McGuire, Macey v. TC Restaurant Group, LLC

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Macey McGuire Docket No. 2025-60-0654

v. State File No. 2734-2024

TC Restaurant Group, LLC, et al.

and

Troy Haley, as Administrator of the
Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
Subsequent Injury and Vocational
Recovery Fund

Appeal from the Court of Workers’
Compensation Claims
Joshua D. Baker, Judge

Affirmed and Remanded

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee asserts the trial court erred by denying her
request for additional medical treatment and temporary disability benefits following her
alleged back injury. The employer initially provided medical treatment and paid temporary
disability benefits. The authorized treating physician, who had initially opined the
employee’s complaints were caused primarily by the work accident, reviewed video
surveillance and the employee’s written account of the accident and opined that her
complaints were not primarily caused by the work incident. Thereafter, the employer
denied the claim. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court determined that the
physician’s opinion was unequivocal and was presumed correct, and it denied the
employee’s request for additional benefits. The employee has appealed. Having carefully
reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision 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.

Macey McGuire, Nashville, Tennessee, employee, pro se

1
Amy Brown and Nicholas J. Peterson, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee,
TC Restaurant Group, LLC

Laurenn Disspayne, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, the Subsequent Injury and
Vocational Recovery Fund

Factual and Procedural Background

On December 22, 2023, Macey McGuire (“Employee”) alleged she injured her back
while working as a server for TC Restaurant Group, LLC (“Employer”), when she was
bending forward “and twisting her upper body . . . to retrieve a fallen serving tray.”
Employee was seen in an emergency department later that evening and diagnosed with a
lumbar strain, and she was advised to follow up with her primary care provider if her
symptoms persisted. Employer provided a panel of physicians from which she selected an
orthopedic spine surgeon, Dr. Mitul Patel. Following his initial examination, Dr. Patel
diagnosed Employee with a lumbar strain and possible disk bulge. Employer paid
temporary disability benefits based on Dr. Patel’s opinions and recommendations.

On April 22, 2024, Dr. Patel responded to a questionnaire asking for his medical
opinion as to causation, and he agreed that the December 22 work incident “contribute[d]
more than 50% to [Employee’s] current complaints” but noted he could not state whether
the incident had caused a permanent aggravation. In May, Dr. Patel’s records reflect that
Employee was concerned about neurological symptoms and complained of “diffuse
symptoms not only in her back but also the neck and entire left side of her upper and lower
extremities.” Employee requested a neurology referral, which Dr. Patel made, although he
documented that he was not sure if it would be covered by workers’ compensation. He
observed that she “had so many symptoms ever since she had this relatively benign work-
related injury where she dropped a tray and bent over to pick it up.”

In June 2024, Employer provided Dr. Patel with video surveillance of the work
accident and Employee’s written account of what had occurred, as well as another
questionnaire regarding causation of Employee’s injury. Following his review of the newly
provided information, Dr. Patel’s medical causation opinion changed. Specifically, he
responded to the questionnaire as follows (emphases in original):

1. Is [Employee’s] description of her mechanism of injury and pain behavior
immediately following her alleged injury consistent with what you
observe in the video? NO

2. Can you state within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that
[Employee] suffered a low back strain caused primarily by a specific
incident you observe in the video? NO

2
3. Considering the mechanism of injury and [Employee’s] reporting pre-
existing history of low back injury/condition, can you state with a
reasonable degree of medical certainty that the disc bulge seen on the
2024 MRI arose primarily from [] the work incident? NO

4. Can you state within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that
[Employee] suffered any other injury (other than a low back strain)
caused primarily by a specific incident (i.e., bending to pick up [an]
empty plastic tray) you observe on the video? NO

5. Considering all causes, do [Employee’s] neurologic complaints and her
need for neurological treatment arise primarily (more than 50%) from her
December 22, 2003 work incident? NO

6. Considering the time and treatment since the December 23, 2023 work
incident, can you state with reasonable medical certainty that
[Employee’s] present disabled state/inability to work is primarily due to
any injury primarily caused by this work incident? NO

7. Is there any objective medical reason [Employee] cannot work in any
capacity? NO

Following receipt of Dr. Patel’s responses, Employer denied Employee’s claim, and
Employee filed a request for an expedited hearing and sought a determination on the record.
The court issued a docketing notice specifying the dates by which all filings must be
submitted in order to be considered by the court. Thereafter, the court issued its decision
on the record on August 13, 2025, first addressing Employer’s motions to strike certain of
Employee’s filings as untimely. The court noted that it had issued a docketing notice
providing a deadline of July 16, 2025 for either party to file objections to the admissibility
of documents that had been submitted as exhibits. The court’s docketing notice also
provided a July 23 deadline for filing position statements. The court observed that
Employee filed objections to portions of certain documents on July 17 and then filed an
amended and more fully detailed list of objections on July 25. The court granted
Employer’s motion to strike with regard to these documents, finding them untimely. With
respect to her position statement, also filed on July 25, the court concluded that Employee
had offered an explanation that she had a family emergency, and that, under those
circumstances, it was appropriate to grant her additional time and accept the position
statement.

Regarding the merits of Employee’s request, the court noted that the authorized
treating physician’s causation opinion was entitled to a presumption of correctness
pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(12)(E). The court found Dr. Patel
had provided an opinion that her complaints and inability to work were not more than 50%

3
caused by the work incident, rejecting Employee’s argument that Dr. Patel’s older opinion
deserved greater weight. The court reasoned that Dr. Patel’s June 2024 opinion relied on
more complete information. The court also noted that Employee had offered no contrary
expert medical opinion and was, therefore, unlikely to prevail at a trial on the merits.
Employee has appealed.

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) (2025). When a trial court has made a determination
on the record, an appellate tribunal need not give deference to the trial court’s findings
based solely 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). However, disputes regarding the admissibility of evidence
are reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Smith v. Galloway Constr., LLC, No.
2019-03-0016, 2019 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 70, at *11 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp.
App. Bd. Oct. 28, 2019). A trial court abuses its discretion when it causes an injustice by
applying an incorrect legal standard, reaching an illogical decision, or by resolving the case
“on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Lee Medical, Inc. v. Beecher, 312
S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010). 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 way that does not favor either the employee or the
employer. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-116 (2025).

Analysis

In her notice of appeal, Employee asserts “the trial court erred in its determination
based on the record before it.” Employee did not timely file a brief for our consideration. 1
In its response to Employee’s appeal, Employer argues that “Dr. Patel’s June 2024 opinion
supersedes his earlier April 2024 opinion . . . [and] the trial court correctly gave greater
weight to the latter opinion, which was based on more complete information.”

1
Employee’s brief was due on or before September 26, 2025 pursuant to an order granting Employee’s
motion for an extension of time to file her brief. On September 29, Employee filed a “Notice of Intent to
File Brief,” but no brief was filed with the notice. On October 3, Employer filed its brief on appeal and on
October 7, Employee filed her brief, accompanied by a motion to accept her late-filed brief as timely.
Employer objected and, in an order issued on October 14, we denied Employee’s motion to accept her brief
as timely. Accordingly, we decline to consider her brief in our review of the record on appeal.

4
It is well settled that the employee in a workers’ compensation case bears the burden
of proving all essential elements of her claim, even at an interlocutory stage of the case.
See Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, No. 2015-01-0055, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App.
Bd. LEXIS 24, at *6 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015). Although an
employee need only prove a likelihood of prevailing at trial to secure benefits at an
interlocutory hearing, “this lesser evidentiary standard . . . does not relieve an employee of
the burden of producing evidence of an injury by accident that arose primarily out of and
in the course and scope of employment at an expedited hearing.” Buchanan v. Carlex
Glass Co., No. 2015-01-0012, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 39, at *6 (Tenn.
Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Sept. 29, 2015). Here, it was Employee’s burden to come
forward with sufficient evidence to convince the court she is likely to prevail at trial in
proving she suffered an injury arising primarily out of the work incident.

Following receipt of notice of a workplace accident, Employer provided a panel of
physicians from which Employee selected Dr. Patel. It is unrefuted that Dr. Patel was a
panel-selected treating physician whose opinion is entitled to a presumption of correctness.
When initially asked for a causation opinion, Dr. Patel opined that Employee’s complaints
were more than 50% causally related to the work incident. Employer continued providing
benefits to Employee while it submitted a second questionnaire to Dr. Patel accompanied
by additional information. After reviewing the additional information, Dr. Patel changed
his opinion regarding causation, and Employer denied the claim. We conclude the trial
court did not err in accepting Dr. Patel’s June 2024 opinion and affording it a presumption
of correctness.

In considering conflicting expert medical opinions, a court may consider “the
qualification of the experts, the circumstances of their examination, the information
available to them, and the evaluation of the importance of that information by other
experts.” Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 803 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tenn. 1991). In
addition, it is well-established that, when faced with competing expert medical opinions,
“trial courts are granted broad discretion in choosing which opinion to accept, and we will
not disturb that decision absent an abuse of discretion.” Jimenez v. Xclusive Staffing of
Tenn., LLC, No. 2016-06-2377, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 45, at *6 (Tenn.
Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Aug. 7, 2017). Furthermore, Employee did not offer any
contrary medical proof to rebut Dr. Patel’s opinion. We find Employee’s assertion that Dr.
Patel’s April 2024 opinion is more accurate than his June 2024 opinion, which took into
consideration additional information, to be without merit.

At this interlocutory stage of the case, Employee has not shown by a preponderance
of the evidence that she is likely to prevail at trial in proving her alleged injuries and
medical conditions arose primarily out of her employment. In short, we conclude the trial
court did not err in accepting Dr. Patel’s most recent causation opinion.

5
Conclusion

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

6
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Macey McGuire Docket No. 2025-60-0654

v. State File No. 2734-2024

TC Restaurant Group, LLC, et al.

and

Troy Haley, as Administrator of the Bureau
of Workers’ Compensation Subsequent
Injury and Vocational Recovery Fund

Appeal from the Court of Workers’
Compensation Claims
Joshua D. Baker, 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 5th day of
November, 2025.

Name Certified First Class Via Via Sent to:
Mail Mail Fax Email
Macey McGuire X maceyjmcguire@gmail.com
Nicholas J. Peterson X nick.peterson@petersonwhite.com
amy.brown@petersonwhite.com
Laurenn Disspayne X laurenn.disspayne@tn.gov
Joshua D. Baker, 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