1 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSAT I ON APPEALS BOARD

M i g u e l G a r c i a C a rr i l l o ) D ocket No

. 2 0 2 1

- 0 6

- 1 1 6 7

)

v. ) S tate File N o s

. 8 0 0 7 2 7

- 2 0 2 2

) 8 0 0 6 5 8

- 2 0 2 1

C a r l o s S a n c h e z H u r t a d o

, e t a l

. ) 8 0 0 6 5 7

- 2 0 2 1

)

)

Appeal from t he Cour t of Workers’ )

Compensat i on Claims )

Ke n neth M. Switzer, Chief Judge )

A f f

i r m e d a n d R e m a n d e d

I n t h i s i n t e r l o c u t o r y a p p e a l

, a n i n t e r m e d i a t e c o n t r a c t o r c h a l l e n g e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s o r d e r

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

a u t h o r i z e d m e d i c a l c a r e

. A t a n e x p e d i t e d h e a r i n g

, e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e i n j u r e d

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

. O t h e r

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

, h i m s e l f

, a n

i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r

, a n d t h a t t h e i n j u r e d w o r k e r w a s

, t h e r e f o r e

, n o t e l i g i b l e f o r

w o r k e r s ’ compensation b e n e f i t s

. A t t h e c l o s e o f t h e c l a i m a n t ’ s p r o o f

, o n e o f t h e

d e f e n d a n t s m o v e d f o r i n v o l u n t a r y d i s m i s s a l o f t h e c l a i m a n t ’ s r e q u e s t f o r i n t e r l o c u t o r y

r e l i e f

, w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e c l i n e d t o c o n s i d e r

. T h e c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t a n

i n t e r m e d i a t e c o n t r a c t o r

, w h o a c kn o w l e d g e d h a v i n g w o r k e r s ’ compensation insur ance

,

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

a c c o r d a n c e w i t h T e n n e s s e e C o d e A n n o t a t e d section 5 0

- 6

- 1 1 3

. T h e i n t e r m e d i a t e

c o n t r a c t o r h a s ap p e a l e d

. W e a f f

i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s o r d e r a n d r e m a n d t h e c a s e

.

Pre sidin g Judge Timothy W. Conner deliver ed the opi nion of the Appeals Board in w h ich

J u d g e P e l e I

. G o d k i n a n d Judge M e r e d i t h B

. W e a v e r j oin e d

.

N e i l M

. M c I n t y r e

, N a s h ville, Tennessee, for the appell a n t s

, G i l b e r t o C a v a z o s a n d

Hartford U n d e r w r i t e r s I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y

D a n a S

. P e m b e r t o n

, K n o x v i l l e

, T e n n e s s e e

, f o r t h e ap p e l l e e

, K o s i n s k i P r o p e r t i e s

, L L C

K e n n e t h D

. V e i t a n d L a u r a B a s s e t t

, N a s h v i l l e

, T e n n e s s e e

, f o r t h e ap p e l l e e

, T h e Hartford

I n s u r a n c e G r o u p

, a s i n s u r e r f o r K o s i n s k i P r o p e r t i e s

, L L C 

### FILED

Aug 16, 2023

03:30 PM(CT)

TENNESSEE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

APPEALS BOARD2 M i g u e l G a r c i a C a rr i l l o

, N a s h v i l l e

, T e n n e s s e e

, ap p e l l e e

, p r o s e

C a r l o s S a n c h e z H u r t a d o a / k / a C a r l o s R i o s

, a p p e l l e e

, p r o s e

Factual and Pr o cedural Ba ck grou nd

M i g u e l G a r c i a C a r r i l l o ( “ C l a i m a n t ” ) w a s w o r k i n g f o r a c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t o r

, C a r l o s S a n c h e z H u r t a d o a / k / a C a r l o s R i o s ( “ R i o s ” )

, o n A u g u s t 2 7

, 2 0 2 1

, w h e n h e f e l l

f r o m t h e f r a m e o f a g a r a g e a t a constr u ction s i t e

. C l a i m a n t w a s t r a n s p o r t e d t o S ky l i n e

M e d i c a l C e n t e r

, w h e r e h e r e m a i n e d h o s p i t a l i z e d f r o m A u g u s t 2 7

, 2 0 2 1

, u n t i l S e p t e m b e r

2

, 2 0 2 1

. 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 b r o k e n l e g a n d b r o k e n a r m a s a r e s u l t o f t h i s

a c c i d e n t

. 1

A f t e r reques ting b u t n o t receiving w o r k e r s ’ compensation b e n e f i t s

, C l a i m a n t f i l e d

a p e t i t i o n f o r b e n e f i t s i n S e p t e m b e r 2 0 2 1

. 2 U l t i m a t e l y

, a n e x p e d i t e d h e a r i n g w a s

scheduled t h a t i n c l u d e d C l a i m a n t

, R i o s

, a n i n t e r m e d i a t e c o n t r a c t o r identified a s G i l b e r t o

C a v a z o s ( “ C a v a z o s ” o r “ A p p e l l a n t ” )

, a n d a c o n t r a c t o r i d e n t i f i e d a s K o s i n s k i P r o p e r t i e s

, L L C ( “ K o s i n s k i ” )

. 3 C a v a z o s t o o k t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t h e h a d h i r e d R i o s a s a n i n d e p e n d e n t

c o n t r a c t o r a n d t h a t “ [ T e n n e s s e e C o d e A n n o t a t e d section ] 5 0

- 6

- 1 1 3 d o e s n o t e x p r e s s l y

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

. ” F o r i t s p a r t

, K o s i n s k i t o o k t h e position

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

- 1 1 3 r e q u i r e s C l a i m a n t t o p r e s e n t h i s c l a i m “ i n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e ” t o t h e i m m e d i a t e

e m p l o y e r o r

, i f t h a t i s n o t s u c c e s s f u l

, t o “ a m o r e d i r e c t e m p l o y e r

. ” Hartford a s s e r t e d t h a t

i t s l i a b i l i t y

, a s K o s i n s k i ’ s i n s u r e r

, i s “ w h o l l y s e p a r a t e f r o m a n y policy h e l d

b y

. . . G i l b e r t o C a v a z o s

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

. ” I t f u r t h e r

a s s e r t e d t h a t

, i f C l a m a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o b e n e f i t s

, “ a m o r e d i r e c t l y

- c o n n e c t e d e m p l o y e r ” a n d

i t s i n s u r e r a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e c l a i m

.

P r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g

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

, a n y p r o o f

o f r e s t r i c t i o n s p r e v e n t i n g h i m f r o m w o r k i n g

, o r a n y e x h i b i t s o t h e r t h a n h i s R u l e 7 2

d e c l a r a t i o n

. D u r i n g t h e e x p e d i t e d h e a r i n g

, a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f C l a i m a n t ’ s p r o o f

, C a v a z o s o r a l l y m o v e d u n d e r T e n n e s s e e R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 4 1

. 0 2 t o d i s m i s s “ t h e

c u r r e n t r e q u e s t b e f o r e t h e c o u r t f o r e x p e d i t e d r e l i e f

, ” w h i c h t h e c o u r t d e c l i n e d t o

1 The extent and nature of Cla im ant ’ s all eg ed injuries are not at issue in the current appeal.

2 At the time Claimant ’ s initial petit i on was filed, he was r epresented by coun sel. His attorney

subsequently withdrew, and Claimant pro ceeded pro s e

. In February 2022, Claimant filed a not he r

petition i n Spanish

, w hich was translated by the Tennessee Language Ce nter

, indicating Claimant

“ slipped while working up hig h ” and injured “ both feet

. . . , ankle s and the hand

. ”

3 The Hartford Insurance Grou p (“ Hartford”), represented separately in t his m atter, filed a position

statement as the workers’ compensation insurer of Kosinski Properties, LLC

. In addition, the record

indicates that Cavazos was insured by Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company (“Har tfor d

Underwriters”).3 c o n s i d e r

. T h e r e a f t e r

, t h e c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e i m m e d i a t e employer

, R i o s

, d i d n o t

h a v e w o r k e r s ’ compensation i n s u r a n c e a n d t h a t t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e c o n t r a c t o r

, C a v a z o s

, w a s

a s t a t u t o r y e m p l o y e r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p r o v i d 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 p u r s u a n t

t o T e n n e s s e e C o d e A n n o t a t e d sectio n 5 0

- 6

- 1 1 3 ( a )

. I t t h e r e f o r e o r d e r e d C a v a z o s t o

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

. C a v a z o s a n d h i s i n s u r e r

, Hartford U n d e r w r i t e r s

, h a v e a p p e a l e d

.

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

T h e s t and ard w e apply in reviewi ng a tria l court’s decision presumes th at th e

c ourt’s factual f ind i ngs are corre ct un less t he prepon d e r an ce of t he evidence is o therwi se.

S

ee Ten n. C ode A n n. § 50

- 6

- 239(c)(7 ) ( 2 0 2 2 ). W hen the trial j ud ge has had the

opportu n ity to obser ve a witne ss’s dem eano r and to hear in

- court testimony, w e giv e

c onsiderable defe ren c e to factual findi ngs ma de by the t r ia l cou rt

. Madden v. Ho lland

G rp. of Tenn. , In c. , 2 7 7 S. W.3d 8 96, 898 (T e n n. 20 09 ) . However, “[n ]o similar

d eference nee d be aff orded the trial court’s fin dings based upon documentary eviden ce.”

Go odman v. Schwarz Pa p er Co. , No. W 2016

- 02594

- SC

- R3

- WC, 2 0 18 Tenn

. LEXIS 8, at

*6 (Tenn. Worker s’ Com p. P anel J an. 18, 20 18). T h e inte rp ret ation a nd applica tion of

statutes and re g ulations are questions of law that are reviewed de no vo with no

presumption o f correc t ness afford ed the trial cou rt’s c o nclu sion s

. S ee Mansell v.

Bridg est one Fires t one N. Am

. Tir e , LLC , 4 17 S

. W. 3 d 3 9 3, 3 9 9 (Te nn . 2 013). We are

als o mindful of our obliga t ion to construe the wo rkers’ compensation statutes “f airly,

imp artially, and in accor d ance with b as ic principl es of sta tutory co n st r u ct ion” and in a

way th at does n o t fa vor e i ther the empl oyee or t h e em pl o y er. T enn . Cod e Ann. § 50

- 6

- 116 (20 2 2 ).

Analysis

O n ap p e a l

, A p p e l l a n t p r e s e n t s t h r e e i s s u e s

, w h i c h w e r e s t a t e a s : ( 1 ) w h e t h e r t h e

t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n declining t o c o n s i d e r i t s motion t o d i s m i s s m a d e p u r s u a n t t o R u l e

4 1

. 0 2 o f t h e Tennessee R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e ; ( 2 ) w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t e rr e d i n

o r d e r i n g i t t o p r o v i d e a p a n e l o f o r t h o p e d i c s p e c i a l i s t s “ w h e n n o r e q u e s t f o r c u rr e n t o r

f u t u r e m edical c a r e w a s m a d e ” ; and ( 3 ) w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t e rr e d i n r e f e rr i n g

A p p e l l a n t f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f p o s s i b l e p e n a l t i e s

. 4

4 I n hi s pre

- hearin g brief and notice of appeal

, Cava z os also raised the issue of whether employees of

independent contractors are eligible under Tennessee C ode Anno tated section 50

- 6

- 113 to seek benefits

fro m general or intermediate cont ractors. That section pr ovides, in p ar t, that “[a] principal contractor,

intermediate contractor [,] or subcontractor shall be liable for compensation to any employee injured while

in the employ of any of the subcontractors of the principal contractor, int ermediate con tractor[,] or

s ubcontractor .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50

- 6

- 113(a) (emphasis added). In Clendening v. London Assurance

Co. , 336 S.W.2d 535 (Tenn. 1960), the Tennessee Supreme Court addressed this question directly and

concluded, “ [T] he general or p rincipal contract or is liable for compensa ti on for an injury . . . to any

employee of his subcontractor, even though the latter was an ‘independent contractor. ’ ” Id. at 5384 M o t i o n f o r I n v o l u n t a r y D i s m i s s a l

R

u l e 4 1

. 0 2 ( 2 ) o f t h e T e n n e s s e e R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e p r o v i d e s a m e c h a n i s m

f

o r a d e f e n d a n t t o s e e k d i s m i s s a l o f t h e p l a i n t i f f

’ s c l a i m a t t h e c l o s e o f t h e p l a i n t i f f

’ s

p r o o f

. T h e r u l e p r o v i d e s

, i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t

, a s f o l l o w s :

A f t e r t h e p l a i n t i f f i n a n a c t i o n t r i e d b y t h e c o u r t w i t h o u t a j u ry h a s

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

’ s e v i d e n c e

, t h e d e f e n d a n t

, w i t h o u t

w a i v i n g t h e r i g h t t o o f f

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

,

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

p l a i n t i f f h a s s h o w n n o r i g h t t o r e l i e f

.

T e n n

. R

. C i v

. P

. 4 1

. 0 2 ( 2 )

. H e r e

, a t t h e c l o s e o f C l a i m a n t ’ s p r o o f i n a h e a r i n g s e e k i n g

i n t e r l o c u t o r y r e l i e f

, C a v a z o s o r a l l y m a d e a m o t i o n u n d e r R u l e 4 1

. 0 2 t o d i s m i s s “ t h e

c u rr e n t r e q u e s t b e f o r e t h e c o u r t f o r e x p e d i t e d r e l i e f

. ” I n d e c l i n i n g t o c o n s i d e r C a v a z o s ’ s

m o t i o n f o r i n v o l u n t a r y d i s m i s s a l o f t h e r e q u e s t f o r interlocutory r e l i e f

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t

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

,

n o t a n i n t e r l o c u t o r y h e a r i n g

. T h u s

, w e m u s t a d d r e s s

, a s a n i s s u e o f f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n

,

w h e t h e r a t r i a l c o u r t c a n c o n s i d e r a R u l e 4 1

. 0 2 ( 2 ) m o t i o n f o r i n v o l u n t a ry d i s m i s s a l i n t h e

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

.

O u r r e v i e w o f c a s e l a w r e v e a l s l i m i t e d g u i d a n c e o n t h i s i s s u e

. Although s e v e r a l

c a s e s d i s c u s s s t a n d a r d s f o r c o n s i d e r i n g a R u l e 4 1

. 0 2 m o t i o n f o r i n v o l u n t a ry d i s m i s s a l i n a

w o r k e r s ’ c o m p e n s a t i o n c a s e

, n o n e o f t h o s e c a s e s w e r e i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a n i n t e r l o c u t o ry

h e a r i n g w h e r e t h e m o v i n g p a r t y w a s s e e k i n g d i s m i s s a l o n l y o f t h e r e q u e s t f o r

i n t e r l o c u t o r y r e l i e f

. F o r e x a m p l e

, i n B u i l d i n g M a t e r i a l s C o r

p

. v

. B r i t t

, 2 1 1 S

. W

. 3 d 7 0 6

( T e n n

. 2 0 0 7 )

, t h e T e n n e s s e e S u p r e m e C o u r t a d d r e s s e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s R u l e 4 1

. 0 2 m o t i o n

f

o r i n v o l u n t a ry d i s m i s s a l i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h e r e t h e e m p l o y e e ’ s s t a tu t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s

h a d a l l e g e d l y e x p i r e d

. T h e C o u r t e x p l a i n e d

, “ W h e n a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s i s m a d e a t t h e

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

’ s p r o o f i n a n o n

- j u ry c a s e

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t m u s t i m p a r t i a l l y w e i g h t h e

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

e v i d e n c e h a s b e e n p r e s e n t e d

. ” I d

. a t 7 1 1

. T h i s s t a n d a r d w a s a l s o d i s c u s s e d b y t h e

S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s S p e c i a l 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 P a n e l :

(emphasis in original) ; see also Stratton v. United Inter

- Mountain Telephone C o.

, No Number in Original,

1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3065, at *7 (Tenn. C t. App. Aug. 2, 1984) ( “[Tennessee Code Anno tated

section] 50

- 6

- 113 expands the scope of compensation coverage by allowing the employees of sub

contractors, who would otherwise be indepen dent contractors, to recover compensation from their

prin cipal or int er mediate contractor.” ). C avazos did not argue this issue in his brief on appeal ; th us, we

co nsider the issue to have been waived

. In addition

, f or purposes of this appeal, we nee d not addr ess the

argument s of Kosinski and Hartford that an in jured employ ee of a subcontractor

, w hose immediate

e mployer is uninsured, is statutorily obligated to seek benefits from the “ most directly

- connected ”

s tatutory e mployer before seeking benefits from the general contractor or other interm ediate contractors

.5 In a non

- jury case, when a motion to dismiss is made under Rule 41.02(2),

the trial judge mu st impartially weigh and evaluate the evidence in the same

manner as though it were making findings of fact at the conclu sion of all of

the evidence for both pa rties, determine the fac ts o f the case, a pply the law

to those facts, and, if the plaintiff's ca se has not been made out by a

preponderance of the evidenc e, the action should be dismissed. This

standard is the same a s would be applied by a trial court when ruling on the

merits

. . . .

A e r o s t r u c t u r e s C o r

p

. v

. M c G u i r e

, N o

. M 2 0 0 6

- 0 1 7 9 7

- W C

- R 3

- W C

, 2 0 0 8 T e n n

. L E X I S

3 3

, a t * 1 4 ( T e n n

. W o r k e r s ’ C o m p

. P a n e l F e b

. 1 2

, 2 0 0 8 ) ( i n t e rn a l c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

.

O n e c h a l l e n g e i n e v a l u a t i n g this i s s u e h i n g e s o n t h e d i f f

e r e n c e s b e t w e e n

p r o c e d u r e s f o l l o w e d i n j u d i c i a l b r a n c h c o u r t s a n d t h e p r o c e d u r e s e s t a b l i s h e d b y t h e 2 0 1 3

W o r k e r s ’ C o m p e n s a t i o n R e f o r m A c t ( “ R e f o r m A c t ” )

. A l t h o u g h p r e

- r e f o r m c o u r t s

r e g u l a r l y a d d r e s s e d a n i n j u r e d w o r k e r ’ s e n t i t l e m e n t t o c e r t a i n b e n e f i t s a t i n t e r l o c u t o ry

h e a r i n g s

, t h o s e r u l i n g s w e r e r a r e l y a p p e a l e d b e c a u s e s u c h a n ap p e a l required t h e

p e r m i s s i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e ap p e l l a t e c o u r t u n d e r T e n n e s s e e R u l e o f

A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e 9 o r t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t f o r a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y

a p p e a l u n d e r T e n n e s s e e R u l e o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e 1 0

. S u c h p e r m i s s i o n i s n o t n e e d e d

f

o r i n t e r l o c u t o r y a p p e a l s f r o m t h e C o u r t o f W o r k e r s ’ C o m p e n s a t i o n C l a i m s t o t h e

A p p e a l s B o a r d

, w h i c h a r e a s o f r i g h t

. S e e T e n n

. C o d e A n n

. § 5 0

- 6

- 2 1 7 ( a ) ( 2 )

.

I n o n e s u c h p r e

- r e f o r m c a s e

, h o w e v e r

, t h e T e n n e s s e e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f f

e r e d s o m e

g u i d a n c e

. I n M c C a l l v

. N a t i o n a l H e a l t h C o r

p

. , 1 0 0 S

. W

. 3 d 2 0 9 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 3 )

, t h e

S u p r e m e C o u r t g r a n t e d p e r m i s s i o n t o a p p e a l u n d e r R u l e 9 t o a d d r e s s t h e s t a n d a r d s a t r i a l

c o u r t m u s t f o l l o w i n c o n s i d e r i n g a n i n j u r e d w o r k e r ’ s i n t e r l o c u t o ry r e q u e s t f o r b e n e f i t s

. F i r s t

, t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t “ t r i a l c o u r t s h a v e t h e a u t h o r i t y t o i n i t i a t e

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

c l a i m

. ” I d

. a t 2 1 3

. S e c o n d

, t h e C o u r t explaine d t h a t “ [ w ] h e n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t o i n i t i a t e

t e m p o r a r y b e n e f i t s

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t m u s t c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r

, f r o m t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e i t

, t h e

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

. ” I d

. a t 2 1 4

. T h e C o u r t t h e n c o n c l u d e d :

[ T ] h e decision r e g a r d i n g e v i d e n t i a ry r e q u i r e m e n t s i s b e t t e r l e f t t o t h e t r i a l

c o u r t

. T h e r e f o r e

, i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t c a n d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r b e n e f i t s s h o u l d b e

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

, n o f u r t h e r i n q u i r y i s n e c e s s a ry

. T h i s h o l d i n g d o e s n o t p r e j u d i c e e i t h e r p a r t y

, i n t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t m a y

r e c o n s i d e r i t s d e c i s i o n a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t i s

r e v i e w a b l e o n a p p e a l

.

I

d

. W e h a v e p r e v i o u s l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h i s s t a n d a r d w a s e s s e n t i a l l y a d o p t e d b y t h e

G e n e r a l A s s e m b l y w h e n i t p a s s e d t h e R e f o r m A c t

. S e e M c C o r d v

. A d v a n t a g e H u m a n6 R e s o u r c i n g

, N o

. 2 0 1 4

- 0 6

- 0 0 6 3

, 2 0 1 5 T N W r k

. C o m p

. A p p

. B d

. L E X I S 6

, a t * 8

- 9 ( T e n n

. W o r k e r s ’ C o m p

. A p p

. B d

. M a r

. 2 7

, 2 0 1 5 )

.

I n consideration o f t h e t e x t o f R u l e 4 1

. 0 2 ( 2 ) a n d p r i o r dec isio ns a s n o t e d a b o v e

,

w e c o n c l u d e t h a t

, i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a n e x p e d i t e d h e a r i n g i n w h i c h a n employee s e e k s a n

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

, a d e f e n d a n t i n t h e c a s e

c a n

, a t t h e c l o s e o f t h e e m p l o y e e ’ s p r o o f

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

e m p l o y e e ’ s e v i d e n c e f a i l s t o s u p p o r t a n i n t e r l o c u t o ry o r d e r f o r b e n e f i t s

. I n s o m o v i n g

,

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

d e n i e d

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

i c i e n c y o f t h e

e m p l o y e e ’ s p r o o f s e e k i n g i n t e r l o c u t o r y r e l i e f

. I f s u c h a m o t i o n i s g r a n t e d

, t h e c o u r t m a y

d e n y t h e r e q u e s t f o r b e n e f i t s

, w h i c h i s

, i n e f f

e c t

, a d i s m i s s a l o f t h e e m p l o y e e ’ s c l a i m f o r interlocutory r e l i e f a k i n t o a d i s m i s s a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 4 1

. 0 2 ( 2 )

. I t i s n o t

, h o w e v e r

, a

d i s m i s s a l o f t h e e m p l o y e e ’ s c l a i m a s a w h o l e

. 5

W e r e i t e r a t e

, h o w e v e r

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

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

. S e e M c C o r d

, 2 0 1 5 T N W r k

. C o m p

. A p p

. B d

. L E X I S 6

, a t * 8

. W h e n

, a s i s t h e c a s e h e r e

, t h e employee i s s e e k i n g

i n t e r l o c u t o r y r e l i e f

, h e o r s h e m u s t c o m e forward w i t h s u f f

i c i e n t e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g a

l i k e l i h o o d o f p r e v a i l i n g a t a h e a r i n g o n t h e m e r i t s

. T e n n

. C o d e A n n

. § 5 0

- 6

- 2 3 9 ( d ) ( 1 )

. I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e

, C l a i m a n t o f f

e r e d u n c o n t r a d i c t e d t e s t i m o n y that h e w a s w o r k i n g a s a n

e m p l o y e e f o r R i o s w h e n h e f e l l a n d t h a t h e w a s h o s p i t a l i z e d a n d n e e d e d m e d i c a t i o n a f t e r

b e i n g r e l e a s e d f r o m t h e h o s p i t a l

. T h u s

, a s o f t h e c l o s e o f C l a i m a n t ’ s p r o o f

, t h e e v i d e n c e

s u p p o r t e d a f i n d i n g t h a t h e s u s t a i n e d a n o n

- t h e

- j o b i n j u ry t h a t r e s u l t e d i n t h e n e e d f o r

m e d i c a l c a r e

. T h a t e v i d e n c e

, a l o n e

, s u p p o r t s t h e c o u r t ’ s o r d e r f o r a p a n e l o f p h y s i c i a n s

a s required b y 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 0 4 ( a ) ( 3 ) ( A ) ( “ t h e e m p l o y e r s h a l l

d e s i g n a t e a g r o u p o r t h r e e ( 3 ) o f m o r e

. . . p h y s i c i a n s

. . . f r o m w h i c h t h e i n j u r e d

employee s h a l l s e l e c t o n e ( 1 ) t o b e t h e t r e a t i n g p h y s i c i a n ” ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ; s e e a l s o

T e n n

. C o m p

. R

. & R e g s

. 0 8 0 0

- 0 2

- 0 1

-

. 0 6 ( 1 ) ( “ F o l l o w i n g r e c e i p t o f n o t i c e o f a w o r k p l a c e

i n

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

, a n employer

s h a l l

. . . p r o v i d e t h e employee a p a n e l o f p h y s i c i a n s

. ” ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. T h e r e f o r e

, w e

c o n c l u d e t h a t e v e n i f t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n d e c l i n i n g t o c o n s i d e r C a v a z o s ’ s c h a l l e n g e t o t h e

s u f f

i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e a t t h e c l o s e o f C l a i m a n t ’ s p r o o f

, s u c h e r r o r w a s h a r m l e s s

b e c a u s e t h e e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d b y C l a i m a n t w a s s u f f

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

o f p h y s i c i a n s

.

5 Rule 41 .0 2 (1) , which allows a trial court to dismiss “ any claim against the defendant ” for the plaintiff ’ s

failure to prosecute, was used recent ly in the context of an e xpedi ted hearing to dis mi ss a n empl o y ee ’ s

claim for interlocuto ry relief when the em ployee cam e to the building where the courtroom was located

but declined to appear in the courtroom for the expedited hearing. We affirmed , concluding the employee

had offered no argument as to ho w th e court abused its discretion in dismissing her request for

inter lo cutory reli ef under R u le 41.02

. Claybrooks v. Insight Global, LLC , No. 2020

- 0 6

- 0489, 2023 TN

Wrk. Comp. A p p. Bd. LEXIS 24 , at *12 (Tenn. Workers ’ Comp. App. Bd. May 30, 2023 ).7 E

m

p l o y e e ’ s R e q u e s t f o r I n t e r l o c u t o r y R e l i e f

N e x t

, A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t C l a i m a n t d i d n o t p r o p e r l y s e e k i n t e r l o c u t o ry r e l i e f

b e c a u s e h e d i d n o t m a k e a “ r e q u e s t f o r c u rr e n t o r f u tu r e medica l c a r e

. ” T h i s a r g u m e n t

m i s c o n s t r u e s a n e m p l o y e r ’ s o b l i g a t i o n s u n d e r 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 0 4 a n d ap p l i c a b l e r e g u l a t i o n s

. A s n o t e d a b o v e

, a n e m p l o y e r ’ s o b l i g a t i o n t o p r o v i d e a

p a n e l o f p h y s i c i a n s i s t r i g g e r e d b y t w o e v e n t s : ( 1 ) t h e e m p l o y e r ’ s r e c e i p t o f n o t i c e o f a

w o r k p l a c e i n j u ry ; a n d ( 2 ) t h e e m p l o y e e ’ s e x p r e s s i n g a n e e d f o r m e d i c a l c a r e

. T e n n

. C o m p

. R

. & R e g s

. 0 8 0 0

- 0 2

- 0 1

-

. 0 6 ( 1 )

. W h e n t h o s e t w o e v e n t s h a v e o c c u rr e d

, a n

employer i s o b l i g a t e d u n d e r 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 0 4 ( a ) t o i n i t i a t e

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

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

t h e c l a i m

. S e e M c C o r d

, 2 0 1 5 T N W r k

. C o m p

. A p p

. B d

. L E X I S 6

, a t * 1 4

.

H e r e

, C l a i m a n t ’ s u n r e f u t e d t e s t i m o n y w a s t h a t h e w a s w o r k i n g f o r R i o s o n a

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

. 6 M o r e o v e r

, t h e

c e r t i f i e d t r a n s l a t i o n o f C l a i m a n t ’ s F e b r u a ry 2 0 2 2 p e t i t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t C l a i m a n t s t a t e d

h e “ n e e d s t h e r ap i e s a n d t r e a t m e n t

. ” T h u s

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

, C a v a z o s w a s a w a r e C l a i m a n t r e p o r t e d a w o r k

- r e l a t e d i n j u r y a n d h a d e x p r e s s e d a n e e d f o r

m e d i c a l c a r e

. M o r e o v e r

, n e i t h e r R i o s n o r C a v a z o s h a v e d e n i e d t h e o c c u rr e n c e o f t h e

a c c i d e n t

. T h u s

, w e f i n d t h i s i s s u e t o b e w i t h o u t m e r i t

.

P e n a l t y R e f

e r r a l

F i n a l l y

, C a v a z o s a s s e r t s t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f e rr i n g h i m f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

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

, a u t h o r i z e d

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

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

. 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

- 1 1 8 a u t h o r i z e s t h e B u r e a u o f W o r k e r s ’ C o m p e n s a t i o n t o assess c e r t a i n p e n a l t i e s a n d

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

. A n y B u r e a u employee

, i n c l u d i n g j u d g e s o n t h e C o u r t o f W o r k e r s ’ C o m p e n s a t i o n C l a i m s

, h a s t h e

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

a s s e s s m e n t

. T e n n

. C o m p

. R

. & R e g s

. 0 8 0 0

- 0 2

- 2 4

-

. 0 3

. M o r e o v e r

, a p p l i c a b l e r e g u l a t i o n s

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

c o n c e r n i n g possi ble n o n

- c o m p l i a n c e ” f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a p e n a l t y a s s e s s m e n t

. T e n n

. C o m p

. R

. & R e g s

. 0 8 0 0

- 0 2

- 1 3

-

. 0 3

.

F u r t h e r

, 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

- 1 1 8 ( c ) e s t a b l i s h e s t h e p r o c e d u r e s

f

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

s u c h p e n a l t y

, a n d i t t h e n p r o v i d e s t h a t “ [ a ] n y p a r t y a s s e s s e d a p e n a l t y p u r s u a n t t o t h i s

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

. . . p u r s u a n t t o t h e U n i f o r m

6 Althou gh s ome evidence in the record indicat es that Rios h ad instructed Cla im ant not to climb to the

roof of the garage, a defense of willful misco nduct was not a sserted or addressed a t the expedited hearing.8 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e s A c t

. ” T h a t A c t

, c o d i f i e d a t 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 4

- 5

- 1 0 1 e t s e q

. , p r o v i d e s t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w o f a “ f i n a l d e c i s i o n

i n a c o n t e s t e d c a s e h e a r i n g ” i s v e s t e d i n t h e C h a n c e r y C o u r t “ n e a r e s t t o t h e p l a c e o f

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

, ” i n t h e C h a n c e r y C o u r t “ n e a r e s t t h e

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

, ” o r i n t h e C h a n c e ry C o u r t o f D a v i d s o n C o u n t y

. T e n n

. C o d e A n n

. § 4

- 5

- 3 2 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( i i )

. C o n v e r s e l y

, h o w e v e r

, 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 1 7 ( c ) s t a t e s t h a t “ [ t ] h e d e c i s i o n s 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 s h a l l n o t b e s u b

j e c t t o j u d i c i a l r e v i e w p u r s u a n t t o t h e

U n i f o r m A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e s A c t

. ”

I n s h o r t

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

d e s c r i b e d i n 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

- 1 1 8

. T h e d e c i s i o n t o r e f e r a part y

f

o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d possible p e n a l t y a s s e s s m e n t i s n o t s u b

j e c t t o r e v i e w b y u s

. M o r e o v e r

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

c a s e h e a r i n g l i e s i n C h a n c e r y C o u r t

, n o t b e f o r e u s

. T h u s

, w e a r e w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o

c o n s i d e r C a v a z o s ’ s f i n a l i s s u e

.

C o n c l u s i o n

F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s

, w e a f f

i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s o r d e r i n a l l r e s p e c t s a n d

r e m a n d t h e case

. C o s t s o n ap p e a l a r e t a x e d t o t h e ap p e l l a n t

, G i l b e r t o C a v a z o s

.TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSAT ION APPEALS BOARD

Miguel Garcia Carrillo ) Docket No. 2021-06-1167

)

v. ) State File Nos. 800727-2022

) 800658-2021

Carlos Sanchez Hurtado, et al. ) 800657-2021

)

)

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 16th day

of August, 2023.

Name Certified

Mail First Class

Mail Via

Fax Via

Email Sent to:

Migue l Garcia Carrillo X X X carrillo1500angel @gmail. co m

3834 Faulkner Dr.

Nashville, TN 37211

Carlos Sanc hez Hurtado a/k /a Carlos

Rios X X 335 Flora Max well Rd. Nas hville, TN

372 11

G ilberto Ca vazos and Hartford

Underwriters Insurance Comp any X nmcintire @howell

- fisher.com

Ko si nski Properties, LLC X dana@stokeswilliams.com

c arla@s tokeswilliams.com

The Hartford Insurance Group X k enny .veit@leitnerf i rm.com laura.bassett@leitner fi rm.com

Comp liance Program X WCC ompliance.Program@t n.gov

Penny Shrum, Clerk, Court of Workers’

Compensation Claims X pe n ny.patterson

- shrum@tn.gov

Matthew Keene

Acting Clerk, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board

220 French Landing Dr., Ste. 1-B

Nashville, TN 37243

Telephone: 615-532-1564

Electronic Mail: WCApp eals.Clerk@tn.gov