The Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board has definitively ruled that the estate of a deceased worker, when pursuing certain death benefits, cannot be represented by a non-attorney personal representative acting *pro se* (on one’s own behalf). The Board upheld a trial court’s decision, forcing the estate of the late Gregory Joseph Shurina to hire licensed legal counsel to proceed with its claim against FedEx Ground.
The case centers on a critical procedural hurdle: who is legally allowed to speak for an estate in the specialized forum of workers’ compensation court. The Board’s opinion, delivered by Presiding Judge Timothy W. Conner, relied on existing administrative rules and precedent to confirm that estates, treated as “artificial legal entities,” must have professional representation.
The Core Issue: Representation of an Estate
Mary Christina Shurina, acting as the Personal Representative for the estate of her deceased son, Gregory Joseph Shurina, filed a petition seeking workers’ compensation benefits following his death, which she asserted was work-related. Crucially, the parties agreed that the decedent left no dependents as defined under Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law.
This lack of dependents narrowed the scope of potential recovery significantly. Instead of standard death benefits going to family members, the claim fell under Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-209(b)(2). This statute mandates that if an employee dies without dependents, a lump sum of $20,000 must be paid directly to the deceased employee’s *estate*.
Because the money belongs to the estate—an entity—rather than individual beneficiaries, the trial court determined that the Personal Representative could not proceed without a lawyer. The representative appealed this ruling, arguing she should be allowed to represent the estate *pro se*.
Administrative Rules Demand Legal Counsel
The Appeals Board first pointed to administrative regulations that govern proceedings before the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims and the Appeals Board itself.
The Board noted that the Administrator of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation has the authority to create rules that have the “force and effect of law.” Pursuant to this authority, Rule 0800-02-21-.04(1)(c) explicitly states that “Any corporation or other artificial person… must be represented by a licensed attorney” in these courts. Since an estate is recognized as an artificial legal entity, this regulation directly applies.
Precedent Confirms the Prohibition
Beyond the administrative rules, the Board looked to established case law concerning non-attorneys representing others.
The opinion cited a key ruling from the Tennessee Court of Appeals, *Grose v. Stone*, where non-attorney personal representatives attempted to file a wrongful death action *pro se* on behalf of an estate. While the appellate court affirmed that a non-attorney can manage their *own* case without violating laws against unauthorized practice of law, it drew a firm line: “a non-attorney may not conduct litigation on behalf of an entity or another individual, because doing so would constitute the unauthorized practice of law.”
The Board applied this logic directly: the claim under § 50-6-209(b)(2) belongs to the estate entity, not the personal representative individually. Therefore, actions like filing the petition, engaging in discovery, and negotiating settlements on behalf of the estate constitute the practice of law, requiring a licensed attorney. The Board referenced the Tennessee Supreme Court’s view that these activities require “the professional judgment of a lawyer.”
Acknowledging Hardship, Upholding the Law
The Appeals Board expressed sympathy for Ms. Shurina, acknowledging her stated difficulty in retaining counsel while trying to fulfill her fiduciary duties to her son’s estate. However, the Board emphasized that it is bound by clear statutory and regulatory directives.
The Board also addressed, but declined to rule on, constitutional challenges the representative raised against the mandatory representation requirement, stating that the Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of statutes or regulations in a facial challenge.
Ultimately, the Board affirmed the trial court’s order directing the estate to hire an attorney and remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings once counsel is secured. The costs of the appeal were taxed to the estate’s personal representative.