1

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT NASHVILLE

Charles Amsler, ) Docket No. 2020-06-1410

Employee, )

v. )

United Ground Express, ) State File No. 55289-2019

 Employer, )

And

New Hampshire Insurance Co.,

)

) Judge Kenneth M. Switzer

 Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS

This case is principally about which party should be responsible for bills related to

past medical treatment. Charles Amsler asserted that United Ground Express should pay

medical bills he incurred for treatment of sudden, severe pain in his foot while walking at 

work. United Ground Express initially authorized treatment but later denied the claim. 

After the denial, Mr. Amsler continued seeing the authorized provider, including seeking

emergency treatment due to complications he believed stemmed from the alleged work 

injury. After an expedited hearing on June 10, 2021, the Court finds that Mr. Amsler is not 

likely to prevail at trial in showing that United Ground Express is responsible for the 

medical bills he incurred after the date of denial. 

History of Claim

Mr. Amsler worked for United Ground Express as a customer service lead at its 

worksite, the Nashville International Airport. He testified that, on July 29, 2019, at 

approximately 4:30 a.m., his left foot “popped” while walking toward an airline gate, 

causing immediate, intense pain.

On his petition, Mr. Amsler wrote that the injury was caused “possibly by stepping 

on something on [the] floor.” He wrote on his affidavit, “I did not look to see if I stepped 

on anything because I could barely walk.” Mr. Amsler testified that the carpeting where 

his foot felt sudden pain was in poor condition and was later replaced, along with the 

FILED

Jun 16, 2021

07:15 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS
2

damaged concrete below it. But he agreed on cross-examination that he did not tell the 

authorized doctor or the claims adjuster that he slipped, tripped or stepped on anything.

At approximately 5:30 a.m., Mr. Amsler reported the injury to his supervisor, who 

insisted that he complete his shift and then go to a nearby occupational clinic, not the 

emergency room. His shift ended at 2:45 p.m.

According to Mr. Amsler, United Ground Express never offered a panel. It offered 

no contrary evidence, other than testimony from claims adjuster Megan Diehl, who stated 

that she believed his need for treatment was “emergent.”

Mr. Amsler underwent treatment with Dr. Chae Ko and physical therapy for the next 

several weeks beginning on July 29. Dr. Ko wrote that Mr. Amsler “felt his left midfoot 

pop while walking,” while the physical therapy notes read, “Pt. reports he was simply 

walking at work, when he felt something give in L foot.” Dr. Ko diagnosed a left-foot 

sprain. In October, he placed Mr. Amsler at maximum medical improvement.

Ms. Diehl testified that she denied the claim on August 5 and sent Mr. Amsler a 

denial letter the same day. He testified he never received the letter but agreed that it bears 

the correct address. Mr. Amsler’s affidavit states he learned of the denial on October 15, 

in a letter concerning a medical bill instructing him to promptly pay the amount owed.

It is unknown whether Dr. Ko’s office received notice of the denial in early August 

or why it continued to treat Mr. Amsler. Treatment records after August 5 through the last 

visit state as “reason for visit” that the clinic designated the claim as “workers 

compensation.” Mr. Amsler’s affidavit states he was “never asked for [his] insurance 

card.” According to Ms. Diehl, the carrier only paid for visits on July 29 and July 31.1

In mid-September, Mr. Amsler underwent treatment at the Intensive Care Unit at 

Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Providers there diagnosed and treated a pulmonary 

embolism and deep vein thrombosis in his left leg. Mr. Amsler believes this event was 

caused by the work accident.

Mr. Amsler asked that the Court order payment for all medical bills incurred for the 

injury, including treatment at Vanderbilt and Dr. Ko’s office after the denial. He 

introduced numerous medical bills and a recap totaling the amounts owed. However, they 

were not admitted into evidence. In Eaves v. Ametek, 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. 

LEXIS 53, at *8 (Sept. 14, 2018), the Appeals Board held that medical bills were 

inadmissible, when not signed by a physician, accompanied by a proper certification, or

attached to an affidavit from a medical provider attesting to their accuracy or completeness, 

1 Mr. Amsler did not see a provider on July 31. The Court presumes this refers to physical therapy on July 

30.
3

and the employee offered no proof that the medical bills were reasonable, necessary, or 

causally-related to the work accident. Mr. Amsler’s bill compilation did not satisfy these 

requirements.

Mr. Amsler contended: “The injury occurred as I was moving from one station to 

the other at work. And, in good faith, I did what the company told me to do, to go to the 

doctor that they directed me to. And everything beyond that was a result of being pointed 

in that direction.” He continued, “They didn’t follow the letter of the law or the spirit of 

the law. And ultimately, at the end of this, I have . . . medical bills I would’ve dealt with 

differently if I had seen my own doctor.”

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Mr. Amsler must show that he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits regarding 

United Ground Express’s liability for medical benefits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-

239(d)(1) (2020); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. 

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

A bedrock of the Workers’ Compensation Law is that the employer must furnish 

medical treatment for work-related injuries. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(a)(1). United 

Ground Express argued that Mr. Amsler’s injury was not work-related but rather was 

idiopathic.

“An idiopathic injury is one that has an unexplained origin or cause, and generally 

does not arise out of the employment unless ‘some condition of the employment presents 

a peculiar or additional hazard.’” Veler v. Wackenhut Servs., No. E2010-00965-WC-R3-

WC, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 78, at *9 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel Jan. 28, 2011). An injury 

that occurs due to an idiopathic condition is compensable “if an employment hazard causes 

or exacerbates the injury.” McCaffery v. Cardinal Logistics, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. 

Bd. LEXIS 50, at *10 (Dec. 10, 2015). Further, the Tennessee Supreme Court, addressing 

what constitutes a hazard of employment in the context of injuries that occur while walking, 

has observed that “Tennessee courts have consistently held that an employee may not 

recover for an injury occurring while walking unless there is an employment hazard, such 

as a puddle of water or a step, in addition to the injured employee’s ambulation.” Wilhelm 

v. Kroger, 235 S.W.3d 122, 128-29 (Tenn. 2007).

Here, Mr. Amsler credibly testified that his left foot “popped while walking” toward 

an airline gate, causing immediate pain. On his petition, Mr. Amsler wrote that the injury 

was caused “possibly by stepping on something on [the] floor.” He wrote on his affidavit, 

however, that “I did not look to see if I stepped on anything because I could barely walk.”2 

2 Mr. Amsler attempted to introduce photos of the condition of the carpeting in the area where he became 

injured, but United Ground Express objected to their admissibility. The Court sustained the objection
4

He conceded that he did not slip, trip or fall.

Considering the testimony and pleadings, Mr. Amsler candidly admitted he is not 

certain that he stepped on anything that might have caused his foot pain. Therefore, Mr. 

Amsler has not identified an employment hazard beyond his simple act of walking. He is 

unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that he suffered an injury arising primarily out 

of and in the course and scope of his employment. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). 

In other words, although he was “moving from station to station,” that act, in and of itself, 

does not necessarily mean an injury incurred while doing so arose primarily out of 

employment.

Nonetheless, Mr. Amsler convincingly argued that United Ground Express did not 

offer a panel, and that he should not be responsible for treatment that he did not choose but 

underwent at his employer’s direction.

Ms. Diehl testified she denied the claim on August 6 and sent the notice to Mr. 

Amsler by letter the same day; he testified he never received the notice. Both witnesses 

were credible; therefore, the Court cannot discern whose testimony to accept without 

additional corroborating evidence. Given that Mr. Amsler bears the burden of proof, and 

based on the evidence currently before it, the Court cannot find that United Ground Express 

should be responsible for the medical bills after the denial date.

As a final matter, Mr. Amsler testified that United Ground Express directed him to 

Dr. Ko. United Ground Express did not introduce a signed panel. Ms. Diehl’s testimony 

that no panel was offered because his need for treatment was “emergent” is unpersuasive, 

since Mr. Amsler was required to work his entire shift before going to Dr. Ko’s office. The 

Court finds United Ground Express did not offer a panel and had no reasonable justification 

for its failure to do so.

Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-01-.06(2) (May 2018) 

provides that where the employer “fails to provide an appropriate initial panel of physicians 

to the employee within three (3) business days from the date the employer has notice of a 

work-related injury and the employee expressed a need for medical care, . . . the employer 

may be assessed a civil penalty[.]” The Court refers the case to the Compliance Program 

for consideration of a penalty.

because he did not authenticate the photos during his testimony.
5

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Mr. Amsler’s requested relief is denied at this time.

2. This case is set for a scheduling hearing on September 13, 2021, at 9:15 a.m.

Central. You must call 615-532-9552 or toll-free at 866-943-0025 to participate. 

Failure to call might result in a determination of the issues without your 

participation.

3. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Compliance Program for consideration of 

the imposition of penalty for United Ground Express’s failure to offer a panel of 

physicians.

ENTERED June 16, 2021.

_____________________________________

JUDGE KENNETH M. SWITZER

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

APPENDIX 

Exhibits:

1. Affidavit of Charles Amsler

2. Employer/Carrier’s Exhibits

a. Concentra Medical Center Records

b. Payment History

c. Denial

d. Electronic Data Interchange History

e. Petition for Benefit Determination for DOI July 27, 2019

3. Medical records-Concentra-physical therapy

4. Employee’s Exhibits

a. July 31 letter from Carrier/TPA to Mr. Amsler (Identification only)

b. Concentra documents, August 29, 2019 (Identification only)

c. Concentra report, July 29, 2019

d. Concentra Therapy Appointment Detail, August 20, 2019

e. Outpatient Diagnostic Center, August 21, 2019

f. Photos (Identification only)

g. VUMC letter, Dr. Monahan

h. Discharge summary

5. Bills and summary page (Identification only)
6

Technical record:

1. Petition for Benefit Determination

2. Dispute Certification Notice and Employee’s Additional Issue

3. Request for Expedited Hearing

4. Pretrial Hearing Order, April 16, 2021

5. Employer’s/Carrier’s Brief

6. Pretrial Hearing Order, May 21, 2021

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

16, 2021.

Name Certified 

Mail

Regular 

Mail

Email Service sent to:

Charles Amsler,

Employee

X X martinamsler@yahoo.com

1530 Oxford Court

Gallatin TN 37066

Stephanie Rockwell, 

Employer’s Attorney

X stephanie@speed-seta.com

Compliance Program X WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov

_____________________________________

Penny Shrum, Clerk of Court

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov
LB-1099 rev. 01/20 Page 1 of 2 RDA 11082 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation

www.tn.gov/workforce/injuries-at-work/ 

wc.courtclerk@tn.gov | 1-800-332-2667 

Docket No.: ________________________

State File No.: ______________________ 

Date of Injury: _____________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

Employee

v.

___________________________________________________________________________ 

Employer

Notice is given that ____________________________________________________________________ 

[List name(s) of all appealing party(ies). Use separate sheet if necessary.]

appeals the following order(s) of the Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims to the 

Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (check one or more applicable boxes and include the date filestamped on the first page of the order(s) being appealed):

□ Expedited Hearing Order filed on _______________ □ Motion Order filed on ___________________

□ Compensation Order filed on__________________ □ Other Order filed on_____________________

issued by Judge _________________________________________________________________________. 

Statement of the Issues on Appeal 

Provide a short and plain statement of the issues on appeal or basis for relief on appeal: 

________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

Parties

Appellant(s) (Requesting Party): _________________________________________ ☐Employer ☐Employee 

Address: ________________________________________________________ Phone: ___________________ 

Email: __________________________________________________________ 

Attorney’s Name: ______________________________________________ BPR#: _______________________ 

Attorney’s Email: ______________________________________________ Phone: _______________________ 

Attorney’s Address: _________________________________________________________________________ 

* Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellant *
LB-1099 rev. 01/20 Page 2 of 2 RDA 11082 

Employee Name: _______________________________________ Docket No.: _____________________ Date of Inj.: _______________ 

Appellee(s) (Opposing Party): ___________________________________________ ☐Employer ☐Employee 

Appellee’s Address: ______________________________________________ Phone: ____________________ 

Email: _________________________________________________________ 

Attorney’s Name: _____________________________________________ BPR#: ________________________ 

Attorney’s Email: _____________________________________________ Phone: _______________________ 

Attorney’s Address: _________________________________________________________________________ 

* Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellee *

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, _____________________________________________________________, certify that I have forwarded a 

true and exact copy of this Notice of Appeal by First Class mail, postage prepaid, or in any manner as described 

in Tennessee Compilation Rules & Regulations, Chapter 0800-02-21, to all parties and/or their attorneys in this 

case on this the __________ day of ___________________________________, 20 ____. 

 ______________________________________________ 

[Signature of appellant or attorney for appellant]