Isoyev, Bobur v. Nippon Paint Automotive Americas, Inc.

FILED
Feb 11, 2026
11:15 AM(CT)
TENNESSEE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
APPEALS BOARD

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Bobur Isoyev Docket No. 2024-10-4374

v. State File No. 860243-2024

Nippon Paint Automotive Americas,
Inc., et al.

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

Affirmed and Remanded

The employer avers the trial court erred in finding the employee was likely to prove at trial
that he provided timely notice of an alleged gradual injury and in awarding medical benefits
in this interlocutory appeal. The employee began having low back pain after being
assigned additional work duties and sought medical care on his own, including physical
therapy. Following his termination from the employer, the employee’s primary care
physician referred him for an MRI. The employee filed a petition for benefit determination
fifteen days after the referral, and the employer denied the claim for lack of timely notice.
By the time of the expedited hearing, the employee had obtained a medical opinion from a
neurosurgeon recommending surgery and opining that the injury and need for surgery were
primarily caused by the employee’s gradual work injury. The employer obtained a records
review from a pain management specialist, who opined the employee’s herniated discs
were likely degenerative in nature. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court found
the employee was likely to be successful at a trial in proving he gave timely notice of a
work-related injury, credited the employee’s expert over the employer’s expert as to
causation, and ordered the employer to provide a panel. The employer has appealed.
Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

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

J. Allen Callison, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellant, Nippon Paint
Automotive Americas, Inc.

Bobur Isoyev, employee-appellee, pro se

1
Factual and Procedural Background

Bobur Isoyev (“Employee”) began working as an engineer for Nippon Paint
Automotive Americas, Inc. (“Employer”), in August 2023. At some point thereafter, he
was reassigned as a maintenance engineer, which required him to perform manual labor,
including cleaning storage tanks. In October or November 2023, Employee began noticing
pain in his low back but continued working his regular schedule. He did not have a primary
care physician, and, in February 2024, he sought to establish care with UT Academic
Internal Medicine (“UT”).

Employee’s first appointment at UT was with Dr. Kaitlin Detmar on February 20,
2024. At that visit, Employee reported having low back pain radiating into his left leg,
stating he had “been doing more manual labor at work due to being short staffed but does
not remember [a] significant event during which he hurt his back, hip, or leg.” He also
stated he had been taking “Tylenol daily and ibuprofen pm,” as well as doing home
exercises, which provided only partial relief. Dr. Detmar referred Employee to physical
therapy and asked him to follow up with her in six months. Employee began physical
therapy in March 2024 but had to miss several appointments due to work.

Employer terminated Employee on June 7, 2024. 1 Employee returned to UT on
June 11, where he saw Dr. Timothy Mullican. Employee reported that his back pain was
worsening, that it was “affecting his ability to work,” and that it was “exacerbated by any
heavy lifting.” He also described intermittent night sweats that soaked his sheets. Dr.
Mullican referred Employee for an MRI, which was performed the following day. Before
he received his results, Employee filed a petition for benefit determination (“PBD”) on
June 26, 2024, alleging an injury to his back. The PBD listed a date of injury of October
31, 2023.

Employee saw Dr. David Wallace, a neurosurgeon, on July 16, 2024, to review his
MRI results. At that time, Dr. Wallace informed Employee that he had a large disc
fragment at L4-5 and a “likely significant” fragment at L5-S1. Dr. Wallace indicated
Employee was a candidate for a steroid injection, or alternatively, a discectomy. Employee
was not prepared to proceed with either, so Dr. Wallace prescribed ibuprofen, a muscle
relaxer, and another anti-inflammatory with instructions for Employee to follow up with
him in two months. Employee returned to Dr. Wallace on October 18, 2024, at which time
he indicated he had some relief with the medications and that he was working in a different
job, which had “helped” his pain. Dr. Wallace again offered Employee a steroid injection,
but Employee stated he had a fear of needles and was instead considering the discectomy.
At his next appointment in February 2025, Employee indicated the medications were not
providing any relief. Dr. Wallace stated Employee had failed conservative treatment and
recommended Employee proceed with a discectomy at L4-5 and L5-S1. Employee

1
There is no information in the record as to the circumstances of Employee’s termination.

2
informed Dr. Wallace that he was seeking workers’ compensation benefits, and Dr.
Wallace stated he would complete a “medical legal opinion” separately.

Dr. Wallace completed a questionnaire at Employee’s request on March 7, 2025. In
that questionnaire, Employee asked Dr. Wallace for a diagnosis of his work injury, which
Employee described as being caused by “lifting, carrying, and dragging heavy chemical
hoses, pumps, salt bags, liquid filled drums, totes, and skids without proper tools” on
October 30, 2023. Dr. Wallace diagnosed Employee with sciatica of the left side,
protrusion of a lumbar intervertebral disc, and spinal stenosis of the lumbar region. He
responded in the affirmative when asked whether the work activities Employee described
“contributed” more than fifty percent to causing a new injury and Employee’s need for
medical treatment, including the treatment he had already provided as well as the
recommended surgery. Dr. Wallace also confirmed he had not taken Employee
“completely off work.”

Employer obtained a records review with Dr. Jeffrey Hazlewood, a pain
management specialist, in August 2025. Dr. Hazlewood reviewed records from the above
physicians, as well as physical therapy records, chiropractic records, the MRI scan, and
Employee’s deposition. In his report, Dr. Hazlewood noted various academic studies
regarding disc herniations and the likelihood they would be caused by the aging process
and degenerative disc disease as opposed to acute or repetitive injury. In his conclusion,
he opined, “I cannot state that it is [fifty percent] or more likely . . . that this gentleman’s
disc herniation was caused by his employment . . . .”

An expedited hearing was held on November 5, 2025. Employer argued that
Employee failed to give proper notice of his alleged back injury and that, even if he did
give proper notice, his back injury and need for medical treatment did not arise primarily
out of his employment. Employee testified that he began to notice his back issues in
October or November of 2023 after he was required to begin performing manual labor as
part of his new position, which included heavy lifting. Employee testified he told his
manager, Mr. Prakesh Patel, that he was experiencing difficulties. Although he could not
recall when he informed Mr. Patel, he believed it was sometime between November 2023
and February 2024. Employee alleged he gave written notice of the injury through email
and text, but he no longer had access to that documentation because he no longer worked
for Employer. 2

Although there was no evidence that a physician had restricted Employee’s work
activities, Employee testified that, on at least two days, he modified his work duties due to
2
Employee sent requests for production to Employer, seeking all electronic communications between
himself and Mr. Patel, as well as other individuals working for Employer. Employer produced several
records, which Employee filed with the trial court, although none of them discussed the alleged work injury.
Employee indicated at the hearing he believed Employer had failed to produce all of the records, but he did
not file a motion to compel.

3
back pain. He could not recall the specific dates, making statements such as: “I missed a
few days when I had very painful times, I could not be able to tolerate the pain because I
was using on the counter medications”; “I talked with [] my manager, and he said, go ahead,
take your couple days off”; and “I had a few times Mr. Patel said, ‘Bob, take a couple days
off if you want.’ I took it off and I took heavier pain medications.” However, Employee
also testified that, even when he took those days off, he still performed his work duties,
stating that he “missed a couple times, a few times, one or two days, and came back to
work. And – but during that time, when I missed even, I was working remotely because
I’m an engineer. I do some documentation. I worked from home, I would say, okay?”
Finally, Employee testified that he believed his back pain was caused by heavy lifting at
work in October or November 2023, and that is what prompted him to seek medical
treatment in February 2024.

Employee’s manager, Mr. Patel, testified via videoconference. Mr. Patel no longer
worked for Employer and denied that Employee ever reported an injury or that he and
Employee ever had a conversation about an injury at work.

In its November 19, 2025 order, the trial court determined Employee would not
likely prevail at trial in showing that he gave written or verbal notice of a work accident to
Employer before he filed his PBD based on his vague account of his alleged conversation
with Mr. Patel and the lack of any evidence in the written communications provided to the
court that he reported a work injury. However, because Employee claimed a gradual injury,
the court analyzed whether Employee provided notice within fifteen days of the date he
knew or should have known he had an injury resulting in permanent physical impairment
or within fifteen days of the date he knew or should have known he was “rendered unable
to continue to perform [his] normal work duties” pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated
section 50-6-201(b)(1)-(2). Employer argued that Employee should have known his back
injury was permanent when he underwent the MRI on June 12. Although the court
expressed its skepticism that undergoing an MRI was equivalent to having knowledge of a
permanent impairment, it determined that, regardless, the PBD was filed within 15 days of
the date of the MRI. The court further found that the record did not reflect that Employee
was ever unable to perform his work duties due to his back condition. As a result, the court
determined that, under those circumstances, Employee would likely prevail in establishing
that he had given proper notice of his gradually occurring work injury. The court then
evaluated the expert opinions and determined Dr. Wallace, as a neurosurgeon who had
treated Employee, was in a better position to “assess [Employee’s] impairment” than Dr.
Hazlewood, a pain specialist that does not perform surgery and had never seen Employee.
It ordered Employer to provide a panel of three spine specialists. 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

4
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

The only issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred in its determination
that Employee is likely to prevail in proving at trial that he gave timely notice of his gradual
injury. 3 With respect to the provision of timely notice in gradual injury cases, Tennessee
Code Annotated section 50-6-201(b) provides:

In those cases where the injuries occur as a result of gradual or cumulative
events or trauma, the injured employee or the injured employee’s
representative shall provide notice of the injury to the employer within fifteen
(15) days from the date the employee:

(1) Knows or reasonably should know that the employee has
suffered a work-related injury that has resulted in permanent
physical impairment; or

(2) Is rendered unable to continue to perform the employee’s
normal work activities as the result of the work-related injury,
and the employee knows or reasonably should know that the
injury was caused by work-related activities.

3
Employer has not raised the trial court’s assessment of the medical proof as an issue on appeal. Therefore,
we consider it waived for purposes of this interlocutory appeal. 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).

5
(Emphases added.) 4 We have previously analyzed this portion of the statute and developed
a framework for determination of proper notice in Ernstes v. Printpack, Inc., No. 2020-07-
0617, 2023 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 25 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. June
6, 2023), aff’d, Ernstes v. Printpack, Inc., No. W2023-00863-SC-R3-W3, 2024 Tenn.
LEXIS 1 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel Jan. 2, 2024) (“Ernstes II”). The first step in that
framework is whether timely, written notice of the injury has been provided, which requires
a date of injury to be established. Id. at *34.

Here, Employer has stipulated that subsection (b)(1) is inapplicable, and thus we
need not consider whether Employee knew or reasonably should have known he had a
permanent injury more than fifteen days prior to filing his PBD. Furthermore, it is
undisputed that Employee believed his back pain was caused by work-related activities,
possibly as early as October 2023. Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, the only pertinent
question is whether Employee was “rendered unable to continue to perform [his] normal
work activities as a result of work-related injury,” which would trigger his obligation to
provide notice within fifteen days. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-201(b)(2) (2024). In other
words, “at what point in time [was he] unable to engage in or . . . restricted from normal
work activities due to a work-related condition.” White v. Federal Express Corp., No.
2021-08-1065, 2025 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 8, at *19 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp.
App. Bd. Mar. 6, 2025).

Here, the record contains no evidence that any physician assigned restrictions that
would have prevented Employee from performing his normal work duties between the date
he began having symptoms in October or November 2023 and his termination on June 7,
2024. Indeed, the questionnaire completed by Dr. Wallace states he had not placed any
restrictions on Employee’s work activities.

In support of its argument, Employer points to Employee’s testimony concerning
the two days Employee testified that he worked from home due to his back pain. Noting a
lack of precedent interpreting the phrase “unable to continue to perform . . . normal work
activities,” Employer argues that Employee’s decision to modify his own work duties to
perform his clerical work from home on days he was in pain qualifies as an inability to
perform his work duties and thus triggered his obligation to provide notice of a work injury.
However, Employer’s argument does not consider the long line of Tennessee cases
discussing the application of the “last day worked” rule to gradual injuries, which helps
identify the date of injury in such cases for purposes of triggering both the notice
requirement and the applicable statute of limitations.

4
Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-201 was amended as of July 1, 2025, but the present case arose
prior to the effective date of such amendments, so we have relied on the language of section 201 as it existed
prior to the most recent amendments. Furthermore, the language relevant to our analysis did not change.

6
We previously discussed the “last day worked rule” in Nickerson v. Knox County
Government, in which we explained:

[I]n Building Materials Corp. v. Britt, 211 S.W.3d 706 (Tenn. 2007), the
employee claimed he suffered a gradual injury to his low back. In analyzing
the date-of-injury issue, the Tennessee Supreme Court explained, “[i]n the
case of a gradually occurring injury, the last-day-worked rule is used to help
identify a date on which the injury occurred.” Id. at 711. The Court
considered cases from other jurisdictions and concluded that “the date of
injury for a gradually occurring injury is the last day worked.” Id. at 712
(citing Lawson v. Lear Seating Corp., 944 S.W.2d 340, 341-42 (Tenn.
1997)).

However, in Hix v. TRW, Inc., M2007-02822-WC-R3-WC, 2009
Tenn. LEXIS 285 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel June 12, 2009), a hearing
loss case, the Appeals Panel considered whether the “last day worked” rule
dictated the identification of the date of injury in every gradual injury case.
Specifically, the Panel explained the issue as follows:

[T]he question before this panel is whether the “last day
worked” rule should be applied where the evidence clearly
establishes a date prior to the last day worked where injurious
exposure ceased, the testimony clearly establishes that no
further deterioration of the employee’s condition occurred as a
result of a workplace injury after the last day of injurious
exposure, and the employee ceased working for the employer
for reasons unrelated to the workplace injury.

Id. at *17-18. The Appeals Panel concluded that the date of injury is “the
last day the employee was exposed to the work activity that caused the
injury,” which may not be the last day worked. Id. at *19 (quoting Barnett
v. Earthworks Unlimited, Inc., 197 S.W.3d 716, 721-22 (Tenn. 2006)). See
also Buckingham v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co., No. M2006-01587-WC-R3-WC,
2007 Tenn. LEXIS 910, at *13 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel Oct. 25, 2007)
(In a carpal tunnel syndrome case, the Appeals Panel noted that the Supreme
Court had “squarely declined to adopt . . . the date the injury manifests itself
as the date of injury,” looking instead to the date the employee last engaged
in the work activity causing the injury.). Thus, in cumulative trauma cases,
in which the employee’s condition is considered a “new injury each day at
work,” see Barnett, 197 S.W.3d at 721, a court may determine the date of
injury by considering the last day worked or the date the employee was last
exposed to the work activity that caused the injury.

7
Nickerson v. Knox Cty. Gov’t, No. 2019-02-0559, 2020 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS
52, at *12-13 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Sept. 2, 2020) (footnotes omitted), aff’d,
Nickerson v. Knox Cty. Gov’t, No. E2020-01286-SC-R3-WC, 2021 Tenn. LEXIS 124
(Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel June 8, 2021).

Here, Employee testified that he performed clerical tasks associated with his job at
home for two days due to pain in his back; however, the record indicates he returned to
work performing all of his normal job duties until his termination on June 7, 2024. As
such, each day in which Employee performed the manual labor tasks of his job, to which
he and Dr. Wallace primarily attributed his back condition, could be considered a new
injury at work. See Barnett, 197 S.W.3d at 721. At this interlocutory stage of the case,
there is no evidence to suggest that Employee’s exposure to the injurious conditions of his
employment had ended prior to his termination. Thus, nothing in the record indicates
Employee was unable to perform his normal work duties in the months preceding his
termination or that his termination was due to any physical restrictions or his inability to
perform the work. Therefore, at this interlocutory stage of the case, there is no evidence
indicating Employee’s notice requirement was triggered prior to the date he filed his PBD.
Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence supports the trial court’s determination
that Employee is likely to prevail at trial in showing he gave timely notice of his alleged
gradual injury.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order compelling Employer to
provide a panel of spine specialists and remand the case. Costs on appeal are taxed to
Employer.

8
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Bobur Isoyev Docket No. 2024-10-4374

v. State File No. 860243-2024

Nippon Paint Automotive
Americas, Inc., et al.

Appeal from the Court of Workers’
Compensation Claims
Thomas L. Wyatt, 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 11th day of
February, 2026.

Name Certified First Class Via Via Sent to:
Mail Mail Fax Email
Allen Callison X allen.callison@mgclaw.com
andrea.berrier@mgclaw.com
Bobur Isoyev X bobisoyev@gmail.com
Thomas L. Wyatt, 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