Gray, Tiffany v. Sedgwick Claims Management, Inc.

FILED
Apr 09, 2024
07:47 AM(CT)
TENNESSEE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
APPEALS BOARD

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Tiffany Gray ) Docket No. 2022-08-0500
)
v. ) State File No. 40950-2022
)
Sedgwick Claims Management, Inc., et al. )
)
)
Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )
Compensation Claims )
Shaterra R. Marion, Judge )

Affirmed and Remanded

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee asserts the trial court erred in ordering her to
attend a medical examination with a physician of the employer’s choice. The employee
asserted, among other arguments, that the employer’s request was unreasonable because
of her prior interactions with the physician’s office, which she claimed were
unsatisfactory. The employer responded that its request for a medical examination of the
employee was proper and reasonable under applicable statutory provisions. The trial
court agreed with the employer and granted its motion, and the employee has appealed.
Upon due consideration of the record, we affirm the trial court’s order, find the
employee’s appeal frivolous, 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.

Tiffany Gray, Memphis, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se

A. Allen Grant and Ryan A. Mirian, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee,
Sedgwick Claims Management, Inc.

1
Memorandum Opinion 1

Tiffany Gray (“Employee”) was hired on or about February 14, 2022, by
Sedgwick Claims Management, Inc. (“Employer”), in an operations support position.
When she was hired, Employee believed the position would be fully remote. The
following week, however, Employer instructed Employee to report to its office to work.
Employee objected and sought an accommodation to allow her to continue working from
home, but her accommodation request was denied. Employee alleged that on her first
day reporting to the office, she suffered an asthma attack. She has further alleged that
being required to work in the office resulted in a number of medical and mental
problems, including sinus problems, neurological problems, gastrointestinal problems,
bladder problems, mental anguish, and breathing problems. She reported that these
conditions manifested on or about February 22, 2022, eight days after her hire date. She
has sought treatment for various conditions, including allergic rhinitis, dermatitis,
urticaria, breathing difficulties, and mental stress.

Employer denied Employee’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits, asserting
her various medical conditions did not arise primarily out of or in the course and scope of
her employment. In an affidavit filed in support of her claim on May 24, 2023,
Employee asserted that she had been subjected to “unfair treatment” at work and that she
had “sustained injuries most largely to my mental health, sinuses, nose, eyes, . . . nervous
system, and stomach or uterine functions.” She claimed that Employer “would not allow
me to work in a way that lessened my contact with physical environments nor lessened
contact with people who may have been acting in a discriminatory and aggressive way.”
She alleged her manager had created “mental strain” but did not describe any specific
incidents at work she claimed caused her mental injury.

Thereafter, several discovery disputes arose that necessitated court action. In
response to one of Employer’s motions to compel Employee’s responses to written
discovery requests, Employee asserted she was entitled to “healthcare that addresses the
mental turmoil that is accompanied with physical pain that occurs when digging into
these issues.” She claimed that if she were compelled to respond to Employer’s written
discovery requests, “then healthcare must be provided to alleviate suffering” because
“conversing with and about [Employer] is physically and emotionally harmful.”
Ultimately, the court entered three separate orders compelling Employee to provide
complete responses to written discovery, and those orders were not appealed.

On January 8, 2024, Employer filed a motion asking the court to compel
Employee to attend a medical examination it had scheduled with Dr. Rande Lazar for
1
“The appeals board may, in an effort to secure a just and speedy determination of matters on appeal and
with the concurrence of all judges, decide an appeal by an abbreviated order or by memorandum opinion,
whichever the appeals board deems appropriate, in cases that are not legally and/or factually novel or
complex.” Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-22-.03(1) (2023).
2
January 10, which Employee had stated she would not attend. In support of its motion,
Employer cited Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(d)(1) and Tennessee Rule of
Civil Procedure 35.01. 2

In response, Employee claimed that she had prior dealings with Dr. Lazar’s office
and had considered undergoing surgery performed by Dr. Lazar, but his office had
allegedly refused her request to release medical records, leading her to cancel the surgery.
She alleged that she “suspect[ed] that there may be a relationship with [Employer]
causing interference care [sic].” Employee asserted that acceding to Employer’s request
to attend a medical examination by Dr. Lazar felt “morally wrong if not illegal.”

On January 17, 2024, the trial court entered an order compelling Employee to
attend the medical examination Employer had requested. The court noted that, under
Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(d)(1), an employer has the right to seek a
medical examination “at all reasonable times.” Moreover, we have previously interpreted
this provision to require an employee’s compliance if the employer’s request is
“reasonable . . . in light of the surrounding circumstances.” King v. Big Binder Express,
LLC, No. 2016-07-0378, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 92, at *10 (Tenn.
Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2016) (citing Overstreet v. TRW Commer. Steering
Div., 256 S.W.3d 626, 639 (Tenn. 2008)). In concluding that Employer’s request was
reasonable, the court noted that Employee “has placed her respiratory ailments into
question” and that “there is no legal support” for the proposition that Employee’s alleged
prior difficulties with Dr. Lazar’s office rendered the request unreasonable. Employee
has appealed.

After the trial court’s order was entered, Employee filed an “Answer to Motion to
Compel IME.” In that pleading, Employee asserted that “The [Americans with
Disabilities Act] prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability” and that Employer “is
aware of . . . [Employee’s] disability.” In her notice of appeal, Employee argues that
Employer “interfered with the employee’s ability to receive fair and impartial medical
treatment.” 3 Employee did not file a brief on appeal and has not offered any theory or
legal argument as to how the trial court erred in the order she is appealing.

2
Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 35.01 authorizes a court to order a party to attend a physical or
mental examination “when the mental or physical condition . . . of a party . . . is in controversy.”
3
In Anderson v. Save-A-Lot, Ltd., 989 S.W.2d 277 (Tenn. 1999), the Tennessee Supreme Court addressed
a claim for workers’ compensation benefits in which the employee alleged harassing and/or
discriminatory conduct on the part of the employer or one of its supervisory employees. The Court, in
affirming an order granting summary judgment to the employer, concluded that it was the Tennessee
Human Rights Act, not the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law, that provided a possible remedy for
the harassing conduct alleged by the employee. Id. at 289-90.
3
As we have noted on previous occasions, parties who elect to represent themselves
are entitled to fair and equal treatment by the courts. Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32
S.W.3d 222, 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). Yet, as explained by the Tennessee Court of
Appeals:

[C]ourts should take into account that many pro se litigants have no legal
training and little familiarity with the judicial system. However, the courts
must also be mindful of the boundary between fairness to a pro se litigant
and unfairness to the pro se litigant’s adversary. Thus, the courts must not
excuse pro se litigants from complying with the same substantive and
procedural rules that represented parties are expected to observe.

Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901, 903-04 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (internal citations
omitted).

Here, Employee has offered no explanation, statement, or theory as to how the
trial court erred in ordering her to attend the medical examination scheduled by
Employer. Her grievances appear to be related to her prior dealings with Dr. Lazar’s
office, but she offered no admissible evidence concerning her prior contacts with Dr.
Lazar’s office that would call into question the reasonableness of Employer’s request for
a medical examination with this physician. Based on our review of the record, we
conclude Employer’s request was reasonable, and the trial court’s order appropriately
considered applicable law in light of the facts of this case. We therefore affirm the trial
court’s order in its entirety.

Although Employer has not asked that we find Employee’s appeal frivolous, we
exercise our discretion under Tenn. Comp. R. and Regs. 0800-02-22-.09(4) to do so. As
we have noted previously, a frivolous appeal is one that is devoid of merit or brought
solely for delay. Yarbrough v. Protective Servs. Co., Inc., No. 2015-08-0574, 2016 TN
Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 3, at *11 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Jan. 25, 2016)
(citing Combustion Eng’g, Inc. v. Kennedy, 562 S.W.2d 202, 205 (Tenn. 1978)). Stated
another way, “[a] frivolous appeal is one that . . . had no reasonable chance of
succeeding.” Adkins v. Studsvik, Inc., No. E2014-00444-SC-R3-WC, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS
588, at *30 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel July 21, 2015) (citations omitted). Here,
Employee did not file a brief on appeal and did not offer any statement on her notice of
appeal that could be characterized as a legal argument. The document she filed after the
trial court’s order had been entered did not cite any relevant statutory or case law. In
short, Employee’s appeal is devoid of merit. However, our Supreme Court has also
stated that “imposing a penalty for a frivolous appeal . . . should not be asserted lightly or
granted unless clearly applicable.” Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328, 342 (Tenn.
2010). Although we conclude Employee’s appeal is frivolous, we exercise our discretion
not to award sanctions or penalties in this appeal. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm
the trial court’s order and remand the case. Costs on appeal were waived.

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

Tiffany Gray ) Docket No. 2022-08-0500
)
v. ) State File No. 40950-2022
)
Sedgwick Claims Management, Inc., et al. )
)
)
Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )
Compensation Claims )
Shaterra R. Marion, 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 9th day
of April, 2024.

Name Certified First Class Via Via Sent to:
Mail Mail Fax Email
Tiffany Gray X thetiffanymgray@gmail.com
A. Allen Grant X agrant@eraclides.com
Ryan Mirian rmirian@eraclides.com
Shaterra R. Marion, 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