Miles, DeAndre v. Nike Inc. Footwear

FILED
Sep 16, 2025
11:43 AM(CT)
TENNESSEE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
APPEALS BOARD

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

DeAndre Miles Docket No. 2023-08-8556

v. State File No. 19676-2023

Nike Inc. Footwear, et al.

Appeal from the Court of Workers’
Compensation Claims
Shaterra R. Marion, Judge

Affirmed and Remanded

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee questions the trial court’s order denying his
request to be provided a new authorized treating physician. The employee expressed
dissatisfaction with his authorized physician and requested a new doctor. The employer
declined, asserting that the employee has received all the benefits to which he is currently
entitled and that the authorized physician placed the employee at maximum medical
improvement with no permanent medical impairment. After an expedited hearing, the trial
court issued an order declining to order the employer to provide a new panel of physicians
but observing that the employee could return to his authorized physician. 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.

DeAndre Miles, Memphis, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se

Vickie M. Cruzen, Memphis, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, Nike Inc. Footwear

1
Memorandum Opinion 1

DeAndre Miles (“Employee”) was working for Nike Inc. Footwear (“Employer”)
when he reported an injury to his low back on March 11, 2023. 2 He described operating a
forklift to pick orders when the forklift malfunctioned, jerking him and causing low back
complaints. Employer accepted the claim as compensable and provided workers’
compensation benefits, including authorized medical treatment with Dr. Sam Murrell, an
orthopedist.

Dr. Murrell ordered CT scans and MRIs of Employee’s cervical, thoracic, and
lumbar spine, none of which revealed evidence of an acute injury. Dr. Murrell did observe
that Employee had a small annular tear and evidence of nodal disease, but he did not relate
either of those findings to the work accident. After a course of conservative treatment, Dr.
Murrell placed Employee at maximum medical improvement on November 17, 2023,
opining that he retained no permanent anatomical impairment and returning him to work
without restrictions.

Employee expressed dissatisfaction with his treatment, asserting that Dr. Murrell
did not explain the CT and MRI findings sufficiently or offer him alternative treatment
plans. Employee filed a petition for benefit determination on December 8, 2023, asserting
that he is still having problems that he believes are related to the work injury. After
unsuccessful mediation, the trial court held an expedited hearing and later issued an order
denying Employee’s request to designate a new authorized physician. The court found that
the circumstances surrounding Employee’s request did not justify requiring Employer to
provide a new panel and that Employee could return to Dr. Murrell, who had not declined
to see him. The court also denied Employee’s request for temporary disability benefits.
Employee has appealed.

On his notice of appeal, Employee contends he was not allowed to present medical
documentation at the expedited hearing, and he asserts he was not provided adequate
medical care. Employee attempted to prepare and file a statement of the evidence, but
Employer objected to the contents of the statement, asserting that it contained argument
and was not an accurate description of the testimony presented at the hearing. Ultimately
the trial court agreed with Employer and declined to certify the statement of the evidence
“as a fair and accurate summary of the testimony presented at the hearing.” See Tenn.
Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-22-.05(1)(b) (2023). Without a transcript or statement of the
evidence, we must presume the evidence presented at the hearing supported the factual
findings of the trial court. See, e.g., Estate of Cockrill, No. M2010-00663-COA-R3-CV,
1
This decision is being filed pursuant to Tenn. Comp. R. and Regs. 0800-02-22-.03(1) (2023).
2
Throughout the record, Employer is identified in different ways, including “Nike Inc. Footwear,” “Nike
Inc Global Ops” and “104306-DC Operations.” For purposes of this opinion, we have used the same
corporate designation used by the trial court.
2
2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 754, at *11-12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2010) (“[W]here no
transcript or statement of the evidence is filed, the appellate court is required to presume
that the record, had it been properly preserved, would have supported the action of the trial
court.”); Leek v. Powell, 884 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (“In the absence of a
transcript or statement of the evidence, we must conclusively presume that every fact
admissible under the pleadings was found or should have been found favorably to the
appellee.”).

Moreover, neither party filed a brief on appeal. Thus, we have no transcript and no
legal argument from Employee explaining how 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
Responsibility 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 v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of the Sup. Ct. of
Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010). 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 Tennessee 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 his
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).

At an expedited hearing, an employee has the burden of proving he or she is “likely
to prevail at a hearing on the merits of his claim for benefits.” McCord v. Advantage
Human Resourcing, No. 2014-06-0063, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *9
(Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Mar. 27, 2015). Based on the record before us, we agree
with the trial court’s finding that Employee has not met his burden of showing he will
likely prevail at trial in establishing his entitlement to additional medical or disability
benefits at this time. In short, the preponderance of the evidence before us supports the
trial court’s findings.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court and remand the
case. Costs on appeal have been waived.

3
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

DeAndre Miles Docket No. 2023-08-8556

v. State File No. 19676-2023

Nike Inc. Footwear, 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 16th day of
September, 2025.

Name Certified First Class Via Via Sent to:
Mail Mail Fax Email
DeAndre Miles X drefreshmuzik@gmail.com
Vickie Moffett Cruzen X vmoffettcruzen@swlawpllc.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