## FILED August 26, 2015

TICOURTOF WORKERS'**C0:\1PE~SATIO~**



### INTHE COURT OFWORKERS' COMPENSATIONCLAIMS AT CHATTANOOGA Timeka Smith, ) DocketNo.: 2015-01-0101 Employee, ) v. ) StateFile No.: 28566-2015 ) 

### Chattanooga Regional Transportation ) Authority, ) Employer, ) DateofInjury: April 10, 2015 And ) ) 

### Tennessee Municipal League Risk ) ManagementPool, ) TP A/Insurance Carrier. ) Judge: ThomasWyatt ) CLJ\DIIS Time: 7:15A

.. \1:



### EXPEDITEDHEARINGORDERFORTEMPORARYPARTIALDISABILITY AND MEDICALBENEFITS

THIS CAUSE came on for hearing before the undersigned Workers' CompensationJudge onAugust4, 2015, upon the Request for ExpeditedHearing filed by Timeka Smith, the employee, on July 17, 2015, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239 (2014) to determine if the employer, the Chattanooga Regional Transportation Authority (CARTA), is obligated to provide medical and temporary partial disability benefits. Considering the positions ofthe parties, the applicable law, the testimony of in-person witnesses, and the exhibits admitted into evidence, the Court concludes that Ms. Smith is entitled to the requested temporary disability and medical benefits. ANALYSIS Issues The parties marked numerous issues on the Dispute Certification Notice (DCN) issued in this claim. Even ifmarked on the DCN, the Court did not decide an issue 1unless the parties presented it for determination at the Expedited Hearing. The parties presentedthe following issues for determination at the Expedited Hearing: 1. Whether Ms. Smith sustainedan injury arisingprimarily out of and in the course andscope of employment; 2. Whether Ms. Smith is entitled to an award oftemporarypartial disability benefits; and 3. WhetherMs. Smith is entitledto medicalbenefits. Evidence Submitted The Court admitted into evidence the exhibits below: 1. Affidavit ofTimeka Smith; 2. Affidavit ofMichelle Vickers withthe following exhibits: • FirstReport ofInjury; • Choice ofPhysicianform (C-42); • May 7, 2015 letter from Ms. Vickers to Dr. Terry Smith; • Records ofOccupationalHealth Services/Dr. Terry Smith; • May 1, 2015 denial letter; and • Notice ofDenial ofClaim (C-23). 3. Wage Statement; 4. Job Description (marked for identification only); 5. Dr. Smith'sJuly 8, 2015 causationreport; 6. Records ofOccupationalHealth Services/Dr. Smith; 7. Causation report of Dr. Abdul Hafiz Eletr with attached article entitled "DieselExhaust"; 8. Records ofChattanoogaNeurology Associates, PLLC/Dr. Eletr; 9. Records ofPremiereHealth Care; 1

0.Records ofParkridgeMedical Center; 11.Records of Parkridge Medical Center (unsigned records marked for identificationpurposes only); 12. Statement ofActivity Work Status forms; 13.CARTAMemo; 14.Work Order; 15.Vehicle RepairHistory; and 16.Gillig Trainingbooklet. The Court designated the following as the technicalrecord:

2• Petition for BenefitDetermination (PBD), filed May 18, 2015; • Dispute CertificationNotice (DCN), filed June 30, 2015; • Request forExpedited Hearing (REH), filed July 17, 2015; and • Employer's Response in Opposition to Employee's Request for Expedited Hearing, filed July 23, 2015. The Court did not consider attachments to the above-listed exhibits and filings unless admitted into evidence during the Expedited Hearing. The Court considered factual statements in the above exhibits and filings, or any attachments to them, as allegations unless establishedbythe evidence. The following witnessesprovidedin-persontestimony:

• Ms. Smith; • Ronald Smith; • LyndraRobinson; • DuanBush; • David Smith; • JuneAtkins; and • Ronnie Hendrix.1 History ofClaim Ms. Smith is a thirty-six-year-old resident of Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee. (See PBD.) Shehas operated CARTAbuses since 2007. On April 19, 2015, CARTA assigned Ms. Smith to operate Bus 502. (Ex. 1 at 1.) Shortly after she began her route, Ms. Smith smelled fumes inside the bus. Id. She testified that the bus eventually filled up with fumes. ld. Ms. Smith reported the fumes to CARTA's dispatcher, Duan Bush. Id. Mr. Bush checked with CARTA's shop and advised Ms. Smith it was safe to continue driving the bus. Id. Ms. Smith testified Mr. Bushtoldherto shutthewindows sothe bus could "regenerate." !d. Ms. Smith continued on her route approximately fifteen minutes until she began experiencing light-headedness, dizziness, headaches, difficulty breathing, and nausea. (Ex. 1 at 2.) Ms. Smith stopped the bus when she needed to exit and vomit. Id. She reported her problems to Mr. Bush, who instructed her to park the bus and wait for assistance. ld. Ms. Smith remained at the scene approximately twenty minutes awaiting the arrival ofa supervisor and mechanics. !d. Ms. Smith vomited on multiple occasions

1 Because he was not listed as a witness on the REH fonn, the Court limited Mr. Hendrix's testimony to his introduction ofsubpoenaedrecords. 3while waiting. !d. The supervisor took Ms. Smith to Parkridge Medical Center for emergent care. !d. CARTA referred the handling ofMs. Smith's claim to its workers' compensation carrier. (Ex. 2 at 1.) An adjuster for the carrier offered Ms. Smith a panel, from which she selectedDr. Terry W. Smith. (Ex. 2 at 2.) Followingtreatmentvisits on April 17 and 20, 2015, Dr. Smith submitted a Statement ofActivity Work Status form on which he marked the designation "Non-Determined" inresponse to an inquiry regarding the workrelatedness ofMs. Smith's alleged injury. (Exs. 2 at 3-4; 6 at 4; 12 at 3-4.) In his April 20, 2015 treatment note, Dr. Smith wrote, "I am unable to definitively say whether this is workrelated ornot." (Ex. 2 at 13.) On May 1, 2015, Dr. Smith noted he discussed the causation issue with the adjuster, who posedthe causation question in terms ofwhether the injury was "50% ofit related to workers' comp." In response, Dr. Smith stated, "(t]here is no way I can say causation." (Ex. 6 at 7.) Based on Dr. Smith's opinion, CARTA and its carrier denied Ms. Smith'sclaim on May 1, 2015. (Ex. 2 at 4, 21, 22.) Afterthe denial ofher claim, Ms. SmithremainedunderDr. Smith's care, but also soughttreatment from Dr. Abdul HafizEletr, a neurologist. (Exs. 6, 7.) On July 5, 2015, Dr. Eletr opined, in response to a causation letter sent by Ms. Smith's counsel, that the symptoms Ms. Smith experiencedbeginning April 10, 2015, were work-related. (Ex. 6 at 1.) In the same document, however, Dr. Eletr stated the work-relatedness ofMs. Smith's persistent headache and dizziness "this far out after [the] injury" was not as wellsupportedby the medical literature. !d. On July 8, 2015, Dr. Smith submitted a report in which he stated that, based on a consultation with Dr. Eletr, Ms. Smith's "acute symptoms ofdizziness, nausea, vomiting chest congestion, and headache is [sic] more than likely due to carbon monoxide/diesel fume exposure from the initial instance that is greater than 50%." (Exs. 5, 6 at 3.) CARTA's adjuster confirmed that she received Dr. Smith's July 8, 2015 report, but only afterMs. Smithhad already filed herREH. (Ex. 2 at 5-6.) Ms. Smith did not work from the date ofinjury until July 10, 2015. Dr. Smith restricted Ms. Smith from operating or driving machinery following visits on April 17, April 20, May 1, and June 5, 2015. (Exs. 6 at 6, 9, 22-23; 12 at 2-4.) Dr. Smithreleased Ms. Smithto returnto work onJuly 8, 2015. (Exs. 6 at 4, 21; 12 at 1.) Ms. Smith filed aPBD onMay 18, 2015, seeking medical andtemporary disability benefits. The parties did not resolve the disputed issues through mediation, and the Mediation Specialistfiled the DCNonJune 30, 2015.

4Ms. Smith's Contentions Ms. Smith contends she suffered a disabling exposure to diesel fumes on April 10, 2015, while operating a CARTA bus. She claims she is entitled to temporary disability benefits from April 11 to July 8, 2015. Ms. Smith also seeks reimbursement ofout-ofpocket expenses for treatment of her alleged injury and authorization for on-going treatment. CARTA's Contentions CARTA contends the Court should not consider the causation opinions ofDrs. Smith and Eletr because it is unclear whether they stated their opinions in view ofthe causation definition set forth in the Workers' Compensation Law. CARTA also argues Dr. Smith's causation opinion is unreliable because he earlier opined Ms. Smith's injury was not work-related. As such, CARTA asserts Ms. Smith did not establish by medical expert opinion that her injury arose primarily in the course and scope ofemployment. Finally, CARTA contends Ms. Smith's absence from work from April 11 to July 10, 2015, may have resulted from anumber ofnon-work-related conditions. Findings ofFactand Conclusions ofLaw I StandardApplied The Court shall not construe the Workers' Compensation Law remedially or liberally in favor of either party, but shall construe the law fairly, impartially and in accordance with basic principles ofstatutory construction favoring neither the employee nor the employer. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-116 (2014). An employee need not prove every element ofhis or her claim by a preponderance ofthe evidence in order to obtain reliefat 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 with sufficient evidence from which the trial court can determine that the employee is likelytoprevail at ahearing onthe merits. Id. FactualFindings Upon consideration of the testimony of witnesses in open court, the exhibits admitted into evidence during the Expedited Hearing, and the argument ofcounsel for the parties, the Court makes the following factual findings:

• Ms. Smith was exposed to diesel exhaust while operating a CARTA bus on AprillO, 2015; • Ms. Smith experienced dizziness, light-headedness, headaches, difficulty 5breathing, nausea, and vomiting afterthe exposure; • Ms. Smith selected Dr. Terry Smith as her authorized treating physician (ATP) from apanelprovidedby CARTA's carrier; • Dr. Smith restricted Ms. Smith from operating or driving machinery following visits onApril 17, April20,May 1, and June 15, 2015; • Dr. Smith released Ms. Smith to return to work withoutrestrictions on July 8, 2015; • Ms. Smithreturnedtowork onJuly 10, 2015; • Ms. Smith's average weekly wage is $870.67; • Ms. Smith's compensationrate is $580.44perweek. PreliminaryProceduralIssue In its response to Ms. Smith's REH, CARTA requested the Court continue the Expedited Hearing until Drs. Smith and Eletr have been deposed. The Court considered this requestpriortothe beginning oftheExpeditedHearing. Theprocedure set forth in Tennessee ComprehensiveRules andRegulations 0800- 02-21-.14 (2014) contemplates the expeditious scheduling ofan Expedited Hearing. This rule provides only five business days for the party opposing an REH to file responsive information. See Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-21-.14(1)(b). The Court Clerk must compile and transferthe courtfile to thejudgewithin seven days ofthe filing ofan REH. See Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-21-.14(1)(c). Medical depositions routinely require months to schedule. The Court fmds the delay ofanExpedited Hearing for the scheduling ofmedical depositions is contraryto the intent ofthe rules that an employee who is not receiving benefits obtain a speedy hearing to address the denial ofbenefits. Accordingly, the Court overruled CARTA's request to continue. Application of Law to Facts Causation The 2013 reforms to the Workers' Compensation Law imposed new evidentiary standards for proving the work-relatedness of an injury. Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(13)(A) (2014) provides, "[a]n injury is 'accidental' only ifthe injury is caused by a specific incident

... arising primarily out ofand in the course and scope of employment." Section 50-6-102(13)(B) provides, "[a]n injury 'arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment' only if it has been shown by a preponderance ofthe evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes." Section 50-6-102(13)(C) requires

6thatthe causation ofan alleged work injury be "shown to a reasonable degree ofmedical certainty," and section 50-6-102(13)(E) affords the ATP's causation opinion a rebuttable presumption ofcorrectness. The employee in a workers' compensation claim has the burden ofproofon all essential elements of a claim. Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, No. 2015-01-0055, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS _slip op. at 4 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015) (citing Tindall v. Waring ParkAss'n, 725 S.W.2d 935, 937 (Tenn. 1987)). At an Expedited Hearing, however, an employee need not prove every element ofhis or her claim by apreponderance ofthe evidence in orderto obtain relief. McCord v. AdvantageHuman Resourcing, supra. Instead, an employee must come forward with sufficientevidence from whichthe trial court candetermine thatthe employee is likely to prevail at ahearing onthe merits. !d. Atthe ExpeditedHearing, Ms. Smithpresented substantial evidence corroborating her claim ofexposureto diesel exhaust fumes while operating a CARTAbus onApril10, 2015. Ms. Smith's dispatcher, Duan Bush, testified that on April 10, 2015, Ms. Smith reported fumes in herbus. Mr. Bush statedhe calledthe shop aboutthe reported problem and then directed Ms. Smith to continue her route. He further testified that, fifteen to twenty minutes later, Ms. Smith called to report that she needed reliefbecause she was sick, vomiting, and light-headed. CARTA driver David Smith testified that he drove Bus 502 on April 6, 2015, and reported the strong presence offumes. He testified the fumes made his eyes water and caused difficulty breathing. Mr. Smith swapped the bus out before the end ofhis shift due to the fume problem. CARTA drivers Lyndra Robinson and June Atkins testified they drove Bus 502 in May 2015, andwere sickenedwhen exposedto heavy fumes inthe bus. Ms. Smith's husband, Ronald Smith, is a CARTA mechanic. He testified he worked on Bus 502 prior to April 10, 2015, to diagnose reports ofheavy fumes entering thebus during operation. Mr. Smithtestifiedhe diagnosed the cause ofthe fume problem on Bus 502 as clogged filters. Mr. Smith testified it was necessary to ship the bus to another company to fix the filter problem and, to his knowledge, the problem was not repairedbeforehis wife's exposureto fumes onApril10, 2015. Mr. Smith also testifiedthat CARTAposted a memorandum, datedApril10, 2015, on an information board for mechanics. (Ex. 13.) The memorandum, identified a problem with missing bolts in the engine compartment covers of CARTA buses. The Memo continued, "do [sic] to this lack ofproper maintenance an operator became illthis morning and was removed from Bus 502 and taken to the hospital." !d. Mr. Smith testified the engine compartments of CARTA's buses are not well-insulated, and that fumes enterthe buses when engine compartmentcovers are not securedbybolts. 7The Court finds Ms. Smith will likely prevail at a hearing on the merits that she suffered exposure to diesel exhaust fumes while driving a CARTAbus onApril10, 2015. The focus then becomes whether Ms. Smith has established by expert medical opinion thatherexposure to diesel exhaust causedher alleged injury. CARTA correctly points out that Dr. Smith initially did not state a causation opinion because he had no basis on which to give a defmitive opinion because the emergency providers did not test Ms. Smith's blood for carbon monoxide. (Ex. 6 at 6-9, 14, 22-23.) In his May 1, 2015 treatment note, however, Dr. Smith wrote, "I am leaning moretowards [the fact] she [Ms. Smith] did get a significant carbon monoxide exposure." (Ex. 6 at 9.) After taking into account Dr. Eletr's opinion that Ms. Smith's initial symptoms were related to her exposure to diesel exhaust (Ex. 7), Dr. Smith adopted the same opinion. (Exs. 5, 6 at 3.) The Court considers Dr. Smith's circumspection in arriving at his causation opinion a reason to trust his opinion, rather than a basis for distrusting it. In his May 1, 2015 note, Dr. Smith wrote, "[c]onversationtoday with the adjuster. They are trying to get me to state whether 50% ofitrelatedtoworkers' comp ..." (Ex. 6 at 7). In his causation report, Dr. Smith wrote Ms. Smith's symptoms are, "more likely due to carbon monoxide/diesel fume exposure from the initial instance that is greater than 50%." (Ex. 5.) (Emphasis added.) Dr. Smith clearly considered the correct statutory standard in arriving at his causation opinion. The Court considers his causation opinion rebuttably correct. Dr. Eletr's causation opinion is the same as Dr. Smith's and, as stated previously, Dr. Smith formulated his opinion in consideration of Dr. Eletr's opinion. (Ex. 5.) CARTA did not introduce an opinion that contradicted the opinions ofDrs. Smith and Eletr. Accordingly, the Court finds Ms. Smith came forward with sufficient evidence at the Expedited Hearing to support a finding that, at a hearing on the merits, she will prevail in establishing that she suffered injury on April 10, 2015, when exposed to diesel exhaustfumes while driving a CARTAbus. CARTA attempted to establish that non-work-related conditions caused Ms. Smith's symptoms. The Court is unpersuaded by this line of defense. The medical records admitted into evidence indicate Ms. Smith's doctors performed tests ruling out a number ofpotential non-work-related causes for the symptoms she experienced after her exposure to diesel exhaust fumes on April 10, 2015. On April 23, 2015, Ms. Smith underwent an abdominal ultrasound test for potential gallbladder disease, which was normal. (Ex. 9 at 21.) On May 5, 2015, Ms. Smith underwent a myocardial perfusion test, which was normal. (Ex. 9 at 17.) A June 25, 2015 MRI ofthe brain was normal. (Ex. 8 at 6.) The Court finds these tests support Drs. Smith's and Eletr's opinions that Ms. Smith suffered injury from her exposure to diesel exhaust fumes while driving a 8CARTAbus onAprillO, 2015. TemporaryPartialDisabilityBenefits To establish aprimafacie case for temporarytotal disability benefits, an employee must show that: (1) she was totally disabled and unable to work as a result of a compensable injury; (2) that a causal connection exists between the injury and the employee's inability to work; and (3) the duration of the period of the employee's disability. Gray v. Cullom Mach. Tool & Die, Inc., 152 S.W.3d 439, 443 (Tenn. 2004). Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(2) (2014) provides for temporary partial disability benefits based on the "difference between the average weekly wage of the worker at the time ofthe injury and the wage the worker is able to earn in the worker's partially disabled condition." Dr. Smith restricted Ms. Smith from operating or driving machinery until he released her to return to work on July 8, 2015. (Exs. 6 at 4, 21; 12 at 1.) There is no proofthat CARTA could accommodate those restrictions. In his May 1, 2015 note, Dr. Smith opined that, ifMs. Smith's CT scan ofthe headrevealednegativeresults, he would release her to return to work. (Ex. 6 at 9.) Ms. Smith underwent an MRI ofthe brain on June 25, 2015, which was negative. (Ex. 8 at 6.) Dr. Smith releasedMs. Smithto return to work following his visit ofJuly 8, 2015, which was the visit following the receipt of the negative MRI results. (Ex. 6 at 4.) On this basis, the Court awards Ms. Smith temporary partial disability benefits from April 11 to July 8, 2015, a period oftwelve weeks and five days. The Wage Statementprepared by CARTA indicates Ms. Smith earned $35,465.34 in the fifty-two weeks preceding the date of injury. (Ex. 3.) The Wage Statement indicates Ms. Smith earned no income or substantially less income than normal in a continuous twelve-week period encompassed in the applicable fifty-two week earnings period. (Ex. 3.) Ms. Smith testified she missed work during the subject period oftime due to leg surgery. In Russell v. Genesco, 651 S.W.2d 206, 209 (Tenn. 1983), the Supreme Court approved language in itsprevious opinions that, "[ w]here one regularly employed earns a given sum for a normal week it would be inequitable, in computing his compensation in case ofaccident, to include those weeks when, on account ofillness orbecause the plant was shut down for repairs, his earnings are reduced." The Court accordingly will not add in the twelve-week period of reduced or no earnings in calculating Ms. Smith's compensation rate. After removing the subject weeks, the Court calculates Ms. Smith's average weekly wage at $870.67, which equates to a compensationrate of$580.44 perweek. Ms. Smith testified, without contravention, she did not work during the period Dr. Smith 9



# - .. 

# . ...restricted her from driving. Accordingly, the Court finds Ms. Smith was unable to earn a wage during the period from April 11, 2015, to July 8, 2015. The difference betweenthe wage she was able to earn, zero, and her average weekly wage times two-thirds is $580.44perweek. MedicalBenefits Tennessee law requires an employer to provide "free ofcharge to the employee such medical and surgical treatment

. . . made reasonably necessary by accident as defmed in this chapter." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6.:.204(a)(l)(A) (2014). Ms. Smith continuedunderDr. Smith's care after CARTA denied her claim. Additionally, she came under the care of Dr. Eletr for neurologic care. The Court finds that, after CARTA denied her claim, Ms. Smith wasjustified in seeking medical care on her own without CARTA's approval. Under the circumstances, Ms. Smith may continue care of her compensable injury with either Dr. Smith or Dr. Eletr, or, at her election, a physician selected from a panel compiled by CARTA. See generally Dorris v. INA Ins. Co., 764 S.W.2d 538, 540-41 (Tenn. 1989); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, supra, at *7. ITIS,THEREFORE,ORDERED as follows: 1. Medical care for Ms. Smith's injuries shall be paid. CARTA or its workers' compensation carrier shall provide Ms. Smith with medical treatment for her injury as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204, to be initiated by CARTA or its workers' compensation carrier authorizing either Dr. Terry W. Smith orDr. Abdul HafizEletr as the ATP, or, ifMs. Smithrequests, by providing her apanel ofphysicians as requiredbythat statute. Ms. Smith and/orthe medical providers shall furnish CARTA orits workers' compensation carrier medical bills forthe charges incurred for compensable care. 2. The amount oftemporary partial disability benefits is $580.44 per week based on the difference between the amount she was able to earn in her partially disabled condition andher averageweekly wage. 3. Payment ofpast-due benefits of$7,379.88 shall be made for theperiod from April 11, 2015, to July 8, 2015, twelveweeks and five days. 4. This matter is set for an Initial Hearing on December 15, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. EasternTime. 5. 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 10Annotated 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 assessmentfor non-compliance. 6. 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. ENTEREDthis the26TM dayofAugust,2015.

# ~~ JudgeThomasWyatt CourtofWorkers' Compensation Claims Initial Hearing: An Initial (Scheduling) Hearing has been set with Judge Thomas Wyatt, Court ofWorkers' Compensation Claims at 9:30a.m. Eastern Time, on December 15, 2015. You must call 615-741-3061 or toll-free at 855-747-1721 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 yourfurtherparticipation. Rightto Appeal: Tennessee Law allows anyparty who disagrees withthis ExpeditedHearing Order to appeal the decision to the Workers' CompensationAppeals Board. To file aNotice of Appeal, youmust: 1. Completethe enclosed form entitled: "ExpeditedHearingNotice ofAppeal." 2. File the completed form with the Court Clerk within seven business days ofthe date the Workers' CompensationJudge enteredthe ExpeditedHearing Order. 3. Serve a copy ofthe ExpeditedHearingNotice ofAppeal uponthe opposingparty.

114. The appealing party is responsible for payment ofa filing fee in the amount of $75.00. Within ten calendar days after the filing ofa notice ofappeal, payment mustbereceived by check, money order, or credit cardpayment. Payments canbe made in person at any Bureau office or by United States mail, hand-delivery, or other delivery service. In the alternative, the appealingparty may file an Affidavit ofIndigency, on a form prescribed by the Bureau, seeking a waiver ofthe filing fee. The Affidavit oflndigency may be filed contemporaneously with the Notice ofAppeal ormust be filed within ten calendar days thereafter. The Appeals Board will consider the Affidavit ofIndigency 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 ofthe hearing for the purpose ofhaving 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 ofAppeal. Alternatively, the parties may file ajoint statement of the evidence within ten calendar days of the filing of the Expedited Hearing Notice ofAppeal. The statement ofthe 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 submittedtothe Clerk ofthe Appeals Board. 6. Ifthe appellant elects to file a position statement in support ofthe interlocutory appeal, the appealing party shall file such position statement with the Court Clerk withinthree business days ofthe filing ofthe ExpeditedHearingNotice ofAppeal, specifying the issues presented for review and including any argument in support thereof. Ifthe 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'sposition statement.

12CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy ofthis Expedited Hearing Order for TemporaryPartialDisability and Medical Benefits was senttothe following recipients by the following methods ofservice onthisthe 26th day ofAugust, 2015.

Name Certified Mail Carmen Y. Ware, Attorney JohnBatson, Attorney Via Via Service sentto: Fax Email X cyware@thewarelawfirm.com

X jbatson@watsonroach.com

# ::**~~** Courto "Workers' Compensation Claims WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov

13