Parcher, Bobbi v. Modern Business Associates, Inc.

FILED
Mar 13, 2026
08:43 AM(CT)
TENNESSEE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
APPEALS BOARD

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Bobbi Parcher Docket No. 2025-10-0112

v. State File No. 62704-2021

Modern Business Associates, Inc., et al.

Appeal from the Court of Workers’
Compensation Claims
Thomas L. Wyatt, Judge

Affirmed as Modified and Remanded

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee sought temporary disability benefits after the
treating physician rescinded his earlier assessment placing her at maximum medical
improvement. The employee suffered a rotator cuff tear, which the employer accepted as
compensable and for which it provided workers’ compensation benefits, including surgery.
After the employee suffered a recurrent rotator cuff tear, the employer authorized a second
surgery. Following a subsequent tear, the employer paid for a third surgery and follow-up
care but then argued that the employee was unable to prove this tear arose primarily from
the work accident and, therefore, she was not entitled to further benefits. In the alternative,
the employer argued that even if the third tear arose primarily from the work accident and
caused a new period of temporary disability, benefits should begin on the date the treating
physician rescinded his prior assessment of maximum medical improvement, not the date
it last paid temporary benefits. Following a hearing, the trial court awarded the requested
temporary disability benefits, and the employer has appealed. Having carefully reviewed
the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision, modify the award of accrued temporary
disability benefits, 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.

Brayden R. Hunter and Gregory H. Fuller, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employer-
appellant, Modern Business Associates, Inc.

Bobbi Parcher, employee-appellee, pro se

1
Factual and Procedural Background

On August 16, 2021, Bobbi Parcher (“Employee”) injured her right arm and
shoulder when she slipped and fell while inventorying a walk-in cooler at a Burger King
owned by Modern Business Associates, Inc. (“Employer”). Employee notified Employer
of the incident and sought evaluation at an emergency room where she had x-rays taken,
was given a wrist brace, and was advised to follow up with a “workers’ compensation
doctor.” In September 2021, Employer provided a panel of orthopedists, and Employee
selected Dr. Christopher Bowman as her authorized treating physician. After a course of
conservative treatment, Dr. Bowman performed surgery in February 2022, which consisted
of a right shoulder arthroscopy to repair the rotator cuff, with extensive debridement and
subacromial decompression with acromioplasty.

After surgery, Employee attended physical therapy, but her pain persisted and she
showed minimal improvement. She returned to her job but continued to report right arm
pain while performing repetitive work. An MRI ordered in January 2024 revealed a torn
supraspinatus tendon and biceps tendinitis with a labral tear. Employer authorized a second
surgery to repair both conditions, which Dr. Bowman performed in February 2024.

Thereafter, Employee underwent another course of conservative care, receiving
injections in her right trapezius for persistent pain post-surgery. She received weekly
temporary disability benefits during the periods she was unable to work and underwent a
Functional Capacity Evaluation (“FCE”) in October. Employee returned to Dr. Bowman
on October 24, 2024, at which time Dr. Bowman reviewed the FCE results and assigned
permanent work restrictions. He also completed a Final Medical Report, placing Employee
at maximum medical improvement (“MMI”) and assigning a 6% permanent partial
impairment. Employer was unable to accommodate Employee’s restrictions, and, as a
result, she did not return to work for Employer.

In January 2025, Employee returned to Dr. Bowman, reporting pain in the area of
her right trapezius muscle that she related to performing repetitive work at Employer prior
to her separation. A subsequent MRI revealed a recurrent right supraspinatus tear, and Dr.
Bowman recommended a third surgical procedure. Before authorizing a third surgery,
Employer sought information from Dr. Bowman through a series of questionnaires. He
responded in the affirmative to the question:

Is it your expert medical opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty
that [Employee’s] need for [right shoulder revision] arose primarily (>50%)
out of and in the course and scope of [her] employment with [Employer], and
specifically, the incident she described as occurring on August 16, 2021?

Dr. Bowman was also asked about Employee’s restrictions and confirmed that he rescinded
his original assessment of MMI on February 3, 2025, because Employee “continued to

2
have symptoms . . . [and a follow-up MRI] shows a recurrent rotator cuff tear.” 1 After
receiving Dr. Bowman’s responses, Employer authorized the third surgery, which Dr.
Bowman performed on May 21, 2025, but did not reinstate temporary disability benefits.
On July 15, 2025, Dr. Bowman responded to a letter sent by Employer inquiring about
Employee’s work restrictions. Dr. Bowman responded that he had taken Employee off
work after the May 21 surgery, and that she was expected to return to work four to six
weeks later and would retain her permanent restrictions.

Thereafter, Employer deposed Dr. Bowman, asking him specifically about the cause
of Employee’s recurrent tears. He responded, “[Y]ou tore the one God gave you, you can
certainly tear the one Dr. Bowman gives you. . . . You could fall. . . . [T]he repair could not
take, so to speak.” He testified that “sometimes you would wonder how the thing ever
heals,” noting that it does not have a “very good blood supply,” and the shoulder joint has
such a large range of motion that it puts the muscles and tendons under tortional stresses
that create risks for injury.

Dr. Bowman testified that prior to the second surgery, Employee complained of pain
at work for approximately five-and-a-half months post-surgery. She attended physical
therapy, and later imaging revealed a torn supraspinatus tendon. In response to one of the
questionnaires, Dr. Bowman noted that Employee told him her shoulder hurt while
performing certain work activities and that she was being treated for “rotator cuff disease.”
Dr. Bowman stated that Employee did not improve like he thought she should after the first
surgery, and her ongoing complaints were “just a continuation of the previous injury.” Dr.
Bowman also stated there was “no objective way to . . . separate . . . if she was hurt by
something else outside of work.” When questioned about her third surgery, Dr. Bowman
testified that Employee began to experience pain in her right trapezius muscle about three-
and-a-half months after her second surgery. Dr. Bowman recalled that he sent her for an
FCE and placed her at MMI in October 2024, and, when Employee continued to complain
of pain, he ordered another MRI in January 2025, which revealed a recurrent full-thickness
tear in the right supraspinatus tendon. As a result, Dr. Bowman rescinded his previous
finding of MMI and performed a third surgery in May 2025.

With respect to the most recent surgery, Dr. Bowman testified that Employee “had
a rotator cuff tear. We fixed it, and then she has a subsequent tear . . . . [N]ot all rotator
cuff tears heal, and this seems to be one of those.” Dr. Bowman was unsure when or how
the recurrent tear occurred, testifying that it can occur because of a new injury, because
previous surgeries failed to “take,” or because of “accumulated[,] small micro-injuries.”
He further testified that there was no indication Employee had experienced an intervening
event and that he relied on the history she provided him. During cross-examination, Dr.
Bowman theorized that Employee’s work conditioning may have caused tissue damage in

1
As the trial court noted in its order, the record contains three questionnaires completed by Dr. Bowman,
some of which dealt primarily with her work restrictions.

3
her right rotator cuff. He also noted that Employee participated in more than 150 sessions
of physical therapy.

At the expedited hearing, Employer questioned Employee about an incident in July
2024. Reportedly, Employee had a physical altercation with her sons as they attempted to
seize her car keys. In the ensuing struggle, Employee recalled telling one of her sons that
he was “hurting [her]” but did not specify which part of her body he hurt. Employee
testified she was later arrested and charged with “domestic assault,” but “[n]ot convicted
of it,” and that she told the police about her shoulder injury. In her testimony, Employee
denied she suffered an injury as a result of this incident and explained that she was
handcuffed so loosely she was able to fasten the seatbelt herself. Employee admitted that
she did not report this incident to Dr. Bowman. Contemporaneous treatment notes from
the month of that incident detailed progress in her rotator cuff symptoms and revealed no
new complaints. Soon thereafter, Dr. Bowman ordered the FCE, which she completed with
“reliable effort” on October 3. Although Employee continued to report ongoing pain, Dr.
Bowman placed her at MMI on October 24, 2024. As noted above, he later rescinded that
MMI determination.

Following the hearing, the trial court determined that: (1) Dr. Bowman’s responses
to Employer’s questionnaire, combined with “the totality of his deposition testimony,” was
sufficient to show Employee would likely prevail at trial in establishing that the recurrent
tears arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment; (2) her injury
was not idiopathic; and (3) there was no evidence of an intervening injury. Regarding
Employee’s entitlement to temporary disability benefits, the trial court noted the unrefuted
evidence that Employee had not worked since October 24, 2024, when Dr. Bowman
initially placed her at MMI and assigned permanent restrictions based on the results of her
FCE.

The court also concluded Employee was likely to prevail at trial in showing that Dr.
Bowman’s first assessment of MMI was premature and, therefore, she is entitled to a new
period of temporary disability benefits based on the recurrent tear. Specifically, the court
noted that Dr. Bowman diagnosed a recurrent rotator cuff tear, surgically repaired the tear,
related it to the previous work-related tear, and rescinded his earlier assessment of MMI.
In its order, the court first stated that Employee is entitled to temporary disability benefits
from “the date Dr. Bowman rescinded the previous finding of [MMI] until she either
returns to work” or reaches MMI. However, after noting that Employee “has not worked
anywhere since October 25, 2024,” the court awarded her fifty-nine weeks of temporary
disability benefits from October 25, 2024, the day after she stopped working, to December
11, 2025. Finally, the court determined that her weekly compensation rate is the same
whether she qualified for temporary total or temporary partial disability benefits. As a
result, the court awarded 59 weeks of temporary disability benefits for a total of
$37,115.10. Employer has appealed.

4
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 the trial judge has had the opportunity
to observe a witness’s demeanor and to hear in-court testimony, we give considerable
deference to credibility determinations made by the trial court. Madden v. Holland Grp.
of Tenn., Inc., 277 S.W.3d 896, 898 (Tenn. 2009). However, “when it comes to deposition
testimony, an appellate panel is in the same position as the trial court to make credibility
determinations.” Edwards v. Peoplease, LLC, No. W2024-01034-SC-R3-WC, 2025 Tenn.
LEXIS 514, at *18 (Tenn. Dec. 22, 2025). Thus, when medical proof is presented by
deposition, “the reviewing court may draw its own conclusions about the weight and
credibility of the expert testimony.” Id. Moreover, 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). 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 its notice of appeal, Employer asserts the trial court erred in finding Employee
had presented sufficient evidence that her recurrent rotator cuff tear and the associated need
for treatment are causally related to her compensable work injury. Employer argues that
“the deposition of the authorized treating physician states this injury was not caused by the
work incident in August [2021]” and, therefore, Employee is not entitled to further medical
treatment for this injury. Employer also argues that the award of temporary disability
benefits was erroneous because the trial court misapplied Tennessee Code Annotated
section 50-6-102(12). It maintains that Dr. Bowman could not testify to a reasonable
degree of medical certainty that the recurrent tear was a direct and natural consequence of
her injury. It also asserts that the amount of temporary disability benefits awarded was
incorrect because the trial court relied on an incorrect date to calculate those benefits. In
response, Employee asserts the trial court properly applied section 50-6-102(12) but asks
that we conclude she is owed temporary disability benefits back to the original MMI date
because this was the date on which Employee’s benefits were terminated based on the
premature assessment of MMI.

Causation

It is well settled that “[t]he employer . . . shall furnish, free of charge to the
employee, such medical and surgical treatment . . . made reasonably necessary by accident
as defined in this chapter.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(a)(1)(A) (2025). In order to

5
obtain workers’ compensation benefits, the employee’s injury or condition must be caused
by a “specific incident, or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and
scope of employment.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(A). An injury arises out of and
in the course and scope of employment only if it has been shown that the employment
contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury, considering all causes. Tenn.
Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(B). Proof of causation requires expert medical testimony based
on a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(D)-(E).
Moreover, Employee is entitled to any medical care “made reasonably necessary” by the
work-related accident “as defined in this chapter.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(a)(1)(A).

Further, the Tennessee Supreme Court has made clear that every “direct and natural
consequence” of a work-related accident is compensable. See, e.g., Hudgins v. Glob. Pers.
Sols., Inc., No. E2023-00792-SC-R3-WC, 2024 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp.
Panel Mar. 5, 2024). In Hudgins, the Supreme Court’s Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel addressed an employee’s burden of proof in circumstances where “a
subsequent or secondary medical condition develops after a work-related injury.” Id. at
*9. The Court determined that an employee must come forward with sufficient evidence
to prove that the subsequent injury or medical condition arose primarily out of the work
accident. Id.

Here, Employer contends that the trial court misapplied Tennessee Code Annotated
section 50-6-102(12) because Dr. Bowman failed to provide a sufficient opinion linking
the need for the third surgery to the compensable work accident. Specifically, Employer
argues that Dr. Bowman’s checking a “yes” box to indicate he believed the recurrent tear
was primarily the result of Employee’s employment is insufficient to establish causation
in the absence of an explanation. Further, Employer asserts Dr. Bowman testified that he
had no way of objectively determining whether the recurrent tear was caused by her work
or an intervening factor. Conversely, Employee argues that the trial court correctly
considered the totality of Dr. Bowman’s questionnaire responses and testimony in
determining that she was likely to prevail at trial in establishing that each tear of her rotator
cuff arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment.

We conclude that Employee has come forward with sufficient proof that the
additional surgical treatment recommended by Dr. Bowman was “made reasonably
necessary” by the work-related accident. In a response to the April 15, 2025 questionnaire,
Dr. Bowman stated, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Employee’s recurrent
tear arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her fall at work on August 2021
and that the surgery was medically necessary. Although he conceded that it is impossible
to objectively determine the precise reason for her recurrent tear, Dr. Bowman testified that
Employee had a rotator cuff tear that had been repaired, followed by recurrent tears, noting
that “not all rotator cuff tears heal, and this seems to be one of those.” Dr. Bowman’s
opinion as the authorized treating physician is entitled to a presumption of correctness, and

6
we conclude Employer has presented insufficient evidence to rebut that presumption at this
stage of the case. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 50-6-102(12)(E); 50-6-204(a)(3)(H).

Temporary Disability Benefits

As we have noted previously, “[a]n injured worker is eligible for temporary
disability benefits if: (1) the worker became disabled from working due to a compensable
injury; (2) there is a causal connection between the injury and the inability to work; and (3)
the worker established the duration of the period of disability.” Jones v. Crencor Leasing
and Sales, No. 2015-06-0332, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 48, at *7 (Tenn.
Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Dec. 11, 2015). “Temporary total disability benefits are
terminated either by the ability to return to work or attainment of maximum recovery.” Id.

Here, Dr. Bowman rescinded his previous opinion that Employee had reached MMI.
In their respective briefs on appeal, the parties dispute the date of this rescission. 2 The trial
court initially ordered payment of temporary disability benefits beginning as of February
3, 2025, which was the date Dr. Bowman reviewed the results of the MRI revealing the
recurrent tear and rescinded MMI. However, when calculating the total of past temporary
disability benefits owed, the trial court ordered temporary disability benefits from October
25, 2024, which was the day after Employer ceased TTD based on Dr. Bowman’s initial
MMI determination. As the record indicates, Employee was assigned work restrictions as
of October 25, 2024, and Employer could not accommodate those restrictions. Thus,
Employee became eligible for temporary partial disability benefits as of that date. As a
result, we affirm the portion of the trial court’s order regarding the duration of past
temporary disability benefits beginning on October 25, 2024, and we modify the amount
of that award to $46,451.49 to reflect the correct calculation. 3 Employee’s weekly
temporary disability shall remain ongoing as ordered by the trial court until a terminating
event occurs.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we modify the trial court’s award of past temporary
disability benefits to $46,451.49 and affirm the court’s order as modified. Costs on appeal
are taxed to Employer.

2
In its brief, Employer argues that Dr. Bowman rescinded his previous MMI determination on April 15,
2025, not February 3, 2025. We conclude, however, that the discrepancy is immaterial under the
circumstances because Employee is entitled to additional temporary benefits from the date her temporary
disability benefits were previously terminated.
3
From October 25, 2024, through the date of the expedited hearing, December 1, 2025, is 57.571 weeks,
which, at a weekly compensation rate of $806.85, entitles Employee to $46,451.49 in past temporary
disability benefits.

7