1

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT MURFREESBORO

RONDA A. CAMPBELL, ) Docket No. 2019-05-0540

Employee, )

v. )

MARTEN TRANSPORT, LLC, ) State File No. 32087-2019

Employer, )

And )

AGRI GENERAL INS. CO., ) Judge Dale Tipps

Insurance Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING REQUESTED BENEFITS

This case came before the Court on November 14, 2019, for an Expedited Hearing 

on whether Ms. Campbell is entitled to benefits. To receive these benefits, Ms. Campbell

must show that she is likely to establish at a hearing on the merits that her injuries arose

primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. For the reasons below, 

the Court holds Ms. Campbell failed to meet this burden because her injury occurred 

during a deviation from her employment. Therefore, the Court holds that she is not

entitled to benefits at this time.

History of Claim

Ms. Campbell works as a truck driver for Marten Transport, a company that 

provides trucking services for Walmart in Tennessee. She testified that she drove a 

regular route from the Walmart distribution center in Shelbyville to a store near Dayton,

with several deliveries along the way.

On the morning of April 23, 2019, Ms. Campbell had completed her deliveries and 

was returning to Shelbyville, when she decided to stop at the At Home store in 

Chattanooga to buy a gift for her mother.1 The store was closed when she arrived, so she 

parked her truck and went into her sleeper compartment to rest until the store opened. 

 

1 Ms. Campbell contended that she had permission from her dispatcher to make this stop, but Marten 

denied that she asked for or received permission.

FILED

Nov 22, 2019

02:56 PM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS
2

While Ms. Campbell slept, a tow-truck operator hooked onto the cab of her truck and 

raised the front of it off the ground.2 He then pounded on the door to wake her up. Ms. 

Campbell was still groggy when she opened the door and did not realize the cab had been 

elevated. As a result, she fell to the ground and injured her head, shoulder, and left wrist.

Ms. Campbell made her purchase, drove the truck back to Shelbyville, and 

reported the accident to Michael Ternberg, Marten’s workers’ compensation claim 

representative. He instructed Ms. Campbell to go to a walk-in clinic. Four clinics

refused to treat her, so she went to the emergency room where she discovered she had 

broken her wrist. Ms. Campbell began treating with Dr. Brian Peterson, an orthopedic 

specialist. That treatment was unauthorized, however, and Marten denied her claim on 

May 2.

On cross-examination, Ms. Campbell admitted Marten required her to follow a 

specific route from Dayton to Shelbyville. She agreed that Exhibit 12 was a map that 

accurately depicted her prescribed return route.

Mr. Ternberg testified he denied Ms. Campbell’s claim because she deviated from 

her job duties to perform a personal errand.3

Ms. Campbell requested that the Court order Marten to pay her medical expenses 

and to reimburse her for the bills she paid personally. She also requested temporary 

disability benefits. 

Marten contended that Ms. Campbell was not entitled to benefits because: 1) the 

Court lacks jurisdiction; 2) she knowingly and voluntarily sought or accepted benefits in 

another state; and, 3) her injury did not arise primarily out of and in the course and scope 

of her employment because she deviated from her route. Marten asked the Court to deny 

her request.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Ms. Campbell must provide sufficient evidence from which this Court might 

determine she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-

239(d)(1) (2019); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. 

Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015).

 

2 The parking lot was posted, “No Truck Parking.”

3 Both parties introduced a great deal of evidence about Qualcom – the electronic communications system 

by which Marten communicates with its drivers and tracks their movements. Similarly, the Court heard 

evidence about whether Ms. Campbell was legally parked at the time of the accident and whether she 

complied with Marten’s safety policies in the way she exited her truck. Because the Court finds Ms. 

Campbell distinctly departed from her work duties, it need not summarize this testimony.
3

Forum-Selection Clause

Marten first contended that the Court has no jurisdiction because Ms. Campbell 

consented to the exclusive jurisdiction of Wisconsin workers’ compensation law as a 

condition precedent to her employment. It argued this constitutes a reasonable forumselection clause and that these clauses are generally enforceable in Tennessee. The Court 

disagrees and finds that, as a matter of law, the alleged forum-selection clause is invalid.4

Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-114(a) provides: “No contract or 

agreement, written or implied, or rule, regulation or other device, shall in any manner 

operate to relieve any employer, in whole or in part, of any obligation created by this 

chapter[.]” Ms. Campbell and Marten meet the statutory definitions of employee and 

employer in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102, and Ms. Campbell alleged she 

suffered injuries in Tennessee while performing her employment duties for Marten. 

These facts entitle her to seek benefits under the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation 

Law. To the extent Marten’s forum-selection clause purports to relieve Marten of the 

obligation to provide Tennessee workers’ compensation benefits, it is void. See Fred 

Travis v Carter Express, 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 67, at 17-18 (Dec. 21, 

2018) (prospective forum-selection clauses are void as against public policy and are 

invalid under section 50-6-114(a)).

Election of Remedies

An employee can waive her right to pursue workers’ compensation benefits under 

Tennessee law where the employee elects to pursue benefits under the laws of another 

state. To make this election, the employee must have: “(a) affirmatively acted to obtain 

benefits in another state; or (b) knowingly and voluntarily accepted benefits under the 

law of another state.” However, the “mere acceptance of benefits” under the laws of 

another state, without proof that it was a knowing and voluntary acceptance, is 

insufficient to show a binding election of remedies. Goodwin v. Morristown Driver’s 

Servs., Inc., 2019 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 37, at *9 (July 31, 2019).

In this case, no proof demonstrates that Ms. Campbell affirmatively acted to obtain 

benefits in Wisconsin. To the contrary, Mr. Ternberg testified that he alone made the 

decision to deny Ms. Campbell’s claim and that no Wisconsin state agency or court was 

involved. Thus, Ms. Campbell did not waive her right to Tennessee Workers’ 

Compensation benefits under the first part of the election analysis.

Regarding the second part, Marten contends that Ms. Campbell admitted she

 

4

It is unclear whether the provision at issue is a forum-selection clause or if it is really a choice of law 

provision. The Court finds it need not make this determination, as either type of agreement is void. 
4

knowingly and voluntarily accepted benefits under the law of another state. It relies on 

Ms. Campbell’s recorded statement, where she agreed with Mr. Ternberg’s question, “Do 

you understand this claim is being handled under the state of Wisconsin Workers’ 

Compensation Act and in the state of Wisconsin?” Marten also notes that Ms. 

Campbell’s Petition for Benefit Determination states “Claim denied on 2 May 2019 via 

phone call from Mike Ternberg. Want to appeal decision / file new claim in TN where I 

work/live.”

A threshold problem with Marten’s argument is that it requires Ms. Campbell to 

accept benefits. This she could not do, as Marten denied her claim without ever 

providing any medical treatment or temporary disability benefits. 

More importantly, an employee who receives voluntarily-paid benefits does not 

make a binding election “if benefits were received and accepted by the employee without 

knowledge on his part that he could have made a claim in Tennessee, or without the 

degree of knowledge which is required in order for a binding election to be made.” Hale 

v. Commercial Union Assurance Cos., 637 S.W.2d 865, 869-870 (Tenn. 1982). No 

evidence suggests that Ms. Campbell knew she could make a claim in Tennessee until 

she did so. Nor does any proof indicate that she had the degree of knowledge required to 

make a knowing, intentional election. Instead, Marten simply informed her (incorrectly) 

that her claim was being handled under Wisconsin law. The Court finds this practice 

both questionable and inadequate to constitute an election of remedies.

Compensability

To prove a compensable injury, Ms. Campbell must show that her alleged injury 

arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. Marten did not

dispute that Ms. Campbell injured herself while exiting her truck. However, it contended 

that she was not in the course and scope of her employment at the time.

A traveling employee is generally considered to be in the course of employment 

continuously during the duration of the entire trip, except when there is a distinct 

departure on a personal errand. McCann v. Hatchett, 19 S.W.3d 218, 221 (Tenn. 2000). 

The parties agree that Ms. Campbell was a traveling employee. The question, therefore, 

is whether her trip to At Home constituted a distinct departure on a personal errand. The 

Court finds that it did.

The Court recognizes that the physical deviation from her route was not 

geographically significant (approximately five miles), but it was a distinct departure.5 

 

5 Ms. Campbell disagreed that she deviated as much as five miles from her route, arguing that the parking 

lot was actually right next to I-24. She is correct about the location of the parking lot, but according to 

the map showing her route, she was not yet supposed to be on I-24.
5

Further, the nature of the deviation seems more important than the distance traveled. 

Ms. Campbell correctly argued that some acts of comfort and convenience, such as 

bathroom breaks or meal stops, are incidental to the employment. These contribute to the 

furtherance of an employer’s interest, and injuries that occur during such stops are 

deemed to have arisen out of the employment. See McCormick v. Aabakus, Inc., 101 

S.W.3d 60, 63 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel Oct. 5, 2000). However, she admitted that 

the sole reason for this stop was to purchase a gift, not for food, fuel, or a bathroom 

break. Ms. Campbell’s decision to leave her route and park her truck was based on 

purely personal considerations. This differs fundamentally from a comfort stop, in that it 

provided no benefit to Marten. Therefore, it represents a distinct departure on a personal 

errand. 

Ms. Campbell contended that she had Marten’s permission to make the stop. Even 

if this were true, the Court is unaware of any authority that granting permission for a 

departure changes the analysis set out in McCann. Instead, it seems the focus should 

remain on the question of whether Ms. Campbell’s deviation from her route provided any 

benefit to Marten. Absent any proof of a benefit, the Court cannot find at this time that 

she is likely to prevail on proving that her injury arose out of the course and scope of her 

employment. 

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows: 

1. Ms. Campbell’s claims against Marten Transport for the requested medical and 

temporary disability benefits are denied at this time. 

2. This case is set for a Scheduling Hearing on January 29, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. You 

must call toll-free at 855-874-0473 to participate. Failure to call might result in a 

determination of the issues without your further participation. All conferences are 

set using Central Time.

ENTERED November 22, 2019. 

_____________________________________ 

 Judge Dale Tipps 

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims 
6

APPENDIX

Exhibits:

1. Affidavit of Ronda Campbell

2. Records from Tennova Healthcare

3. Records from Tennova Ortho

4. Wage statement

5. August 23, 2019 payroll printout

6. View Load document

7. Tennova accounts receivable printout (Identification Only)

8. Medical payment receipts and summaries (Identification Only)

9. Satellite photo of At Home parking lot

10.Petition for Benefit Determination

11.Driver Log

12.Google map printout of return route

13.Google map printout of return route and detour to At Home

14.Invoice from Mostler’s Towing

15.Investigation notes

16.Transcript of Ronda Campbell’s recorded statement

17.Qualcom printout

Technical record:

1. Petition for Benefit Determination

2. Dispute Certification Notice

3. Request for Expedited Hearing
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the Expedited Hearing Order was sent as indicated on

November 22, 2019.

Name Certified 

Mail

Email Service sent to:

Ronda Campbell,

Self-represented Employee

X Fields1961@yahoo.com

Robin Rasmussen, 

Employer Attorney

X rrasmussen@drmlawmemphis.com

_____________________________________

Penny Shrum, Court Clerk

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov