The Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board has affirmed a lower court’s decision denying further medical and temporary disability benefits to an employee who sustained injuries in a work-related fall. The Board found that the employee, Bennie Anderson, failed to present the required expert medical evidence to support his claims on appeal, and crucially, failed to provide a complete record of the initial hearing.
The Initial Incident and Authorized Treatment
Bennie Anderson, employed as a knuckle boom truck driver for the City of Knoxville Department of Recreation, was injured on June 6, 2022, after slipping and falling from his truck. He reported pain in his head, shoulders, neck, and midsection. The employer accepted the claim as compensable, providing initial medical care through its on-site provider and subsequent referrals to specialists, including orthopedic surgeons Dr. Daniel B. Wells, Dr. John M. Reynolds, IV, and Dr. Patrick M. Bolt.
Authorized medical providers conducted various evaluations, including MRIs of the spine and shoulders. While the initial imaging showed some degenerative changes and minor issues like tendinopathy in the shoulders, doctors generally concluded there was no severe pathology or acute injury requiring surgery. Dr. Reynolds released Mr. Anderson to full duty with no permanent impairment related to his shoulder condition after finding no “surgical pathology.”
After physical therapy and further review, Dr. Bolt placed Mr. Anderson at Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) in January 2023, releasing him from care with no permanent work restrictions, though he assigned a 4% whole-body impairment rating for the cervical spine condition.
The Dispute Over Further Care
Despite the authorized doctors placing him at MMI, Mr. Anderson sought unauthorized medical treatment for conditions he claimed arose from the accident, including issues related to gastroparesis, high blood pressure, seizures, and a hernia requiring surgery. He requested additional medical and temporary disability benefits for these conditions.
The employer countered that they had provided all treatment reasonably necessitated by the work accident, that the new conditions were not causally related to the work injury, and that no further temporary disability benefits were due since authorized physicians had already declared the employee at MMI.
Following an expedited hearing, the trial court sided with the employer, concluding that Mr. Anderson had not provided medical expert testimony to prove the need for additional treatment arising from the work injury. The court emphasized that the employee’s own testimony alone is insufficient to establish medical causation for benefits. Furthermore, the court found he was unlikely to prove entitlement to temporary disability benefits because his authorized physicians had already released him at MMI for the work-related conditions.
The Appeal Falters Due to Procedural Issues
Mr. Anderson appealed the trial court’s ruling to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, arguing the decision was incorrect based on the evidence and that he was prevented from giving his “medical testimony.”
However, the Appeals Board noted significant shortcomings in the appeal itself. Critically, Mr. Anderson failed to file a transcript of the hearing or a statement of the evidence. The Board reiterated established legal precedent: without a transcript, an appellate court cannot review what evidence was presented, meaning they must presume the evidence supported the trial court’s findings.
Furthermore, the Board found that Mr. Anderson’s appellate brief failed to provide any substantive legal arguments supporting his contentions. The Board stated that it is not the role of the court to research or construct a litigant’s case. When an appellant fails to develop an argument, the issue is considered waived.
The Board concluded that Mr. Anderson offered nothing to show the trial court erred. The opinion stressed that an employee’s opinion on medical causation, absent supporting expert testimony, is insufficient to warrant an award of benefits, especially when multiple authorized physicians have already reached MMI with no recommendations for further treatment, and the employee has offered no conflicting expert opinions.
Ultimately, the Appeals Board affirmed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case. Costs associated with the appeal were waived.