1

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT NASHVILLE

ZECHARIAH HARRIS ) Docket No. 68533-2014

Employee, )

) State File No. 2014-06-0018

v. )

)

)

Date of Injury: July 23, 2014

SUBWAY, ) Judge: Joshua Davis Baker

Employer, )

)

and )

ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

)

)

Insurance Carrier. )

)

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY DISABILITY AND

MEDICAL BENEFITS

THIS CAUSE came to be heard before the undersigned Workers’ Compensation 

Judge on August 19, 2015, upon the Request for Expedited Hearing filed by Zechariah 

Harris, the employee, on July 8, 2015, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-

6-239 (2014), to determine if the Employer, Subway, is obligated to provide medical and 

temporary disability benefits. Considering the positions of the parties, the applicable law, 

and all of the evidence submitted, the Court concludes that Mr. Harris is not entitled to 

temporary disability or medical benefits at this time.

ANALYSIS

Issues

1. Whether Subway must provide Mr. Harris past medical benefits and mileage for 

his alleged workplace injury.

2. Whether Subway must provide Mr. Harris additional medical care for his alleged 
2

injury.

3. Whether Subway must provide Mr. Harris temporary disability benefits for the 

alleged injury.

4. Whether Mr. Harris sustained an injury that arose out of and in the course and 

scope of his employment for Subway, and, if he did, the date on which he suffered 

the injury.

Evidence Submitted

The Court admitted into evidence the exhibits below: 

1. Affidavit of Zechariah Harris;

2. Discharge record from Nashville General Hospital at Meharry; and

3. Medical Certificate.

The Court designated the following as the technical record:

 Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) dated August 28, 2014;

 Dispute Certification Notice (DCN) dated December 29, 2014;

 Order on Show Cause Hearing dated May 6, 2015;

 Request for Expedited Hearing dated May 8, 2015;

 Amended Request for Expedited Hearing dated July 8, 2015;

 Subway’s prehearing brief; and

 Subway’s witness and exhibit list.

The Court did not consider attachments to the above filings unless admitted into evidence 

during the Expedited Hearing. The Court considered factual statements in the above 

filings or any attachments to them as allegations unless established by the evidence.

Mr. Harris provided in-person testimony.

History of Claim

Mr. Harris is thirty-two-year-old resident of Davidson County, Tennessee. Mr. 

Harris stated in “the month of July,” there were spiders and ants inside the Subway where 

he worked and in the area around the outside of the store. (Ex. 1.) He testified that he 

killed many spiders in the store. The store owner, Sam Patel, had the store sprayed for 

bugs but the treatment did not solve the bug problem.
3

On or around July 20, 2014, Mr. Patel told Mr. Harris to put on some “Subway 

gloves,” go outside and pull weeds growing around the building. Mr. Harris pulled the 

weeds and tore the glove in the process. After pulling the weeds, he went back inside the 

store to prepare sandwiches for customers. Sometime after pulling the weeds, Mr. 

Harris’ hand began to itch. 

Mr. Harris returned to work at Subway the following day. During his shift, Mr. 

Harris noticed a spider in the store. He did not know if the spider bit him. Soon 

thereafter, his right hand began to swell.1 He reported the swelling to Mr. Patel, and Mr. 

Patel told him to go to the hospital. He went to the emergency room Nashville General 

Hospital at Meharry (Meharry), where he received antibiotics and pain pills. 

Mr. Harris returned to work the following day. However, the swelling and pain 

increased and Mr. Harris began to feel dizzy. Mr. Harris called Mr. Patel and informed 

him that he felt dizzy and needed to go to the hospital. Mr. Patel sent another employee 

to operate the store and Mr. Harris returned to Meharry. 

On July 22, 2014, Mr. Harris was admitted to Meharry with swelling, pain and 

redness in his right hand. He remained at Meharry until July 24, 2014, when the hospital 

discharged him with diagnoses of cellulitis and asthma.2(Ex. 2.) Although the discharge 

summary does not mention a spider bite, Mr. Harris testified he told Meharry providers a 

spider bit him.

Providers at Meharry prescribed Cipro, ibuprofen and an iron tablet, and instructed

Mr. Harris to follow up with an orthopedic specialist. Id. The record does not indicate 

providers at Meharry operated on his hand. Id. The parties did not present any additional 

medical records at the hearing. 

After his release from the hospital, Mr. Harris asked Mr. Patel about workers’ 

compensation for his injury. Allegedly, Mr. Patel told Mr. Harris, “I don’t do workers’ 

comp.” Mr. Patel then instructed Mr. Harris to provide Mr. Patel’s phone number to the 

hospital and have the hospital contact him. Mr. Harris told Mr. Patel that the system did 

not work that way. Mr. Patel became angry and told Mr. Harris to turn in his keys and 

leave the store.

On September 11, 2014, Dr. Katina Stevens completed a “Medical Certificate” 

with information concerning Mr. Harris’ condition. (Ex. 3.) The certificate indicated 

that she treated Mr. Harris for cellulitis of the right finger, and further indicated that the 

condition “necessitated” him “leaving usual work” from July 21 to August 7, 2014. Id. 

 

1 Mr. Harris testified that his hand began “knotting up a little bit with holes all in it.” The Court cannot determine 

whether he noticed his condition on July 20 or July 21.

2 Mr. Harris incorrectly testified that he stayed in the hospital for four or five days. 
4

Dr. Stevens did not indicate whether Mr. Harris’ last period of work caused his cellulitis 

condition. Id. 

Mr. Harris filed a PBD on August 28, 2014, seeking temporary disability and 

medical benefits. The parties did not resolve the disputed issues through mediation and 

the Mediation Specialist filed the DCN on December 29, 2014. When neither party filed 

a request for hearing, the Court convened a show cause hearing and issued an order 

allowing Mr. Harris additional time to request a hearing. Mr. Harris filed a Request for 

Expedited Hearing on May 8, 2015, and an amended Request for Expedited Hearing on 

July 8, 2015. 

Mr. Harris’ Contentions

Mr. Harris argues that he suffered a compensable injury as a result of spider bite 

suffered while either pulling weeds or making sandwiches at Subway. He asks that the 

Court order Subway to pay him temporary disability and medical benefits, and reimburse 

him mileage costs for travel to medical appointments. 

Subway’s Contentions

Subway argues that Mr. Harris failed to carry his burden of proving a compensable 

workplace injury. Mr. Harris has not shown a specific set of incidents, identifiable by 

time and place of occurrence, which caused the alleged injury. Mr. Harris failed to even 

identify the date the incident occurred. Furthermore, Mr. Harris has not provided 

adequate medical proof of causation. 

Concerning payment of past medical bills and temporary disability benefits, Mr. 

Harris failed to present receipts for the medical bill payments or any evidence concerning 

the period of time he could not work because of the alleged injury. Subway asks the

Court to deny Mr. Harris’ claim for benefits.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Standard Applied

The Workers’ Compensation Law shall not be remedially or liberally construed in 

favor of either party but shall be construed fairly, impartially and in accordance with 

basic principles of statutory construction favoring neither the employee nor 

employer. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-116 (2014). An employee need not prove every 

element of his or her claim by a preponderance of the evidence in order to obtain relief at 

an expedited hearing. McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, No. 2014-06-0063, 

2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. 

Mar. 27, 2015). At an expedited hearing, an employee has the burden to come forward 
5

with sufficient evidence from which the trial court can determine that the employee is 

likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. Id.

Factual Findings

The Court finds that on July 20, 2015, Mr. Harris pulled weeds growing outside 

Subway. The Court finds that Mr. Harris pulled the weeds on July 20 based on his 

testimony and the Meharry discharge record. The record shows that Meharry admitted 

Mr. Harris to the hospital on July 22, 2015. Mr. Harris testified that his hand began 

itching the day after he pulled the weeds, July 21, 2015, and that he was admitted to 

Meharry the following day, when he became dizzy, and his hand became swollen and 

painful. Mr. Patel, the Subway owner, instructed Mr. Harris to pull the weeds.

On July 21, 2015, Mr. Harris’ hand began itching and swelling. That same day, 

Mr. Harris saw a spider in the store but does not know if a spider bit him. He also 

developed a knot in his hand that had little holes on it. Mr. Harris told Mr. Patel about 

the itching and swelling, and Mr. Patel told him to go to the hospital. Mr. Harris went to 

Meharry, where providers gave him antiobitics and pain pills before releasing him. 

On July 22, 2015, Mr. Harris returned to work at Subway. During his shift, the 

swelling and pain in Mr. Harris’ hand intensified. He also became dizzy. Mr. Harris told 

Mr. Patel he needed to go to the hospital. He returned to Meharry, where providers 

admitted him. Mr. Harris remained there for two days. On July 24, Meharry discharged 

Mr. Harris with a diagnosis of cellulitis of the right finger. The medical records do not 

indicate the cause of the cellulitis. 

After being released from the hospital,l Mr. Harris returned to Subway and 

inquired about workers’ compensation coverage. Mr. Patel declined Mr. Harris treatment 

under workers’ compensation. Subsequently, Mr. Patel fired Mr. Harris.

Application of Law to Facts

In order for the Court to rule in Mr. Harris’ favor at this Expedited Hearing, Mr. 

Harris must set forth a prima facie case of an injury by accident that leads the Court to 

finds he is likely to prevail a hearing on the merits. While it is an extremely close issue, 

the Court finds that Mr. Harris has failed to carry his burden at this time. 

Under the Workers’ Compensation Law, an injury is accidental “only if the injury 

is caused by a specific incident, or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the 

course and scope of employment, and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence.” 

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(A) (2014). “An injury “arises primarily out of and in 

the course and scope of employment” only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the 
6

injury, considering all causes[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(B) (2014).

The statutory requirements that an injury arise out of and in the course of the 

employment are not synonymous “although both elements exist to ensure a work 

connection to the injury for which the employee seeks benefits.” Blankenship v. Am. 

Ordnance, 164 S.W.3d 350, 354 (Tenn. 2005). An injury occurs in the course of 

employment if it takes place while the employee performs a duty he or she is employed to 

perform. Fink v. Caudle, 856 S.W.2d 952, 958 (Tenn. 1993). Thus, the “course of 

employment” requirement focuses on the time, place, and circumstances of the injury. 

Saylor v. Lakeway Trucking, Inc., 181 S.W.3d 314, 318 (Tenn. 2005). 

“Arising out of employment” refers to causation. Reeser v. Yellow Freight Sys., 

938 S.W.2d 690, 692 (Tenn. 1997). An injury arises out of employment when there is a 

causal connection between the resulting injury and the conditions under which the work 

is required to be performed. Fritts v. Safety Nat'l Cas. Corp., 163 S.W.3d 673, 678 

(Tenn. 2005). Stated another way, an injury arises out of employment when it “has a 

rational, causal connection to the work.” Braden v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 833 S.W.2d 

496, 498 (Tenn. 1992). Except in “the most obvious, simple and routine cases,” a 

workers’ compensation claimant must establish by expert medical testimony that he or 

she is injured and that there exists a causal relationship between the injury and the 

claimant's employment activity. Wheetley v. State, No. M2013-01707-WC-R3-WC, 2014 

Tenn. LEXIS 476 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel June 25, 2014) (citing Excel Polymers, 

LLC v. Broyles, 302 S.W.3d 268, 274 (Tenn. 2009); Cloyd v. Hartco Flooring Co., 274 

S.W.3d 638, 643 (Tenn. 2008)).

The proof in this case shows that Mr. Harris pulled weeds outside Subway on July 

20, 2015, pursuant to instruction by the owner, Mr. Patel. He tore his glove while pulling 

weeds. Mr. Harris did not testify that he suffered a cut or scratch on his hands while 

pulling the weeds. 

The following day, Mr. Harris developed itching and swelling in his right hand. 

He also testified that he noticed a knot with holes in it on his right hand. 

Mr. Harris testified that there were many spiders in the store and specifically 

testified to seeing one on July 21, 2015. However, he does not know whether a spider in 

the store bit him, a spider bit him while he pulled weeds, or if something else happened 

when he pulled weeds. He maintains steadfastly, however, that he must have 

encountered the mechanism that caused his hand to swell at work, essentially because 

there is no other explanation. 

Meharry diagnosed him with cellulitis of the right finger after admitting him to the 

hospital to treat his swollen hand. Mr. Harris, however, presented none of the medical 

records from this hospital visit that would indicate what caused him to develop cellulitis. 
7

Although it is not necessary for Mr. Harris to prove medical causation in order to receive 

temporary medical benefits, See McCord, No. 2014-06-0063, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. 

Bd. LEXIS 6, at *17-19, the information contained in the records may have helped the 

Court to better understand exactly what caused Mr. Harris’ hand to swell, especially in 

light of his nonspecific testimony about the injury causing event. Based on the evidence 

before it at this time, the Court does not find that Mr. Harris is likely to prevail at a 

hearing on the merits. 

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Mr. Harris’ request for temporary disability and medical benefits is denied at this 

time. 

2. This matter is set for a Scheduling Hearing on October 13, 2015, at 11:30 a.m.

3. Unless interlocutory appeal of the Expedited Hearing Order is filed, 

compliance with this Order must occur no later than seven business days 

from the date of entry of this Order as required by Tennessee Code 

Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(3) (2014). The Insurer or Self-Insured 

Employer must submit confirmation of compliance with this Order to the 

Bureau by email to WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov no later than the 

seventh business day after entry of this Order. Failure to submit the 

necessary confirmation within the period of compliance may result in a 

penalty assessment for non-compliance.

4. For questions regarding compliance, please contact the Workers’ Compensation 

Compliance Unit via email WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov or by calling (615) 

253-1471 or (615) 532-1309.

ENTERED ON THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015.

_____________________________________

Judge Joshua Davis Baker

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

Initial Hearing:

A Scheduling Hearing has been set with Judge Joshua Davis Baker, Court of 

Workers’ Compensation Claims. You must call 615-532-9552 or toll free at 866-

943-0025 to participate in the Initial Hearing.

Please Note: You must call in on the scheduled date/time to 

participate. Failure to call in may result in a determination of the issues without 
8

your further participation. All conferences are set using Central Time (CT).

Right to Appeal:

Tennessee Law allows any party who disagrees with this Expedited Hearing Order 

to appeal the decision to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. To file a Notice of

Appeal, you must:

1. Complete the enclosed form entitled: “Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal.”

2. File the completed form with the Court Clerk within seven business days of the 

date the Workers’ Compensation Judge entered the Expedited Hearing Order.

3. Serve a copy of the Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal upon the opposing party. 

4. The appealing party is responsible for payment of a filing fee in the amount of 

$75.00. Within ten calendar days after the filing of a notice of appeal, payment 

must be received by check, money order, or credit card payment. Payments can be 

made in person at any Bureau office or by United States mail, hand-delivery, or 

other delivery service. In the alternative, the appealing party may file an Affidavit 

of Indigency, on a form prescribed by the Bureau, seeking a waiver of the filing 

fee. The Affidavit of Indigency may be filed contemporaneously with the Notice 

of Appeal or must be filed within ten calendar days thereafter. The Appeals Board 

will consider the Affidavit of Indigency and issue an Order granting or denying 

the request for a waiver of the filing fee as soon thereafter as is 

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

Indigency in accordance with this section shall result in dismissal of the 

appeal.

5. The parties, having the responsibility of ensuring a complete record on appeal, 

may request, from the Court Clerk, the audio recording of the hearing for the 

purpose of having a transcript prepared by a licensed court reporter and filing it 

with the Court Clerk within ten calendar days of the filing of the Expedited 

Hearing Notice of Appeal. Alternatively, the parties may file a joint statement of 

the evidence within ten calendar days of the filing of the Expedited Hearing 

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

accurate account of what transpired in the Court of Workers’ Compensation 

Claims and must be approved by the workers’ compensation judge before the 

record is submitted to the Clerk of the Appeals Board.

6. If the appellant elects to file a position statement in support of the interlocutory 

appeal, the appealing party shall file such position statement with the Court Clerk
9

within three business days of the filing of the Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal, 

specifying the issues presented for review and including any argument in support 

thereof. If the appellee elects to file a response in opposition to the interlocutory 

appeal, appellee shall do so within three business days of the filing of the 

appellant’s position statement.
10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Expedited Hearing Order was 

sent to the following recipients by the following methods of service on this the _____ day 

of September, 2015.

Name Certified 

Mail

First 

Class 

Mail

Via 

Fax

Fax 

Number

Via 

Email

Email Address

Zechariah Harris x zach81harris@gmail.com

Brent Wilkins x bwilkins@wimberlylawson.com

Margaret Noland x mnoland@wimberlylawson.com

_____________________________________

Penny Shrum, Clerk of Court

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov

9th