# Umberger, Tucker v. Michael Ignatz d/b/a Attention to Details, LLC

> Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · May 14, 2025 · 2025 TN WC 28

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11053790

## Case

- **Court:** Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
- **Decided:** May 14, 2025
- **Citations:** 2025 TN WC 28
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Switzer
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11053790

## Opinion text

FILED
May 14, 2025
08:12 AM(CT)
TENNESSEE COURT OF
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CLAIMS

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
AT NASHVILLE

Tucker Umberger, ) Docket No. 2024-60-5331
Petitioner, )
v. ) State File No. 860297-2024
Michael Ignatz d/b/a Attention to )
Details, LLC, ) Judge Kenneth M. Switzer
Respondent. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

The Court held an expedited hearing on May 6, 2025, where Tucker Umberger
requested medical and temporary disability benefits from Michael Ignatz d/b/a Attention
to Details, LLC.

Mr. Umberger suffered serious injuries from a significant fall at a construction
project. He claimed Mr. Ignatz was his employer. Mr. Ignatz admittedly did not have
workers’ compensation insurance and contended that Mr. Umberger was an independent
contractor.

The Court holds Mr. Umberger would likely prevail at trial in showing that he was
an employee and therefore he is entitled to medical benefits. In addition, Mr. Umberger
satisfied the eligibility requirements for discretionary benefits from the Uninsured
Employers Fund.

Claim History

Proof at trial

Mr. Umberger testified that Mr. Ignatz hired him to do construction work. He said
that at the time, Mr. Ignatz told him that he had insurance, a great deal of work to do, and
that the job might afford future opportunities.

1
Mr. Umberger worked for approximately one month before the accident. He
described a work environment characterized largely by Mr. Ignatz controlling his and other
workers’ activities, their workdays and hours worked. If Mr. Ignatz took a day off, no one
worked. Mr. Ignatz decided each day which tasks they would perform and in what order
under his supervision, “coaching” them on how he wanted things done. Mr. Umberger
said, “I was never allowed to work on my own time and pace on my own. I was paid by
the hour and never by the job.” Mr. Ignatz paid him $25 per hour and provided most tools
and supplies, except for Mr. Umberger’s own screw gun and corded saw.

For his part, Mr. Ignatz testified that he has never had any W-2 employees and his
operation is “not big enough.” He never made Mr. Umberger complete an application and
did not even know his last name. Mr. Ignatz said the work is inconsistent and available
only when he needs help. He gave no worker a paycheck, he said, but rather paid them in
cash or by a mobile phone payment app, and he gave them 1099s at year’s end. Mr. Ignatz
said he is a sole proprietor and a “handyman that was fortunate enough to get some bigger
jobs[.]”

As he was laying subflooring with Mr. Ignatz on May 28, 2024, Mr. Umberger fell
and landed on his neck and upper back. An ambulance transported him for emergency
treatment. At the hospital, he was diagnosed with a “[f]all from high place,” and fractures
to his upper sternum, ribs, thoracic spine, and cervical spine.

Early in his treatment, Mr. Umberger learned that Mr. Ignatz’s insurance did not
include workers’ compensation, so he was offered financial aid from the hospital. The
June 1 discharge notes state that he fell “from a deck moving a board,” and that Mr.
Umberger’s spine fractures would be treated non-surgically. He said that meant wearing a
neck brace that significantly hampered his movements, and he was essentially bedridden
for several weeks.

Mr. Umberger underwent some follow-up treatment, including a visit with Dr. Scott
Zuckerman and a physician assistant on July 30. They described him as using a “rigid
cervical collar” and showing improvement, although further diagnostic treating was
necessary. Mr. Umberger said he was unable to continue treating when the financial
assistance ran out. Mr. Umberger offered no medical bills or admissible proof of when he
was taken off work. 1

Mr. Umberger healed over time and began working as a truck driver on March 19,
2025.

1 Mr. Umberger offered two notes taking him off work, which were not admitted into evidence because

they are signed by nurses rather than physicians. Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-
21-.16(2)(b) (2023) states that medical records are admissible when signed by a physician or accompanied
by a form signed by a medical provider or records custodian certifying that the records are true and accurate.

2
On August 7, 2024, Mr. Umberger filed a petition for benefit determination that
gave his address in Antioch, Tennessee. On receipt, the Bureau investigated whether Mr.
Ignatz had workers’ compensation insurance. The Bureau’s compliance specialist wrote a
report stating that she “received an e-mail from the employer Michael Ignatz stating he
does not have a Workers’ Compensation policy.” Mr. Ignatz confirmed this at the hearing
but argued worker’s compensation coverage was unnecessary because Mr. Umberger is an
independent contractor.

Mr. Ignatz testified that he mistakenly believed the policy he had would cover any
worker. He likewise did not know that he was required to have workers’ compensation
insurance. Mr. Ignatz expressed remorse over the accident and said he tried to help Mr.
Umberger afterward, both financially and by driving him to some of his follow-up medical
appointments.

Admissions

Mr. Umberger moved the Court to deem requests for admissions admitted under
Rule 36 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, which motion was heard at the
expedited hearing.

Mr. Umberger argued that he sent his admissions to Mr. Ignatz on February 6, 2025,
but Mr. Ignatz refused to respond. He wrote, “You were not an employee. So I can’t fill
out the form. You were a subcontractor.” Mr. Umberger further asserted that since Mr.
Ignatz did not respond within the 30 days that the rule allows, the Court should deem his
admissions as fact.

Rule 36 states in relevant part: “A party may serve upon any other party a
written request for the admission . . . of the truth of any matters . . . that relate to . . . facts,
the application of law to facts, or opinions about either[.]” The Appeals Board instructed
on Rule 36 in Holt v. Quality Floor Coverings, 2022 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 19,
at *5-6 (May 6, 2022), concluding that the rule is “self-executing.” The Board explained
that the admissions are “automatically” deemed admitted 30 days after the requests are
served unless the party receiving the requests acts in one of three ways as described under
the rule. If none of those three events happens, “the statements are deemed admitted and
are considered conclusively established unless the party to whom the requests were
directed later moves for withdrawal or amendment of the admissions[.]” Id.

Here, Mr. Ignatz did not respond to the requests for admissions, so Mr. Umberger’s
motion is unopposed, well-taken, and granted. The following admissions are summarized
and deemed admitted.

• On May 28,2024, Mr. Umberger was Mr. Ignatz’s employee.

3
• Mr. Ignatz operated a construction company and was building a two-story
high deck and screened-in sunroom with a roof. He did not have the required
workers’ compensation insurance on the date of injury.
• Mr. Umberger fell from a two-story deck while working for Mr. Ignatz.
• Mr. Ignatz witnessed the fall and had notice of Mr. Umberger’s work injury.
• The medical conditions and symptoms described by the emergency
department providers were caused primarily by Mr. Umberger’s work
accident.
• Mr. Umberger could not work as a result of the injuries sustained on May 28,
2024.
• Mr. Umberger’s average weekly wage is $1,000 while working for Mr.
Ignatz.
• Mr. Ignatz provided no cash benefits other than $1,600.
• The medical care Mr. Umberger received was reasonable, necessary, and
primarily related to the injuries he sustained from the fall on May 28, 2024,
while working for Mr. Ignatz.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Mr. Umberger must show he is likely to prevail on his requests at a hearing on the
merits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2024).

Employee or independent contractor

As a threshold matter, to recover workers’ compensation benefits, Mr. Umberger
must be an employee and not an independent contractor. Thompsen v. Concrete Solutions,
2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 3, at *13 (Feb. 10, 2015). The analysis begins with
the factors listed in section 50-6-102(10)(D)(i). They are: (a) the right of control over the
conduct of the work; (b) the right of termination; (c) the method of payment; (d) the
freedom to select and hire helpers; (e) the furnishing of tools and equipment; (f) self-
scheduling of work hours; and (g) the freedom to offer services to other entities. Further,
“[w]hile no single factor is determinative, the Tennessee Supreme Court has repeatedly
emphasized the importance of the right to control[.]” Thompsen, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp.
App. Bd. LEXIS 3 at *15.

Considering the applicable factors, Mr. Umberger credibly testified that Mr. Ignatz
decided each day’s tasks and supervised all workers as they performed their duties with his
“coaching.” Mr. Umberger never worked independently. Mr. Ignatz offered no contrary
proof. Thus, the first, and “most important factor” per the Appeals Board, favors a finding
that Mr. Umberger was an employee. Id. at *17.

As to the method of payment, Mr. Umberger was paid by the hour. Being paid

4
hourly rather than by completion of a job suggests an employment relationship. See id. at
*19. Further, Mr. Ignatz’s testimony that he gave Mr. Umberger a 1099 does not persuade
the Court that he was an independent contractor, since “[t]he fact that a company did not
deduct social security or income taxes is not a controlling factor in deciding whether an
employer-employee relationship existed.” Id. at *14. This factor favors a finding that Mr.
Umberger was an employee.

As to the furnishing of tools and equipment, Mr. Ignatz provided all tools except for
Mr. Umberger’s screw gun and corded saw. In Thompsen, similarly, the worker brought
“only small, personal tools” to the job site, while “large tools, power tools and equipment
were supplied by the company,” which suggested an employer-employee finding. This
factor also favors Mr. Umberger as an employee.

Finally, regarding the scheduling of work hours, Mr. Umberger testified without
contradiction that Mr. Ignatz set their hours and decided which days they would work. As
in Thompsen, this supports the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Id. at *21.

Mr. Ignatz testified that he does not consider himself an employer for many reasons,
such as his unfamiliarity with Mr. Umberger, the way that he pays workers, the project-by-
project and inconsistent nature of the work he offers, and the size of his business operation.
Of these, only the method of payment is a statutory factor, which the Court has found favors
Mr. Umberger. But also, Mr. Ignatz’s belief that he created an independent contractor
relationship is irrelevant, as “Tennessee law is clear that the intent of the parties is not
dispositive on this issue.” Id. at *16.

In sum, the relevant factors all favor a finding that Mr. Umberger was an employee.
Moreover, the Court has deemed Mr. Ignatz’s admission on this question as admitted. The
Court holds Mr. Umberger is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that he was Mr.
Ignatz’s employee.

Injury arising out of employment and benefits

The next question is whether Mr. Umberger suffered an injury arising primarily out
of and in the course and scope of his employment with Mr. Ignatz. § 50-6-102(12). Mr.
Umberger credibly testified that he was seriously injured from the fall at work, and he
offered medical records to support that. For his part, Mr. Ignatz testified that the accident
happened and in a frank moment said that he feared he would find Mr. Umberger dead
from the fall. His admissions confirmed the accident’s occurrence and that the injury arose
primarily out of work.

The Court finds Mr. Umberger would likely prevail at trial in showing that the fall
at work caused multiple, serious injuries and his need for treatment. Therefore, under
section 50-6-204(a)(1)(A), Mr. Ignatz is required to furnish treatment made reasonably

5
necessary by the accident, free of charge to Mr. Umberger.

Mr. Ignatz did not offer treatment, so Mr. Umberger was forced to treat on his own.
He has established a doctor-patient relationship with Dr. Zuckerman. The Court holds that
Mr. Ignatz must pay for all future reasonable, necessary, and work-related treatment with
him or other providers at the hospital where he treated. See Young v. Young Elec., 2016
TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *18-19 (May 25, 2016) (Where an employer
refuses to provide timely treatment in a compensable claim, the employee is justified in
seeking treatment on his own and is entitled to continue treating with his established doctor
as an authorized physician.).

Turning now to temporary total disability benefits, Mr. Umberger must show: (1)
he became disabled from working due to a compensable injury; (2) a causal connection
between the injury and his inability to work; and (3) the period of his disability. Temporary
total disability benefits are terminated by the ability to return to work. Jones v. Crencor
Leasing and Sales, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 48, at *7 (Dec. 11, 2015).

Applying this authority, the testimony, medical records, and admissions confirm
that Mr. Umberger suffered multiple, serious fractures from the fall at work. He credibly
testified that he wore a brace to heal for several weeks that curtailed his movement and
very likely prevented him from working. However, he did not offer admissible proof of a
physician taking him off work or conveying the duration of disability. He may obtain this
proof and renew this request at a later expedited hearing (potentially on the record under
Rule 0800-02-21-.15(1)(e)) or the compensation hearing.

Uninsured Employers Fund

Finally, construction services providers in Tennessee are required to have workers’
compensation insurance on all employees. § 50-6-902. By his own admission, the Court
finds Mr. Ignatz failed to carry workers’ compensation insurance at the time of Mr.
Umberger’s injury. The fact that he did not know about this requirement is unfortunate,
and his attempts to assist Mr. Umberger to some degree after the accident are laudable.
But those facts cannot shield him from the consequences.

If Mr. Ignatz does not provide the required benefits, the Uninsured Employers Fund
has discretion to pay limited medical and temporary disability benefits if certain criteria
are met. (See the attached Benefits Request Form). Mr. Umberger must establish that he:
1) worked for an uninsured employer; 2) suffered an injury arising primarily in the course
and scope of employment on or after July 1, 2015; 3) resided in Tennessee on the date of
injury; 4) notified the Bureau of the injury and Mr. Ignatz’s lack of coverage within 180
days of the injury; and 5) secured a judgment for workers’ compensation benefits against
Mr. Ignatz. § 50-6-801(d)(1)-(5).

6
The Court finds that Mr. Umberger worked for an uninsured employer, Mr. Ignatz,
and holds he is likely to prove at a hearing on the merits that he suffered an injury arising
primarily in the course and scope of employment on May 28, 2024. Mr. Umberger was a
Tennessee resident on that date, and he notified the Bureau within 180 days of the injury
about Mr. Ignatz’s lack of insurance. This order serves as a judgment for benefits.

Thus, the Court holds that Mr. Umberger satisfied the requirements of section 50-
6-801(d). He may complete and submit the form for consideration of a discretionary
payment through the Uninsured Employers Fund.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Mr. Ignatz shall pay for all future reasonable, necessary, and work-related
treatment for Mr. Umberger with Dr. Zuckerman or other providers at the
hospital where he treated for the May 28, 2024 injury.

2. Mr. Umberger is eligible to request benefits from the Uninsured Employers
Fund, awarded at the Administrator’s discretion under section 50-6-802(e)(1).
To do so, he must complete and file the attached form.

3. The Court sets a Status Hearing on September 8 at 10:15 a.m. Central Time.
You must call 615-532-9552 or 866-943-0025 to participate.

4. Unless an interlocutory appeal of the Expedited Hearing Order is filed,
compliance with this Order must occur no later than seven business days from
the date of entry of this Order as required by section 50-6-239(d)(3). Mr. Ignatz
must submit confirmation of compliance with this Order to the Bureau by email
to WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov no later than the seventh business day after
entry of this Order. Failure to submit confirmation within seven business days
may result in a penalty assessment for noncompliance. For questions regarding
compliance, contact the Workers’ Compensation Compliance Unit via email at
WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov.

ENTERED May 14, 2025.

_____________________________________
JUDGE KENNETH M. SWITZER
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

7
APPENDIX
Exhibits:
1. Expedited Request for Investigation Report
2. Composite medical records
3. Affidavit of Tucker Umberger

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on May 14, 2025.

Name Certified Regular Email Sent to
Mail mail
Tucker Umberger, X X tuckerkentmusic@gmail.com
petitioner 87 Shepherd Hills Dr.
Madison TN 37115
Michael Ignatz, X X X attentiontodetailstn@gmail.com
respondent 8915 Ramblewood Dr.
Coral Springs Florida 33071
Uninsured X Lashawn.pender@tn.gov
Employers Fund

_______________________________________
Penny Shrum
Clerk, Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov

8
Right to Appeal:
If you disagree with the Court’s Order, you may appeal to the Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Board. To do so, you must:
1. Complete the enclosed form entitled “Notice of Appeal” and file it with the Clerk of the
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims before the expiration of the deadline.
¾ If the order being appealed is “expedited” (also called “interlocutory”), or if the
order does not dispose of the case in its entirety, the notice of appeal must be filed
within seven (7) business days of the date the order was filed.
¾ If the order being appealed is a “Compensation Order,” or if it resolves all issues
in the case, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty (30) calendar days of
the date the Compensation Order was filed.
When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must serve a copy on the opposing party (or attorney,
if represented).

2. You must pay, via check, money order, or credit card, a $75.00 filing fee within ten calendar
days after filing the Notice of Appeal. Payments can be made in-person at any Bureau office
or by U.S. mail, hand-delivery, or other delivery service. In the alternative, you may file an
Affidavit of Indigency (form available on the Bureau’s website or any Bureau office)
seeking a waiver of the filing fee. You must file the fully-completed Affidavit of Indigency
within ten calendar days of filing the Notice of Appeal. Failure to timely pay the filing
fee or file the Affidavit of Indigency will result in dismissal of your appeal.

3. You are responsible for ensuring a complete record is presented on appeal. If no court
reporter was present at the hearing, you may request from the Court Clerk the audio
recording of the hearing for a $25.00 fee. If you choose to submit a transcript as part of your
appeal, which the Appeals Board has emphasized is important for a meaningful review of
the case, a licensed court reporter must prepare the transcript, and you must file it with the
Court Clerk. The Court Clerk will prepare the record for submission to the Appeals Board,
and you will receive notice once it has been submitted. For deadlines related to the filing of
transcripts, statements of the evidence, and briefs on appeal, see the applicable rules on the
Bureau’s website at https://www.tn.gov/wcappealsboard. (Click the “Read Rules” button.)

4. After the Workers’ Compensation Judge approves the record and the Court Clerk transmits
it to the Appeals Board, a docketing notice will be sent to the parties.
If neither party timely files an appeal with the Appeals Board, the Court Order
becomes enforceable. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(3) (expedited/interlocutory
orders) and Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(7) (compensation orders).

For self-represented litigants: Help from an Ombudsman is available at 800-332-2667.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
www.tn.gov/workforce/injuries-at-work/
wc.courtclerk@tn.gov | 1-800-332-2667

Docket No.: ________________________

State File No.: ______________________

Date of Injury: _____________________

___________________________________________________________________________
Employee

v.

___________________________________________________________________________
Employer

Notice is given that ____________________________________________________________________
[List name(s) of all appealing party(ies). Use separate sheet if necessary.]

appeals the following order(s) of the Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims to the
Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board;ĐŚĞĐŬŽŶĞŽƌŵŽƌĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞďŽdžĞƐĂŶĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞĚĂƚĞĨŝůĞͲ
ƐƚĂŵƉĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚƉĂŐĞŽĨƚŚĞŽƌĚĞƌ;ƐͿďĞŝŶŐĂƉƉĞĂůĞĚͿ͗

□ Expedited Hearing Order filed on _______________ □ Motion Order filed on ___________________
□ Compensation Order filed on__________________ □ Other Order filed on_____________________
issued by Judge _________________________________________________________________________.

Statement of the Issues on Appeal
Provide a short and plain statement of the issues on appeal or basis for relief on appeal:
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

Parties
Appellant(s) (Requesting Party): _________________________________________ ‫܆‬Employer ‫܆‬Employee
Address: ________________________________________________________ Phone: ___________________
Email: __________________________________________________________
Attorney’s Name: ______________________________________________ BPR#: _______________________
Attorney’s Email: ______________________________________________ Phone: _______________________
Attorney’s Address: _________________________________________________________________________
* Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellant *

LB-1099 rev. 01/20 Page 1 of 2 RDA 11082
Employee Name: _______________________________________ Docket No.: _____________________ Date of Inj.: _______________

Appellee(s) (Opposing Party): ___________________________________________ ‫܆‬Employer ‫܆‬Employee
Appellee’s Address: ______________________________________________ Phone: ____________________
Email: _________________________________________________________
Attorney’s Name: _____________________________________________ BPR#: ________________________
Attorney’s Email: _____________________________________________ Phone: _______________________
Attorney’s Address: _________________________________________________________________________
* Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellee *

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, _____________________________________________________________, certify that I have forwarded a
true and exact copy of this Notice of Appeal by First Class mail, postage prepaid, or in any manner as described
in Tennessee Compilation Rules & Regulations, Chapter 0800-02-21, to all parties and/or their attorneys in this
case on this the __________ day of ___________________________________, 20 ____.

______________________________________________
[Signature of appellant or attorney for appellant]

LB-1099 rev. 01/20 Page 2 of 2 RDA 11082

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11053790. Public record. Not legal advice.