Dimitrov, Milen v. Bechtel National, Inc.

FILED
Mar 02, 2026
10:20 AM(CT)
TENNESSEE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
APPEALS BOARD

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Milen Dimitrov Docket No. 2022-03-1217

v. State File No. 69194-2022

Bechtel National, Inc., et al.

Appeal from the Court of Workers’
Compensation Claims
Pamela B. Johnson, Judge

Affirmed and Remanded

In this interlocutory appeal, the employer asserts the trial court erred in denying its motion
for summary judgment. The employee reported falling while walking down a concrete
step at a jobsite, resulting in left elbow and wrist fractures. Thereafter, the employee
alleged that he suffered from various other injuries and medical conditions that arose from
the work accident. In its motion for summary judgment, the employer acknowledged the
compensability of the employee’s left wrist and elbow injuries but asserted that the
employee has not come forward with any evidence that any other medical diagnoses arose
primarily from the work accident. It supported its dispositive motion with a statement of
undisputed material facts and two physicians’ written reports and/or causation opinions.
The trial court determined that the employer failed to meet its burden of production and
denied its dispositive motion, and the employer has appealed. Having carefully reviewed
the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

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

Joshua A. Wolfe and Trent M. Norris, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellant,
Bechtel National, Inc.

Milen Dimitrov, employee-appellee, pro se

Factual and Procedural Background

Milen Dimitrov (“Employee”), worked as an electrical field engineer for Bechtel
National, Inc. (“Employer”). On September 9, 2022, Employee was sent to a warehouse

1
to complete an inventory investigation. While entering the warehouse, Employee tripped
and fell while walking down a concrete step. According to Employee, he reached out with
his left arm while falling and fell onto his left side. He reported striking his left elbow,
torso, left hip, left shoulder, and head. 1 Employee later denied any loss of consciousness.
An ambulance was called to the scene, and paramedics placed a temporary cast on
Employee’s left wrist. He was then transported to a local hospital’s emergency department.

The emergency physician, Dr. Clinton Palmer, noted swelling in the left forearm,
which had been splinted on site, and a small abrasion near the left eye. Employee denied
any chest pain or shortness of breath and did not report any nausea, vomiting, or abdominal
pain. His complaints included pain in his left wrist, left elbow, and left shoulder. Dr.
Palmer ordered multiple diagnostic scans, including x-rays of the left elbow, left forearm,
left shoulder, and left wrist, as well as CT scans of the head and cervical spine. The
shoulder x-rays indicated “[m]oderate chronic degenerative changes” but no “acute
fracture or subluxation.” The left forearm x-rays revealed a “heavily comminuted slightly
displaced fracture” of the distal radius and a second “nondisplaced fracture” of the ulnar
styloid.” These findings were confirmed by the wrist x-rays. The left elbow x-rays
revealed “[n]o subluxation” and “[n]o elbow effusion.” 2 The CT of the head revealed no
hemorrhage or “other acute intracranial process,” and the CT of the cervical spine showed
“multilevel disc space narrowing” and other degenerative findings but no evidence of acute
fracture or dislocation.

Employee reported to a different local emergency room two days later complaining
of pain from a chest wall contusion he alleged to have sustained in the fall. He also
described left neck pain, left shoulder pain, and left arm pain. A CT of the chest revealed
a left upper lobe mass, a suspected left adrenal mass, and mediastinal adenopathy, which
were suspicious for metastatic lung cancer. Employee was referred to a pulmonologist for
further evaluation.

On September 20, Employee underwent a PET scan, apparently as part of his
pulmonary work-up. There was evidence of a “mixed cystic and solid nodule” in the
anterior left upper lobe, “consistent with a primary lung cancer.” No lytic or bone lesions
were noted in the cervical spine, but the scan revealed several left rib fractures.

Employer provided several panels of physicians, from which Employee selected Dr.
Benjamin Rogozinski, Dr. Charles Loehr, Dr. John Reynolds, and Dr. Paul Johnson.
Employee first saw Dr. Rogozinski on September 14 for treatment of his left elbow and
wrist fractures. During his physical examination, Dr. Rogozinski noted “ecchymosis and
edema” throughout his left upper extremity. Dr. Rogozinski also noted signs of muscle

1
Medical records indicate Employee was wearing a hard hat at the time of the fall.
2
The shoulder and elbow x-rays were described as “suboptimal” due to “patient positioning.”

2
strain in the triceps of the left arm apparently due to “cast/strapping complications.” Dr.
Rogozinski diagnosed a “triceps avulsion fracture” in addition to the distal radius fracture,
and he recommended surgical repair of both the triceps avulsion fracture and the distal
radius fracture, which he performed on September 21, 2022.

Employee was evaluated by Dr. Loehr on October 4 for complaints of neck pain.
Employee reported to Dr. Loehr that he had sustained a triceps tendon injury, a left wrist
fracture, three rib fractures, and a left kidney injury. He complained of “excruciating pain”
in his left ribs. Dr. Loehr noted that Employee was undergoing a separate workup for
possible lung cancer, which he stated is “not related to his injury.” During his physical
examination, Dr. Loehr noted “[d]ecreased range of motion in all planes” with complaints
of pain radiating down the left arm. Dr. Loehr diagnosed multiple left rib fractures, a
cervical sprain, and “[t]raumatic arthropathy” in the left shoulder.

In November 2022, Employee sought treatment on his own with Dr. Edwin Spencer
for complaints of pain in his shoulder, neck, and low back. By the time of that evaluation,
Employee had been diagnosed with “non-small cell lung cancer” in the left lower lobe and
was anticipating surgical resection in January. Dr. Spencer noted limited range of motion
in the cervical spine and certain positive findings in the left shoulder. He diagnosed a
possible rotator cuff tear and possible cervical radiculopathy. He recommended that
Employee seek treatment with a physiatrist “for management of cervical spine and lumbar
spine.”

Dr. Rogozinski issued a final medical report dated January 10, 2023, in which he
concluded Employee had reached maximum medical improvement on that date with
respect to the left arm fractures. He assigned a permanent medical impairment rating of
2% for those injuries.

On January 12, 2023, Employee first saw Dr. John Reynolds for an authorized
evaluation of his neck and shoulder complaints. Dr. Reynolds noted “full active assisted
elevation of the left shoulder in all planes.” An MRI did not reveal a rotator cuff tear but
showed “[m]ild degenerative changes.” A cervical spine MRI indicated “multilevel
degenerative changes” and “mild central canal stenosis.” Dr. Reynolds did not recommend
any treatment for the shoulder condition but recommended “further evaluation and
treatment by a spine provider.”

Also on January 12, 2023, Dr. Reynolds responded to a written questionnaire from
Employer’s claim representative in which he agreed that the “work activities/exposure
contributed 50% or LESS in causing the need for treatment to the left shoulder.” (Emphasis
in original.) On February 15, 2023, Employer issued a Notice of Denial (“Form C-23”)
with respect to the alleged shoulder injury.

3
On February 23, 2023, Dr. Johnson responded to a written questionnaire from
Employer’s claim representative in which he agreed that the “work activities/exposure
contributed 50% or LESS in causing the need for treatment to his cervical spine.”
(Emphasis in original.) On March 2, 2023, Employer issued a Form C-23 with respect to
the alleged cervical spine injury. 3

In his June 2024 affidavit, Employee asserted that, in addition to his wrist and elbow
fractures, the work-related fall caused a lumbar disc herniation, rib fractures, a left shoulder
injury, spinal disc bulges, a head injury, a triceps injury, and a left kidney injury, none of
which had received proper medical treatment. He also alleged that he was entitled to
medical monitoring for an “[a]scending aortic aneurysm” and that he suffered a pulmonary
embolism as a result of the fall. Employee requested a “settlement” for these alleged
injuries.

The trial court conducted an expedited hearing in August 2024 to address
Employee’s request for additional medical treatment for various conditions allegedly
caused by the work-related accident. Because the only medical opinions offered into
evidence at that expedited hearing were those of Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Johnson, who
concluded that Employee’s left shoulder and cervical spine conditions, respectively, did
not arise primarily from the work accident, the court determined that Employee had not
met his burden of proof and denied his request for additional medical benefits. Employee
sought to appeal that order but did not pay the filing fee even after a show cause order was
issued, and his appeal was dismissed.

In June 2025, Employer filed what it identified as a motion for summary judgment. 4
Employer asserted in its motion that Employee had “failed to present sufficient proof that
he sustained an injury to his left shoulder, neck, head, collar bone, low back, rib cage, left
kidney, heart, and lungs” or that Employee produced evidence that “the employment
contributed more than fifty percent (50%)” in causing any such injuries, considering all
causes. In support of its motion, Employer relied on Dr. Reynolds’s office note of January
12, 2023, Dr. Reynolds’s responses to the insurer’s January 2023 questionnaire, and Dr.
Johnson’s responses to the insurer’s February 2023 questionnaire.

Employer also filed a statement of undisputed facts as required by Tennessee Rule
of Civil Procedure 56. Employee then filed a motion in September 2025 requesting
additional time to respond to Employer’s motion and asking the court to continue the
summary judgment hearing set for October 16. The court granted Employee’s motion and
reset the hearing for November 18. The court also instructed Employee to file his response
by November 10. Employee then filed another motion on October 25, this time to extend
3
There are no medical reports from Dr. Johnson in the record on appeal.
4
Given that Employer has accepted the compensability of Employee’s left wrist and left elbow injuries, it
is more accurately described as a motion for partial summary judgment.

4
the time within which to file a Standard Form Medical Report (“Form C-32”). The Form
C-32 he eventually filed, however, contained no information addressing the primary cause
of the various medical conditions alleged by Employee.

In his responses to Employer’s statement of undisputed facts, Employee reiterated
the various injuries and medical conditions he claimed arose from the work-related fall. 5
Although Employee did not respond directly to Employer’s statement summarizing Dr.
Reynolds’s causation opinion, he objected that he did not see Dr. Reynolds until
“approximately [six] months after the injury,” and that “the state of my injuries had
obviously changed.” He made the same objection to the causation statements of Dr.
Johnson.

Following a hearing, the trial court denied Employer’s motion for summary
judgment. The court reasoned that the medical records and causation statements on which
Employer had relied in support of its dispositive motion are not the type of evidence or
documentation contemplated in Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.04. As a result, the
court determined that Employer had not met its initial burden of production and, therefore,
the burden never shifted to Employee to come forward with sufficient evidence of a
genuine issue of material fact. Employer 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). The interpretation and application of statutes
and regulations are questions of law that we review de novo with no presumption that the
trial court’s conclusions are correct. See Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire,
LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393, 399 (Tenn. 2013). The grant or denial of a motion for summary
judgment likewise is a question of law that we review de novo with no presumption that
the trial court’s conclusions are correct. See Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis,
MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 250 (Tenn. 2015). As such, we “make a fresh determination of
whether the requirements of Rule 56 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure have been
satisfied.” Id. 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).

5
The record is unclear as to the date Employee filed his responses to Employer’s statement of undisputed
facts. Employee filed the Form C-32 on November 13, 2025, and his responses to Employer’s statement
of undisputed facts appear in the record approximately ten pages after the Form C-32, but there is no
separate file stamp affixed to his responses.

5
Analysis

Summary Judgment Standards

The Tennessee Supreme Court has explained the requirements for a movant to
prevail on a motion for summary judgment:

[W]hen the moving party does not bear the burden of proof at trial, the
moving party may satisfy its burden of production either (1) by affirmatively
negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim or (2) by
demonstrating that the nonmoving party’s evidence at the summary judgment
stage is insufficient to establish the nonmoving party’s claim or defense. We
reiterate that a moving party seeking summary judgment by attacking the
nonmoving party’s evidence must do more than make a conclusory assertion
that summary judgment is appropriate on this basis. Rather, Tennessee Rule
56.03 requires the moving party to support its motion with “a separate
concise statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends
there is no genuine issue for trial.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. “Each fact is to
be set forth in a separate, numbered paragraph and supported by a specific
citation to the record.” Id.

Rye, 477 S.W.3d at 264-65 (emphasis added).

Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56 identifies the documents and materials that
may be considered by a trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment:

[T]he judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 (emphasis added). Rule 56.06 provides that affidavits used to
support or oppose a motion for summary judgment “shall be made on personal knowledge,
shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively
that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.06.
In addition, Rule 56.06 provides that “[e]xpert opinion affidavits shall be governed by
Tennessee Rule of Evidence 703.” Id. Finally, as we have noted previously, medical
records, standing alone, are not competent evidence to consider at the summary judgment
stage of a case. See Thomas v. 10 Roads Express, LLC, No. 2021-08-0819, 2023 TN Wrk.
Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 17, at *7-8 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Mar. 27, 2023);
Lemons v. Elwood Staffing Services, Inc., No 2019-02-0313, 2021 TN Wrk. Comp. App.
Bd. LEXIS 12, at *14 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. May 4, 2021) (“[W]e conclude
[the employer] failed to present sufficient proof in accordance with Rule 56 to negate an

6
essential element of [the employee’s] claim or to demonstrate that [the employee’s]
evidence is insufficient to establish [the employee’s] claim as a matter of law.”).

Application of Summary Judgment Standards

In the present case, Employer sought summary judgment on the basis that
Employee’s expert medical proof was insufficient to establish a causal link between the
work-related accident and any alleged medical conditions other than the left wrist and
elbow injuries. 6 However, the evidence on which Employer relied did not include
depositions of any medical experts, interrogatory answers, admissions addressing expert
medical opinions, or affidavits expressing medical opinions as contemplated in Rule 56.
Instead, Employer’s statement of undisputed facts relied on medical records and the
responses to medical questionnaires completed by two physicians to negate causation. The
trial court determined Employer had not met its burden of production under Rule 56. We
agree.

In its brief on appeal, Employer argues that Employee’s response to its dispositive
motion was “deficient” and that “Employee . . . cannot establish his claim via medical
evidence.” However, as the Supreme Court noted in Rye, a threshold question when
considering a motion for summary judgment is whether the moving party has met its
burden of production in the first instance before the burden shifts to the nonmoving party
to produce evidence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Rye, 477 S.W.3d at 265.
Thus, for purposes of this motion, Employee’s response to Employer’s motion need not be
considered because Employer did not meet its initial burden of production. Consequently,
we conclude the trial court did not err in denying Employer’s motion for partial summary
judgment at this stage of the case.

Conclusion

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

6
As we noted above, because Employer’s motion sought summary judgment as to some, but not all, of
Employee’s claims, its motion is more accurately described as seeking partial summary judgment.

7