A Tennessee workers’ compensation claimant seeking to change his treating physician and receive additional benefits has been denied his requests by the Knoxville division of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims. The ruling sides with the employer, Justworks Employment Group, and its insurer, American Zurich Insurance Company, effectively shutting down the employee’s attempt to reopen the scope of benefits previously settled.
The employee, Jeffery Sherwood, was injured in 2020. While the employer initially accepted the claim, subsequent actions taken by Mr. Sherwood after a major settlement were deemed unwarranted by the Court.
The Original Injury and Settlement
Mr. Sherwood’s claim stems from a workplace accident on January 28, 2020, when he suffered injuries to his left shoulder and both elbows following a fall from a scooter. Justworks accepted the injury as compensable and provided benefits, including medical treatment and temporary disability payments.
He initially treated with Dr. Robert Smith. In April 2021, Dr. Smith declared Mr. Sherwood reached Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI), assigning a 5% permanent medical impairment rating. Following this determination, the parties formalized an agreement: a settlement for the permanent disability rating, coupled with an agreement for “open future medical benefits.” This settlement was formally approved by the Court in August 2022. This “open future medical” provision typically means the employer remains responsible for necessary, authorized medical care related to the injury, but treatment plans must generally follow established protocols.
Post-Settlement Surgery and New Demands
The case took a new turn in August 2024, nearly two years after the settlement was finalized. Mr. Sherwood underwent surgery performed by the same treating physician, Dr. Smith, and was subsequently taken off work.
The current dispute arose in May 2025. Mr. Sherwood filed a petition seeking a benefit determination, arguing that Justworks was improperly denying him care. Specifically, he requested a change of physician, demanding a new panel of orthopedic specialists be provided by the employer. He also sought lost wages and other unspecified damages and penalties.
Justworks responded by denying any liability for these new requests and filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the Court to dismiss Mr. Sherwood’s claims outright.
The Court’s Reasoning: Settlement Finality
Judge Pamela B. Johnson, presiding over the case, ultimately sided with Justworks. The core of the Court’s decision appears to rest on the finality of the August 2022 settlement.
When parties settle a workers’ compensation claim, they agree to specific terms, often trading the uncertainty of litigation for a defined outcome. In this instance, the settlement included open future medical benefits. The Court’s analysis suggests that Mr. Sherwood’s request for a completely new panel of specialists constitutes an attempt to fundamentally alter the terms of that settled agreement without meeting the necessary legal threshold.
In workers’ compensation law, changing an authorized treating physician after a settlement often requires demonstrating that the current care is inadequate, that the injury has worsened significantly beyond what was contemplated in the settlement, or that the current physician cannot provide necessary treatment.
The opinion indicates that Mr. Sherwood’s request for a new panel was denied by the employer, leading to his petition. However, the Court found that Mr. Sherwood failed to establish the grounds necessary to overturn the existing treatment relationship or expand the scope of benefits beyond what was previously agreed upon.
Because the Court held that Mr. Sherwood was not entitled to the requested change of physician, the subsequent claims for lost wages associated with being off work—which were likely tied to the requested new treatment or recovery from the unauthorized care—were also denied. The Court concluded that Mr. Sherwood was not entitled to the benefits he sought in his 2025 petition.
This ruling reinforces the principle that approved settlements in workers’ compensation cases carry significant weight, and subsequent demands for different benefits or providers must be clearly supported by evidence showing a change in circumstances or a failure in the existing benefits structure, rather than simply a desire for different medical management post-settlement.