiatry records

10. Transcript of Dr. Hazlewood’s deposition

11. Primary Care and Hope Clinic of Smyrna report

12. Workday log-in email

13. Chris Basham business card

14. Ms. Lemaire’s notes

15. Back TTD check

16. Ms. Lemaire’s emails to Christine Wade

17. Lowe’s work absence summaries

18. Ms. Lemaire’s emails to Lakeisha Chisholm

19. Sedgwick letter to Ms. Lemaire (identification only)

20. Lowe’s FMLA leave of absence papers
11 

21. Sedgwick letter to Dr. Neuhaus regarding utilization review (identification 

only)

22. Dr. Neuhaus records

23. Physical therapy records (identification only)

24. Employee evaluation papers

25. Dr. Hazlewood records

26. Notice of Service including C-32 of Dr. Weisman, Dr. Weisman’s February 7, 

2023 medical report, his Curriculum Vitae, internal documents from Dr. 

Weisman’s practice, and an application for a disabled person placard completed 

by Dr. Hazlewood 

27. Photograph (identification only)

28. Dates of call-ins and no call/no shows

29. Text message from Christine Wade to Ms. Lemaire

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the Order was sent as indicated on June 20, 2023. 

Name U.S. Mail Email Service sent to: 

Belinda Lemaire, 

Self-Represented 

Employee

X X b.lemaire1@outlook.com 

401 Jonesboro Court 

Lavergne, TN 37086

Tiffany Sherill 

Employer’s Attorney 

 X tbsherrill@mijs.com 

dmduignan@mijs.com 

 

______________________________________

Penny Shrum, Court Clerk 

WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov 
For self-represented litigants: Help from an Ombudsman is available at 800-332-2667. 

For notices of appeal filed on or after July 1, 2022. 

Compensation Order Right to Appeal: 

If you disagree with this Compensation Order, you may appeal to the Workers’ 

Compensation Appeals Board. To do so, you must:

1. Complete the enclosed form entitled “Notice of Appeal” and file it with the Clerk 

of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims within thirty calendar days of the 

date the Compensation Order was filed. When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must 

serve a copy upon the opposing party (or attorney, if represented). 

2. You must pay, via check, money order, or credit card, a $75.00 filing fee within ten 

calendar days after filing the Notice of Appeal. Payments can be made in-person 

at any Bureau office or by U.S. mail, hand-delivery, or other delivery service. In 

the alternative, you may file an Affidavit of Indigency (form available on the 

Bureau’s website or any Bureau office) seeking a waiver of the filing fee. You must 

file the fully-completed Affidavit of Indigency within ten calendar days of filing 

the Notice of Appeal. Failure to timely pay the filing fee or file the Affidavit of 

Indigency will result in dismissal of your appeal. 

3. You are responsible for ensuring a complete record is presented on appeal. The 

Court Clerk will prepare the technical record and exhibits for submission to the 

Appeals Board, and you will receive notice once it has been submitted. If no court 

reporter was present at the hearing, you may request from the Court Clerk the audio 

recording of the hearing for a $25.00 fee. A licensed court reporter must prepare a 

transcript, and you must file it with the Court Clerk within fifteen calendar days of 

filing the Notice of Appeal. Alternatively, you may file a statement of the evidence 

prepared jointly by both parties within fifteen calendar days of filing the Notice of 

Appeal. The statement of the evidence must convey a complete and accurate 

account of the testimony presented at the hearing. The Workers’ Compensation 

Judge must approve the statement of the evidence before the record is submitted to 

the Appeals Board. If the Appeals Board must review testimony or other proof 

concerning factual matters, the absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence 

can be a significant obstacle to meaningful appellate review. 

4. After the Workers’ Compensation Judge approves the record and the Court Clerk 

transmits it to the Appeals Board, a docketing notice will be sent to the parties. You 

have fifteen calendar days after the date of that notice to file a brief to the Appeals 

Board. See the Rules governing the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board on the 

Bureau’s website
For self-represented litigants: Help from an Ombudsman is available at 800-332-2667. 

If neither party timely files an appeal with the Appeals Board, the trial court’s Order 

will become final by operation of law thirty calendar days after entry. Tenn. Code 

Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(7).