Simns, Sam v. The Pictsweet Company

FILED
Dec 16, 2025
08:32 AM(CT)
TENNESSEE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
APPEALS BOARD

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Sam M. Simns Docket No. 2024-70-4328

v. State File No. 45223-2022

The Pictsweet Company, et al.

Appeal from the Court of Workers’
Compensation Claims
Allen Phillips, Judge

Affirmed and Certified as Final

In this compensation appeal, the employee questions the trial court’s order granting the
employer’s motion for summary judgment based on its finding that the employee did not
file her petition for benefit determination within the applicable statute of limitations. In
response to the employer’s dispositive motion, the employee asserted that a prior head
injury left her incapacitated and unable to timely pursue this claim. She further alleged the
employer had paid for medical treatment related to this claim after the date it identified as
the last voluntary payment. Following a hearing, the court concluded the employer had
negated an essential element of the employee’s claim, and the employee had presented
insufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the expiration of
the statute of limitations. As a result, it dismissed the employee’s petition with prejudice,
and the employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial
court’s decision and certify it as final.

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

Sam M. Simns, Brownsville, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se

Eric Lindquester, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, The Pictsweet
Company

1
Memorandum Opinion 1

Sam M. Simns (“Employee”) worked for The Pictsweet Company (“Employer”) on
an assembly line, moving and stacking boxes of packaged food. In her petition for benefit
determination (“PBD”), Employee alleged that, on June 22, 2022, she was “stacking boxes
of packaged food coming off a fast[-]moving line” when she experienced pain in her right
shoulder and mid-low back. In response to Employee’s report of a work accident,
Employer provided authorized medical treatment on June 27, 2022, after which Employee
was released to return to work with no restrictions. According to the unrefuted evidence
in the record, Employer paid for that treatment on August 5, 2022, and did not authorize or
pay for any additional treatment associated with this claim. 2 Although Employee
apparently sought some additional treatment for her complaints, there is no evidence that
Employer either authorized or paid for that treatment within the context of the current
claim.

On June 21, 2024, Employee filed a PBD, and a September 4, 2024 dispute
certification notice reflects that compensability, medical benefits, and disability benefits
were disputed issues. In addition, Employer asserted the expiration of the statute of
limitations as a defense. Thereafter, Employer filed a motion to dismiss Employee’s claim
on January 17, 2025, alleging that the statute of limitations expired on August 5, 2023,
which was one year after the date of its last voluntary payment of benefits. On April 17,
2025, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss, reasoning that addressing the expiration
of the statute of limitations would necessitate consideration of evidence beyond the
pleadings, which is not appropriate in the context of a motion to dismiss. That order was
not appealed.

On August 5, 2025, Employer filed a motion for summary judgment accompanied
by a memorandum of law and a statement of undisputed facts. The undisputed facts
asserted by Employer included the following: (1) the claim arose out of an alleged injury
occurring on June 25, 2022; (2) Employee was provided authorized medical care on June
27, 2022, and was returned to work without restrictions; (3) Employer paid the bill
associated with that treatment on August 5, 2022, and it did not authorize or pay for any
additional treatment thereafter related to the subject claim; and (4) Employee filed her PBD
on June 21, 2024. Employee responded, asserting that Employer paid for treatment she

1
This decision is being filed pursuant to Tenn. Comp. R. and Regs. 0800-02-22-.03(1) (2023).
2
In the documents filed on appeal, Employee asserts that Employer paid for medical treatment she received
on August 30, 2022, and on December 15, 2022, noting that the physician at those visits made observations
in his medical records regarding her shoulder pain. However, those visits appear to be related to a prior
head injury Employee sustained while working for Employer in late 2021. Employee provided no proof
documenting payments for those visits, and she offered no evidence that any such payment, even if made,
related to the current claim. A mere notation of symptoms in a medical record by a physician does not
constitute evidence of authorized treatment or the voluntary payment of benefits related to the current claim.

2
received on August 30, 2022, and December 15, 2022. Employee also asserted that she
suffered a mental incapacity related to her previous head injury and that her time to file a
PBD in this claim should be extended.

After a hearing, the trial court issued an order on September 25, 2025 granting
Employer’s motion for summary judgment. The court observed that Employee presented
no evidence that Employer made any additional payments of benefits related to her June
2022 claim after its last voluntary payment in August 2022, and that Employee produced
no evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to any alleged mental incapacity
that would justify extending her statute of limitations. As a result, the trial court dismissed
Employee’s PBD with prejudice.

Employee filed a notice of appeal on October 3, 2025, asserting that she has proof
of Employer’s alleged payments for the August and December 2022 medical visits.
However, there is nothing in the record on appeal to indicate that such evidence was
submitted for the trial court’s consideration. Moreover, a transcript of the hearing was not
filed, and Employee did not file a brief on appeal. Thus, Employee has offered no factual
or legal arguments explaining how she believes the trial court erred.

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 Resp. of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010). When an
appellant fails to offer substantive arguments on appeal, an appellate court’s ability to
conduct meaningful appellate review is significantly hampered. Holmes v. Ellis Watkins
d/b/a Watkins Lawn Care, No. 2017-08-0504, 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 7,
at *3-4 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Feb. 13, 2018). Moreover, “where a party fails
to develop an argument in support of his or her contention or merely constructs a skeletal
argument, the issue is waived.” Sneed, 301 S.W.3d at 615. It is not our role to search the
record for possible errors or to formulate a party’s legal arguments where that party has
provided no meaningful argument or authority to support its position. Cosey v. Jarden
Corp., No. 2017-01-0053, 2019 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 3, at *8 (Tenn. Workers’
Comp. App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2019). As our appellate courts have explained, 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 prohibits. See, e.g., Webb v. Sherrell, No. E2013-
02724-COA-R3-CV, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2015).

When a properly-supported motion for summary judgment has been filed, the
burden of production then shifts to the nonmoving party to demonstrate the existence of
one or more genuine issues of material fact at the summary judgment stage that would
support the need for a trial. Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d
235, 265 (Tenn. 2015). In considering an order granting summary judgment, an appellate
court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and must
also draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party’s favor. Byrd v. Hall, 847

3
S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tenn. 1993). Further, “[a] fact is material ‘if it must be decided in order
to resolve the substantive claim or defense at which the motion is directed.’” Akers v.
Heritage Med. Assocs., P.C., No. M2017-02470-COA-R3-CV, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 5,
at *14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2019) (quoting Byrd, 847 S.W.2d at 215). “A ‘genuine issue’
exists if ‘a reasonable [factfinder] could legitimately resolve that fact in favor of one side
or the other.’” Akers, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 5, at *15 (quoting Byrd, 847 S.W.2d at
215).

Here, Employer’s motion for summary judgment was supported by its statement of
undisputed facts and other evidence it submitted for the court’s consideration. In short,
Employer came forward with evidence that Employee’s PBD was not filed until more than
one year after Employer’s last voluntary payment of benefits. 3 Thus, Employer negated
an essential element of Employee’s claim by establishing that her PBD was not timely
filed, and Employee offered the trial court no evidence to refute Employer’s proof or create
a genuine issue of material fact. On appeal, Employee now asserts she has proof Employer
paid for certain medical appointments in August and December 2022. 4 However, she
provided no documentation establishing the date of those alleged payments. Moreover, it
appears from the record that those appointments were related to her prior work-related head
injury. Even assuming such payments were related to the current claim, her statute of
limitations would have expired one year after the last voluntary payment related to the
December 2022 appointment, and Employee has offered no evidence that any such
payment was made within one year prior to the filing of her PBD in June 2024.

To prevail in her argument that her PBD was filed timely, Employee would be
required to show that Employer made payments related to this claim on or after June 21,
2023. She has presented no admissible evidence to establish the date of the alleged
payments or that they were associated with this claim. Thus, we agree with the trial court
that Employer negated an essential element of Employee’s claim, i.e., the timely filing of
a PBD, and Employee failed to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists
regarding when the statute of limitations for her claim expired.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order granting summary judgment and
certify it as final. Costs on appeal have been waived.

3
On appeal, Employee does not question the trial court’s finding that she did not provide sufficient evidence
of a mental incapacity such that her time to file a PBD should be extended. Thus, we consider the issue
waived. See Moore & Seiferth v. Ingles Markets, Inc., No. 2015-02-0193, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd.
LEXIS 54, at *4 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Nov. 4, 2015).
4
Although Employee contends she has proof of these payments, we cannot review evidence presented for
the first time on appeal that was not considered by the trial court. Tenn. Comp. R. and Regs. 0800-02-22-
.02(2) (2023); see also Hadzic v. Averitt Express, No. 2014-02-0064, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd.
LEXIS 14, at *13 n.4 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. May 18, 2015).

4
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Sam M. Simns Docket No. 2024-70-4328

v. State File No. 45223-2022

The Pictsweet Company, et al.

Appeal from the Court of Workers’
Compensation Claims
Allen Phillips, 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 16th day of
December, 2025.

Name Certified First Class Via Via Sent to:
Mail Mail Fax Email
Sam M. Simns X X X sam.simns@gmail.com
803 Hatchie Street
Brownsville, TN 38012
Eric Lindquester X eric.lindquester@libertymutual.com
rachel.dornier@libertymutual.com
Allen Phillips, 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