The opinion
FILED
Jul 17, 2025
08:17 AM(CT)
TENNESSEE COURT OF
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CLAIMS
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
AT NASHVILLE
Sabrina Rooks, ) Docket No. 2024-60-5751
Employee, )
v. )
Amazon.com, ) State File No. 38259-2024
Employer, )
And )
American Zurich Insurance Company, ) Judge Kenneth M. Switzer
Carrier. )
EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER
The Court held an expedited hearing on July 9, 2025, originally scheduled to
consider two issues: Sabrina Rooks’s entitlement to medical care based on a direct referral
and temporary partial disability benefits.
At the opening of the hearing, Amazon announced that an appointment was set with
Dr. Christopher Jones on July 16. Ms. Rooks’s authorized physician directly referred her
to Dr. Jones on July 3, 2024. Considering this delay, the Court refers Amazon to the
Compliance Program for consideration of a penalty. The Court additionally finds that
Amazon unreasonably failed to provide treatment.
As to temporary partial benefits, Ms. Rooks argued Amazon created the conditions
that caused her to violate a workplace rule: no sleeping on the job. Ms. Rooks admitted
she fell asleep at work several times. The Court finds that Amazon proved Ms. Rooks
violated a valid workplace rule and holds she is unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the
merits on entitlement to these benefits.
Claim History
Ms. Rooks broke her right foot in a non-work-related accident in April 2024. Dr.
Jones treated her injury, prescribing hydrocodone and a knee scooter for mobility. Ms.
Rooks did not offer his treatment records into evidence.
1
Amazon returned Ms. Rooks to work under the restriction. On May 29, 2024, she
injured her right foot, ankle, and knee when her scooter became entangled in debris on the
warehouse floor. Amazon accepted the claim, although the dispute certification notice lists
compensability as an issue.
Over the next few weeks, Ms. Rooks saw authorized physician Dr. Frank Thomas
several times. Amazon forms show that Dr. Thomas checked a box stating that the injury
related to work and placed her on light-duty on July 3 and four other times. Ms. Rooks
said that both before and after the work injury, Amazon accommodated her restrictions by
offering her work “typing on the computer.”
She testified to many difficulties with the work accommodations before and after
the work injury. Before, a human resources worker “harassed” her about working with an
open-toe boot. Ms. Rooks also needed to walk a lengthy distance using crutches or the
scooter to get ice for her knee. Later, the onsite clinic stopped giving her ice altogether.
For approximately a month after the work injury, Ms. Rooks was “decoded,”
meaning her log-in credentials did not work. She was unable to find anyone in IT or human
resources who could assist her with getting into the system. Her supervisor was frequently
unavailable as well. As a result, she had no work to do. She and others at the
“accommodation table” often looked at their phones or socialized to pass the time. Ms.
Rooks put in 10.5-hour shifts, working from 6:30 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., Sunday through
Wednesday. Additionally, medication she took for her injury made her sleepy.
Ms. Rooks candidly admitted that she fell asleep at work as many as six times
between June and August 22, 2024, when Amazon terminated her. She also agreed that
before the termination, Amazon warned her she could be fired for sleeping on the job. Ms.
Rooks has not worked since the termination.
Amazon confirmed two of the sleeping incidents by offering, without objection,
“Supportive Feedback Documents” showing that on July 23 and August 12 Ms. Rooks was
found sleeping in violation of a workplace policy. The forms state that she acknowledged
them, which Ms. Rooks disputed. One of the forms is dated September 5, 2024—two
weeks after her termination.
Amazon also offered a records-review report from Dr. Jeffrey Hazlewood finding
that Ms. Rooks’s condition is not more than 50% related to the May 29 work incident.
As for the appointment with Dr. Jones, the Court previously ordered that Amazon
must honor the referral before scheduling an employer’s examination. The Appeals Board
affirmed this order on May 20, 2025. On June 13, Ms. Rooks filed a motion to compel
treatment with Dr. Jones because Amazon did not comply with the previous order.
2
Amazon filed a response in opposition to the motion on June 23, the last day permitted by
Court rules. Amazon switched course the next day and informed Ms. Rooks’s counsel that
it scheduled an appointment with Dr. Jones.
The treating physician, Dr. Thomas, made the direct referral recommendation five
times previously, all in 2024. On July 3 and August 8, he referred her to Dr. Jones, and on
August 5, 19, and 21, he referred her to an orthopedic specialist.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ms. Rooks must show she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. Tenn. Code
Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2024); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk.
Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015).
Injury arising out of employment
As a threshold issue, Amazon argued that Ms. Rooks has not suffered an injury
arising primarily out of employment, based on Dr. Hazlewood’s report.
Dr. Hazlewood’s findings at this stage are of little value to the Court for a several
reasons. First, neither party filed the records that the doctor reviewed to form his opinions,
so the Court cannot compare his conclusions to what the records document. Second, Dr.
Hazlewood wrote, “[T]his case is very murky and gray[,]” suggesting his own lack of
confidence in his opinion. Third, some of his conclusions are based essentially on an
assessment of Ms. Rooks’s credibility, which is this Court’s role. On the other hand, Dr.
Thomas completed Amazon’s forms by checking “work-related” and made unambiguous
referrals. Amazon’s causation challenge is unpersuasive, and the Court holds that Ms.
Rooks will likely prevail at trial in showing that her injury arose primarily out of and in the
course and scope of employment.
Temporary disability benefits
Turning now to temporary partial disability benefits, this refers to the time during
which the injured employee can resume some gainful employment but has not reached
maximum recovery. Mace v. Express Servs., Inc., 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS
49, at *8 (Dec. 11, 2015). However, even though an employee has a work-related injury
for which temporary benefits are payable, an employer may still enforce workplace
rules. Id. Further, “[a]n employer will not be penalized for enforcing a policy if the court
determines (1) that the actions allegedly precipitating the employee’s dismissal qualified
as misconduct under established or ordinary workplace rules and/or expectations; and (2)
that those actions were, as a factual matter, the true motivation for the dismissal.” Id. at
*9.
3
Here, the conditions of the light-duty work that Amazon offered Ms. Rooks were
not conducive to her accomplishing much work. Her unrebutted testimony was that she
was locked out of the computer system for approximately one month, and no one was able
to help her access it during that time. So, she had nothing to do, given that her task was
“typing on the computer.” Ms. Rooks worked lengthy, 10.5-hour overnight shifts, sitting
for virtually the entire time, and while taking narcotic pain medication. The Court
understands why she fell asleep and respects her honesty in admitting this.
Regardless, being awake on the job was an established workplace rule and is a valid,
ordinary workplace expectation. While Ms. Rooks testified to some conflict with human
resources staff about her prescription boot and denial of ice for her injury, those
circumstances do not persuade the Court that Amazon terminated her for any reason other
than her sleeping on the job. Therefore, the Court holds Ms. Rooks is not likely to prevail
at a hearing on the merits that she is entitled to temporary partial disability.
Penalty referral
The Court will not restate the many reasons it offered for penalties in the previous
order.
Rather, the Court simply reminds that Dr. Thomas’s wishes have been clear since
July 3, 2024. The statute uses unambiguous, mandatory language: “When necessary, the
treating physician . . . shall make referrals to a specialist[.] . . . The employer shall be
deemed to have accepted the referral,” unless the employer offers a panel of specialists
within three business days. § 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(ii) (Emphasis added). Further, “In all
cases where the treating physician has referred the employee to a specialist physician . . .
the specialist physician . . . shall become the treating physician[.]” § 50-6-204(a)(3)(E)
(Emphasis added). Amazon disregarded this statutory requirement.
In March 2025, this Court ordered that the referral must be honored before an
employer’s examination could occur, and the Appeals Board affirmed on May 20. Amazon
finally relented and authorized the appointment. This was 35 days later, and one day after
filing a pleading that still opposed the referral. At trial, while announcing the appointment,
Amazon continued to argue that its previous opposition to the referral was lawful.
The delay—over a year as counsel admitted—has impeded the progress of this case
and more importantly, Ms. Rooks’s healing. It is highly concerning.
Therefore, another referral to the Compliance Program is warranted. Section 50-6-
118(a)(8) calls for a penalty for “[f]ailure of any employer to timely provide medical
treatment made reasonably necessary by the accident and recommended by the authorized
treating physician[.]” The Court finds that Amazon violated this statute.
4
Regarding attorney’s fees, Ms. Rooks’s motion to compel treatment, which the
Court need not rule on, does not request fees. Likewise, the dispute certification notice
does not list fees for an unreasonable failure to provide treatment as an issue. However, as
of July 1, 2025, section 50-6-239(b) reads, “The presiding workers’ compensation judge
may, at the judge’s discretion grant permission for parties to present issues that have not
been certified by a workers’ compensation mediator.”
Section 50-6-226(d)(1)(B) states that a court may award attorney’s fees when an
employer “[u]nreasonably denies a claim or unreasonably fails to timely initiate any of
the benefits to which the employee . . . is entitled under this chapter[.]” (Emphasis added).
The Appeals Board has not offered recent guidance on the definition of “unreasonable” in
this context. McCool v. Prof. Care Servs., LLC, 2025 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS
22, at *5 (July 10, 2025). Dictionaries define “unreasonable” as follows: “Not guided by
reason; irrational or capricious,” Black’s Law Dictionary 1537 (7th ed. 1999); “Not
governed by or acting according to reason; not conformable to reason: absurd; exceeding
the bounds of reason or moderation,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/unreasonable (last visited July 16, 2025).
In Thompson v. Comcast Corp., the Appeals Board held that “absent highly unusual
circumstances, a case should be permitted to largely run its course, unencumbered by
uncertainties over future developments and the twists and turns inherent in litigation,
before an award of attorney’s fees and costs is made.” 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd.
LEXIS 1, at *37 (Jan. 30, 2018). However, in Thompson, the Board also affirmed a fee
award under somewhat similar circumstances: the employer refused to offer a panel of
specialists over several months’ time, and that fact would not change—nor would the fact
change that the employee’s attorney had to undertake significant work to secure the
requested relief. Id. at *32.
The Court holds that Amazon unreasonably and capriciously failed to timely initiate
medical benefits under section 50-6-226(d)(1)(B).
Therefore, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Amazon shall authorize reasonable, necessary, and work-related treatment with
orthopedic specialist Dr. Christopher Jones.
2. Ms. Rooks’s request for temporary partial disability benefits is denied at this time.
3. This case is referred to the Compliance Program for consideration of a penalty.
4. The Court sets a status hearing on October 27 at 10:30 a.m. Central Time. You
must dial 615-532-9552 or 866-943-0025 to participate.
5
5. 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 Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(3). The
Employer 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 non-compliance. For questions regarding
compliance, contact the Workers’ Compensation Compliance Unit via email at
WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov.
ENTERED July 17, 2025.
________________________________________
JUDGE KENNETH M. SWITZER
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
Appendix
Exhibits
1. Rule 72 Declaration of Sabrina Rooks
2. Dr. Thomas, Healthcare Provider Request for Information Forms1
3. Dr. Hazlewood Record Review Report
4. Panel
5. Wage statement
6. Disciplinary write-ups
7. Disciplinary write-up
1
Amazon objected to the admissibility of these documents as hearsay. Tennessee Compilation Rules and
Regulations 0800-02-21-.15(2) (2023) states, “Letters or written statements addressing medical causation .
. . signed by a physician are admissible at an expedited hearing[.]” (Emphasis added). Amazon’s forms
qualify as “other written statements” and address medical causation, so the objection is overruled.
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on July 17, 2025.
Name Certified Regular Email Sent to
Mail mail
David Weatherman, X david@theweathermanfirm.com
employee’s attorney
Kristen Stevenson, X kcstevenson@mijs.com
employer’s attorney kpkudialis@mijs.com
Compliance X WCCompliance.Program@tn.gov
Program
_______________________________________
Penny Shrum
Clerk, Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov
7
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
ප Expedited Hearing Order filed on _______________ ප Motion Order filed on ___________________
ප Compensation Order filed on__________________ ප 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