1

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Billy R. Beecham ) Docket No. 2019-07-0184

)

v. ) State File No. 82322-2017

)

Celadon Group, Inc., et al. )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )

Compensation Claims )

Amber E. Luttrell, Judge )

Affirmed and Certified as Final

The employee, a truck driver, suffered injuries when he fell while exiting his truck. The

employer accepted the claim as compensable and provided workers’ compensation

benefits. At trial, the employer raised the affirmative defense of willful misconduct. The

trial court concluded that the employer failed to establish the affirmative defense and

awarded benefits based on the permanent impairment rating admitted into evidence. The

employee has appealed. After careful consideration, we affirm the trial court’s order and

certify it as final.

Judge Pele I. Godkin delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which Presiding 

Judge Timothy W. Conner and Judge David F. Hensley joined.

Billy Beecham, Paris, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se

Kenneth D. Veit, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, Celadon Group, Inc.

Memorandum Opinion1

On October 18, 2017, Billy Beecham (“Employee”), an over-the-road truck driver,

sustained injuries to his neck, back, and shoulder when he fell while exiting his truck. 

Employee reported the work incident to his employer, Celadon Group, Inc. 

(“Employer”), resumed working, and sought authorized medical treatment from an urgent 

1 “The appeals board may, in an effort to secure a just and speedy determination of matters on appeal and 

with the concurrence of all judges, decide an appeal by an abbreviated order or by memorandum opinion, 

whichever the appeals board deems appropriate, in cases that are not legally and/or factually novel or 

complex.” Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-22-.03(1) (2020).

FILED

Feb 26, 2021

12:15 PM(CT)

TENNESSEE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

APPEALS BOARD
2

care clinic within a few days of the incident. Employee received conservative treatment 

at the urgent care facility and was released to return to full-duty work.

Over the next few months, Employee was seen by various providers at the urgent 

care facility and, in July 2018, was referred to an orthopedist for further evaluation.

Employer did not immediately provide a panel of orthopedists, and Employee returned to 

the urgent care facility on two more occasions. A provider at the urgent care facility

placed Employee at maximum medical improvement, at which time Employer offered

Employee a panel of orthopedists, from which he selected Dr. Timothy Sweo.

Employee first saw Dr. Sweo on October 10, 2018. Dr. Sweo diagnosed

Employee with cervicalgia and left shoulder pain and imposed temporary restrictions of 

no truck driving “for the next few weeks until after [physical] therapy.” Although

Employer was able to accommodate Employee’s work restrictions, Employee declined to 

return to work and voluntarily resigned, claiming he was unable to safely operate a truck 

in his condition due to pain. On January 9, 2019, Dr. Sweo placed Employee at

maximum medical improvement, released him to regular duty, and assigned a one percent

medical impairment “based on cervical strain.”

Employee obtained another medical evaluation from Dr. Samuel Chung, who 

assigned a twenty-six percent medical impairment rating. Because of the disparity in the

two ratings, Employee was examined by Dr. David West through the Bureau of Workers’

Compensation’s Medical Impairment Rating Registry (“MIRR”). Dr. West concluded 

the one percent impairment rating assessed by Dr. Sweo was appropriate.

On March 8, 2019, Employee filed a petition seeking additional medical treatment 

and temporary disability benefits. The trial court conducted an expedited hearing and

issued an order requiring Employer to authorize additional treatment with Dr. Sweo that

was reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the work injury. The court found

Employee was not entitled to the additional monetary benefits he had requested.

On October 24, 2019, Employer filed a motion to amend the Dispute Certification 

Notice to include willful misconduct as an affirmative defense, and the court granted the

motion. At trial, the contested issues were compensability and the extent of Employee’s

vocational disability. The trial court concluded Employer had failed to establish willful

misconduct and found the claim to be compensable. The court awarded permanent

disability benefits based on Dr. West’s one percent medical impairment rating, which was

the only impairment rating entered into evidence. Employee has appealed, questioning

the trial court’s award based on the one percent impairment rating.

Employee is self-represented in this appeal, as he was in the trial court. Parties 

who decide to represent themselves are entitled to fair and equal treatment by the courts. 
3

Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d 222, 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). However, as 

explained by the Court of Appeals,

courts must also be mindful of the boundary between fairness to a pro se 

litigant and unfairness to the pro se litigant’s adversary. Thus, the courts 

must not excuse pro se litigants from complying with the same substantive 

and procedural rules that represented parties are expected to 

observe. . . . Pro se litigants should not be permitted to shift the burden of 

the litigation to the courts or to their adversaries.

Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901, 903-04 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (citations omitted).

Employee has not filed a brief on appeal. Although he appears to contend the trial 

court erred in concluding he sustained a one percent impairment, he failed to articulate

any specific issues for our review, failed to describe how the trial court purportedly erred 

in its rulings, and failed to provide any relevant legal authority in support of his position. 

It is not our role to search the record for possible errors or to formulate Employee’s legal 

arguments where he has provided none. Cosey v. Jarden Corp., No. 2017-01-0053, 2019 

TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 3, at *8 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Jan. 15, 

2019). As we have stated on numerous occasions, were we to search the record for 

possible errors and raise issues and arguments for Employee, we would be acting as his 

counsel, which the law prohibits. Webb v. Sherrell, No. E2013-02724-COA-R3-CV, 

2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2015).

Moreover, Employee has not filed a transcript of the proceedings in the trial court

or a joint statement of the evidence. As a result, our review of the evidence is limited to

the documentary evidence. The only evidence addressing Employee’s medical

impairment is the one percent medical impairment rating from Dr. West. Accordingly,

we conclude the preponderance of the evidence supports the trial court’s determination.

We affirm the trial court’s compensation order and certify it as final. Costs on appeal are 

taxed to Employee.
 

 

 

 TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD 

Billy R. Beecham ) Docket No. 2019-07-0184 

) 

v. ) State File No. 82322-2017 

)

Celadon Group, Inc., et al. ) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ ) 

Compensation Claims ) 

Amber E. Luttrell, 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 26th day 

of February, 2021. 

Name Certified 

Mail

First Class 

Mail

Via 

Fax

Via 

Email

Sent to: 

Billy Beecham X billybeecham76@gmail.com

Kenneth D. Veit

Crystal Brown

X kenny.veit@leitnerfirm.com

crystal.brown@leitnerfirm.com

Amber E. Luttrell, Judge X Via Electronic Mail

Kenneth M. Switzer, Chief Judge X Via Electronic Mail

Penny Shrum, Clerk, Court of 

Workers’ Compensation Claims

X penny.patterson-shrum@tn.gov

 

Olivia Yearwood

Clerk, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board

220 French Landing Dr., Ste. 1-B 

Nashville, TN 37243 

Telephone: 615-253-1606 

Electronic Mail: WCAppeals.Clerk@tn.gov