Opinion

Sanders, Brandy v. NORTHSHORE HEIGHTS ASSISTED LIVING

  • 2025 TN WC 42
Court
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Filed
Jul 10, 2025
Status
Published
On the bench
Johnson
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 37.8%

The opinion

FILED

Jul 10, 2025

01:11 PM(ET)

TENNESSEE COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT KNOXVILLE

BRANDY SANDERS, ) Docket No. 2023-03-00982

Employee, )

v. )

NORTHSHORE HEIGHTS )

ASSISTED LIVING, ) State File No. 92079-2022

Employer, )

and )

CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE )

COMPANY, ) Judge Pamela B. Johnson

Carrier. )

COMPENSATION ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Northshore Heights filed a motion for summary judgment. The issue is whether

Brandy Sanders presented sufficient evidence of a causal connection between her

employment and her injury, which is an essential element of her claim. For the reasons

below, the Court holds that Ms. Sanders did not present the necessary evidence and

Northshore Heights is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

History of Claim

Northshore Heights filed a statement of undisputed material facts with citations to

the record in compliance with Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 56.03 (2024). The

relevant facts are summarized below:

1. Ms. Sanders allegedly injured her right wrist and back at work in October 2022

while trying to move a patient in a wheelchair.

2. Her petition lists an October 14, 2022 injury date.

3. Her sworn discovery responses provide an October 5, 2022 injury date.

4. During her deposition, Ms. Sanders testified that she could not remember the date

that she became injured at work.

5. Ms. Sanders has not offered any medical evidence that her injury was caused by a

1

specific incident, or set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence,

and arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment.

Ms. Sanders did not respond to the motion as required by Rule 56.03. However, in

her petition, she alleged that she injured her right wrist and back while moving a patient at

work. Medical records attached to her petition noted that she sought care at the emergency

room on October 21, 2022, and reported that “she does a lot of lifting for her job, and a

week ago she developed a right wrist cyst.” She was diagnosed with a right-wrist ganglion

cyst. Her past medical history listed chronic low-back pain.

At the motion hearing, Northshore Heights asserted that Ms. Sanders bears the

burden to prove her claim. She did not file a response to its statement of undisputed facts,

so the statements should be deemed admitted. Further, it contended that she has no proof

of a compensable work injury, identifiable by time and place, and no admissible medical

proof causally relating her injuries and need for treatment to her employment. Because she

offered no expert medical opinion proving her injuries or conditions arose primarily out of

her employment, Northshore Heights argued it is entitled to summary judgment.

Ms. Sanders, through counsel, conceded that she does not have an expert medical

opinion causally relating her injuries or conditions to her employment. Her counsel also

reported that Ms. Sanders fired him the morning before the court-ordered mediation, which

was set the same day as the motion hearing. She did not appear or participate in the

mediation. Later, she contacted her attorney, and they discussed how to proceed.

Her attorney asked for permission either to voluntarily nonsuit or additional time

for Ms. Sanders to find new counsel. Her attorney acknowledged that no motion to

withdraw or to substitute was pending.

Analysis

Motion to Voluntary Nonsuit

Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.24(1) (2023) governs

voluntary dismissals. It states, “[a] party may move to voluntarily dismiss a petition for

benefit determination only once.” The rule further provides that a request for voluntary

dismissal cannot be granted if a motion for summary judgment is pending. Thomas v.

Duracell-Cleveland, 2024 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 11, at *10 (Mar. 11, 2024).

Here, a motion for summary judgment is pending. Thus, under the rule, the request

for voluntary dismissal is denied.

2

Motion for Additional Time to Withdraw or Substitute Counsel

Rule 0800-02-21-.04(3) governs motions to withdraw or substitute counsel and

similarly offers Ms. Sanders no relief. The rule states that “[r]epresentation continues until

the case concludes, including all appeals, or the judge grants a motion to withdraw. An

attorney seeking to withdraw must file a motion with reasonable notice provided to the

represented party.” The rule additionally requires an affidavit from the attorney containing

the client’s last-known mailing address, email address, telephone number, and a declaration

that the attorney notified the client of both the effects of the attorney’s withdrawal from

the case and of any deadlines and scheduled proceedings.

In this case, Ms. Sanders retained Attorney Glen Rutherford to represent her. He

filed the petition on her behalf in February 2023 and has represented her in numerous

hearings since then. Although her counsel verbally requested additional time to withdraw

or to substitute counsel, no motion is currently pending. Thus, the request is unreasonable

at this stage.

Motion for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment

as a matter of law.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04. To prevail, Northshore Heights must do one of

two things: (1) submit affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of Ms.

Sanders’s claim, or (2) demonstrate that Ms. Sanders’s evidence is insufficient to establish

entitlement to benefits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-16-101 (2024); see also Rye v. Women’s

Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 264 (Tenn. 2015). If Northshore Heights

is successful in meeting this burden, Ms. Sanders must then establish that the record

contains specific facts upon which the Court could base a decision in her favor. Rye, 477

S.W.3d 235 at 265.

Rule 56.03 imposes specific requirements that both the party filing and the party

opposing summary judgment must meet. Thomas v. Zipp Express, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp.

App. Bd. LEXIS 22, at *11 n.4 (Mar. 15, 2017).

Specifically, Rule 56.03 requires that Northshore Heights file a statement of

undisputed facts with citations to the record in support of its motion. Northshore Heights

did so. Ms. Sanders must then file a response to that statement of facts, stating either her

agreement or disagreement with the facts. She did not.

Although Ms. Sanders’s failure to respond does not automatically entitle Northshore

Heights to summary judgment, it does prevent her from disputing any of the facts in

Northshore’s statement of material facts. See United Servs. Inds., Inc. v. Sloan, 1988 Tenn.

3

App. LEXIS 592, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 1988) (An adverse party’s failure to

respond to a motion for summary judgment does not relieve the moving party of the burden

of establishing an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; rather, an absence of response

only precludes factual disputes.). Therefore, the facts are undisputed.

However, the analysis does not stop here, as the Court must determine whether

under Rule 56.06 summary judgment is “appropriate.”

The essential element at issue comes from Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-

6-102(12)(A)-(D), which requires an expert medical opinion that the injury, identifiable by

time and place, arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Northshore Heights met its initial burden of demonstrating that Ms. Sanders’s

evidence is insufficient to establish entitlement to benefits. The burden then shifted to Ms.

Sanders to present specific facts upon which the trial court could rule in her favor. She

failed to do so. See Williamson v. Prof. Care Servs., 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS

43 (Aug. 13, 2018) (The employer offered sufficient evidence at the summary judgment

stage to show that the employee could not prove an essential element of her case

(causation), and the employee failed to produce evidence of a disputed issue of material

fact.).

Ms. Sanders presented no medical evidence that her injury arose primarily out of

and in the course and scope of her employment. Thus, because no genuine issue of material

fact exists as to the question of causation, Northshore Heights is entitled to summary

judgment as a matter of law.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Ms. Sanders’s claim is dismissed with prejudice. The Compensation Hearing set for

August 12, 2025, is canceled.

2. Unless appealed, this order shall become final in 30 days.

3. The Court assesses the $150.00 filing fee against Northshore Heights, for which

execution might issue as necessary. Northshore Heights shall pay the filing fee to

the Court Clerk within five business days of the order becoming final.

4. Northshore Heights shall file Form SD-2, Statistical Data Form, with the Court

Clerk within five business days of this order becoming final.

4

ENTERED July 10, 2025.

_____________________________________

JUDGE PAMELA B. JOHNSON

Court of Workers’ Compensation

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this order was sent as shown on July 10, 2025.

Name Mail Email Service sent to:

Glen B. Rutherford, X grutherford@knoxlawyers.com

Employee’s Attorney

Allen Callison, X allen.callison@mgclaw.com

Trent Norris, trent.norris@mgclaw.com

Employer’s Attorneys

_____________________________________

PENNY SHRUM, COURT CLERK

wc.courtclerk@tn.gov

5

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.

 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.

 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.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.