Court Opinion

ID: 9959115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 18:03:46.699122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:28.331506
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                               Apr 10, 2024
                                                                              12:53 PM(CT)
                                                                                TENNESSEE
                                                                           WORKERS' COMPENSATION
                                                                              APPEALS BOARD

           TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
              WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Cassandra Jordan                            )   Docket No.     2023-01-4183
                                            )
v.                                          )   State File No. 860263-2023
                                            )
HFS, LLC, d/b/a McDonald’s, et al.          )
                                            )
                                            )
Appeal from the Court of Workers’           )
Compensation Claims                         )
Thomas L. Wyatt, Judge                      )

                               Affirmed and Remanded

In this appeal, the employee challenges the trial court’s interlocutory order denying her
request for benefits. She contends she was injured while lifting and carrying a heavy box
of fries while working as a cook. The employee did not provide written notice of her
injury, and the parties dispute when she provided verbal notice, with the employer
asserting it did not know of the alleged injury until more than fifteen days after the
incident. In denying her request for benefits, the trial court noted the employee offered
no evidence of timely written notice and concluded she failed to show she will likely
prevail at trial in proving the employer had actual knowledge of the accident. The
employee has appealed. Upon careful consideration of the record, we affirm the court’s
decision, find the employee’s appeal to be frivolous, and remand the case.

Judge Pele I. Godkin delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which Presiding
Judge Timothy W. Conner and Judge Meredith B. Weaver joined.

Cassandra Jordan, Cleveland, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se

Gregory H. Fuller and Jolie A. Uzelac, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee,
HFS, LLC, d/b/a McDonald’s

                         Factual and Procedural Background

       Cassandra Jordan (“Employee”) was working as a cook for HFS, LLC, d/b/a
McDonald’s (“Employer”) on May 5, 2023, when she allegedly injured her back.
Specifically, Employee asserts she was lifting a heavy box of french fries in the walk-in
freezer of the store when the injury occurred. Employee contends she told a manager she

                                           1
had injured her back, but the manager “just went on by.” In her responses to
interrogatories propounded by Employer, Employee noted that “an exact date of notice”
was May 8, when she told her manager that she “picked up a heavy box of fries” and was
told to “go to the doctor.” Employee also noted in her responses that the store manager
told her to return to work with paperwork after she was seen by a physician.

        On May 15, Employee sought medical treatment due to worsening pain. She used
health insurance coverage from a second job to cover that treatment. The records of that
visit indicate a history of suffering a lifting injury from an “unknown” location. The
documentation of this visit reflects that Employee reported a history of left lumbar pain
radiating into her left leg, but it does not document any history of a work injury.
Employee was diagnosed with a lumbar strain, was prescribed medication and work
restrictions, and was instructed to follow up with a physician.

       During the expedited hearing, Employee testified that she reported her injury to
Employer’s general manager, Mitchell Fox, on May 16. 1 She also stated that she gave
her report of injury to whoever answered the phone. Employee testified that she worked
on May 18 and 19 and provided Employer with the records from her medical visit but
asserted that Employer would not review the documentation. Employee also testified she
was told on May 19 that a claim would be filed and that an adjuster would call her.
Employee explained that, when she did not receive a call from an adjuster, she went to
Employer’s corporate office and reported her injury. Thereafter, she purportedly met
with Mr. Fox on May 26 to complete paperwork for her claim. 2

        Mr. Fox also testified live at the expedited hearing, asserting he did not know
about Employee’s alleged work injury until May 30, when a manager told him that
Employee had called on May 29 asking about her workers’ compensation claim. Mr. Fox
testified that he spoke with Employee, reviewed videotape of the incident, and wrote a
contemporaneous statement summarizing their conversation. He noted that Employee
told him she was injured on May 5 while getting fries out of the cooler. He testified that
she did not use a cart and did not tell any representative of Employer about the incident.
He confirmed that Employee provided him with a doctor’s note on May 18 but stated she
did not tell him her back condition was related to work. He later discussed with
Employee the possibility of a work transfer, but Employee was terminated on May 25 for
no call/no show. Mr. Fox testified that a first report of work injury was completed on
May 31.

1
 A transcript of the proceeding was not filed; accordingly, we glean this information from the trial court’s
order.
2
  During her testimony, Employee acknowledged she is familiar with workers’ compensation reporting
procedures because she filed claims for separate back injuries in 2021 and 2022.
                                                     2
        Following the expedited hearing, the trial court concluded Employee failed to
show she will likely prevail at trial in proving she gave timely notice of her injury and
denied benefits. The court noted Employee offered no evidence that she provided
Employer with timely written notice of the alleged accident. The court also determined
that there was no evidence Employer had actual knowledge of the alleged accident at the
time it occurred and that Employee provided no reasonable excuse for her failure to give
timely notice. In doing so, the court observed Employee’s demeanor at trial, describing
her “uncertainty and confusion in the dates of the conversations and with whom she
spoke.” Conversely, Mr. Fox had prepared a contemporaneous written statement,
provided unrefuted testimony that he viewed the videotape of the incident, and testified
“calmly and confidently.” Employee has appealed. 3

                                         Standard of Review

       The standard we apply in reviewing a trial court’s decision presumes that the
court’s factual findings are correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.
See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(7) (2023). When the trial judge has had the
opportunity to observe a witness’s demeanor and to hear in-court testimony, we give
considerable deference to factual findings made by the trial court. Madden v. Holland
Grp. of Tenn., Inc., 277 S.W.3d 896, 898 (Tenn. 2009). However, “[n]o similar
deference need be afforded the trial court’s findings based upon documentary evidence.”
Goodman v. Schwarz Paper Co., No. W2016-02594-SC-R3-WC, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 8, at
*6 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel Jan. 18, 2018). Similarly, the interpretation and
application of statutes and regulations are questions of law that are reviewed de novo with
no presumption of correctness afforded the trial court’s conclusions. See Mansell v.
Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393, 399 (Tenn. 2013). We are
also mindful of our obligation to construe the workers’ compensation statutes “fairly,
impartially, and in accordance with basic principles of statutory construction” and in a

3
  On January 30, 2024, after filing her notice of appeal, Employee filed a motion for an extension to file a
transcript and position statement, stating she “need[ed] time to get the transcripts transcribed.” Employer
opposed her motion, but we granted it to the extent permitted by statute, noting that Employee “shall file a
transcript, if any, on or before February 9, 2024.” On February 8, Employee filed a document she
identified as a statement of the evidence. Employer objected to Employee’s statement of the evidence,
arguing she did not comply with our order to file a transcript and that she had not received an extension
of time to file a statement of the evidence, rendering her statement untimely. Employer also argued that
Employee’s statement of the evidence failed to comply with Tenn. Comp. Rules and Regs. 0800-02-22-
.05, noting it failed to include all testimony and contained personal arguments, comments, and other
information. Employer maintained that it did not request or obtain the audio recording of the hearing
based on its “good faith reliance” on Employee’s motion. On February 20, we issued an order noting
that, consistent with Tenn. Comp. R. and Regs 0800-02-22-.02(3), any objections to the contents of the
record must be resolved by the trial court. As a result, we remanded the case. Thereafter, the trial court
sustained Employer’s objections and excluded Employee’s statement of the evidence from the record on
appeal. That order was not appealed.
                                                     3
way that does not favor either the employee or the employer. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-
116 (2023).

                                                Analysis

       Employee raises several issues on appeal, which we have restated as follows: (1)
whether the trial court erred in excluding certain phone records produced by Employee;
(2) whether the trial court erred in its consideration of Mr. Fox’s testimony; (3) whether
the trial court was biased against Employee; (4) whether the trial court erred in
concluding Employee did not give timely notice of her injury; and (5) whether the trial
court erred in considering Employee’s previous workers’ compensation claims. For its
part, Employer asserts Employee’s appeal is frivolous and requests attorneys’ fees and
costs.

        Although Employee filed a brief, she did not file a transcript of the hearing or a
timely statement of the evidence. 4 In the absence of a transcript, “the totality of the
evidence introduced in the trial court is unknown, and we decline to speculate as to the
nature and extent of the proof presented to the trial court.” Meier v. Lowe’s Home
Centers, Inc., No. 2015-02-0179, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 30, at *3 (Tenn.
Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. July 27, 2016). Consistent with established Tennessee law,
we must presume that the trial court’s rulings were supported by sufficient evidence. See,
e.g., Estate of Cockrill, No. M2010-00663-COA-R3-CV, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 754, at
*11-12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2010) (“[W]here no transcript or statement of the
evidence is filed, the appellate court is required to presume that the record, had it been
properly preserved, would have supported the action of the trial court.”); Leek v. Powell,
884 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (“In the absence of a transcript or statement
of the evidence, we must conclusively presume that every fact admissible under the
pleadings was found or should have been found favorably to the appellee.”).

        Further, our ability to discern the factual or legal issues for review is limited. The
arguments contained in Employee’s brief largely concern questions of credibility, as she
asserts that representatives of Employer falsified documents and improperly refused to
accept her report of a work injury or review the medical records she provided. However,
as required by statute, we must give deference to the trial court’s findings with respect to
credibility. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(7); see also Madden, 277 S.W.3d at 898
(When the trial judge has had the opportunity to observe a witness’s demeanor and to
hear in-court testimony, we give considerable deference to factual findings made by the
trial court.). Thus, in the absence of any factual basis or legal argument from Employee

4
  Even if we were to conclude the statement of the evidence was properly filed, we still would not
consider it in our resolution of this appeal, as it is not a proper statement of the evidence. Rather than a
summary of the live testimony provided at the expedited hearing, the document filed by Employee
contains arguments and commentary, which are not appropriate in a statement of the evidence.
                                                     4
explaining why she believes the trial court erred in its credibility determinations, we are
unable to discern any error by the trial court.

       Moreover, as stated by the Tennessee Supreme Court, “[i]t is not the role of the
courts, trial or appellate, to research or construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or
her.” Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615
(Tenn. 2010). Indeed, were we to search the record for possible errors and raise issues
and arguments for Employee, we would be acting as her counsel, which the law clearly
prohibits. Webb v. Sherrell, No. E2013-02724-COA-R3-CV, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS
645, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2015).

        Finally, Employer asserts Employee’s appeal is frivolous and has requested
attorneys’ fees and expenses. Employer contends Employee “has not raised any
reviewable issues.” We agree. A frivolous appeal is one that is devoid of merit or
brought solely for delay. Yarbrough v. Protective Servs. Co., Inc., No. 2015-08-0574,
2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 3, at *11 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Jan.
25, 2016). “[P]arties should not be required to endure the hassle and expense of baseless
litigation. Nor should appellate courts be required to waste time and resources on appeals
that have no realistic chance of success.” Id. at *10-11 (internal citations omitted).
Although we conclude this appeal is without merit, we exercise our discretion not to
award fees or costs under the circumstances presented in this case. See Tenn. Comp. R.
& Regs. 0800-02-22-.09(4) (2023).

                                        Conclusion

       For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.
Costs on appeal are taxed to Employee.

                                              5
                     TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
                       WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Cassandra Jordan                                      )      Docket No. 2023-01-4183
                                                      )
v.                                                    )      State File No. 860263-2023
                                                      )
HFS, LLC, d/b/a McDonald’s, et al.                    )
                                                      )
                                                      )
Appeal from the Court of Workers’                     )
Compensation Claims                                   )
Thomas L. Wyatt, 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 10th day
of April, 2024.

 Name                              Certified   First Class   Via   Via     Sent to:
                                   Mail        Mail          Fax   Email
 Cassandra Jordan                                                    X     cd.jordan@outlook.com
 Gregory H. Fuller                                                   X     ghfuller@mijs.com
 Jolie Uzelac                                                              jauzelac@mijs.com
                                                                           jkprendergast@mijs.com
 Thomas L. Wyatt, Judge                                              X     Via Electronic Mail
 Kenneth M. Switzer, Chief Judge                                     X     Via Electronic Mail
 Penny Shrum, Clerk, Court of                                        X     penny.patterson-shrum@tn.gov
 Workers’ Compensation Claims

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