The opinion
FILED
Aug 12, 2025
01:58 PM(CT)
TENNESSEE COURT OF
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CLAIMS
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
AT NASHVILLE
CARMA KEAN, )
Employee, ) Docket No. 2025-60-1190
v. )
)
McROCKET, LLC, d/b/a GREAT )
CLIPS, ) State File No. 860045-2025
Employer, )
And )
)
BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INS. ) Judge Joshua D. Baker
CO., )
Carrier. )
EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER
The Court held an expedited hearing on August 6, 2025, to decide Ms. Kean’s claim
for medical benefits for a trigger-finger condition. Because the authorized treating
physician did not relate her need for treatment to her work at Great Clips, the Court denies
her claim for medical benefits at this time.
Claim History
On August 28, 2024, Ms. Kean visited Dr. Tyler Staelin, her authorized surgeon for
a 2022 right-wrist injury with a previous employer. She submitted an audio recording of
the visit and the corresponding medical record.
In the visit, Dr. Staelin, who did not know he was being recorded, spent significant
time trying to understand why Ms. Kean was seeing him for a trigger finger that had started
six to nine months earlier. When he realized that she believed her trigger finger was caused
by her 2022 fall, he corrected her misconception immediately. When she insisted, “I fell
on this hand[,]” he responded, “Yeah, I know. But that doesn’t have anything to do with
why you have a trigger finger now.”
He then offered to treat her condition under private insurance. When she told him
she was uninsured, he suggested reporting the condition as a work injury to Great Clips,
because “theoretically, it could be from cutting hair at Great Clips, cutting with scissors all
day. It could be related to that.” He explained “repetitive, forceful clipping all day with
scissors . . . could give you a trigger finger,” calling it “a legitimate workers’ compensation
claim as a hairdresser.” Finally, he urged her, “If you were here seeing me right now under
[a claim with] Great Clips, I would say that it’s work-related.”
In the medical record for that visit, Dr. Staelin wrote, “I recommend that she follow
up under her new employer and new workers’ compensation carrier . . . This is a new
problem, likely related to her work as a hairdresser and stylist.”
A few weeks after meeting with Dr. Staelin, Ms. Kean reported the injury to Great
Clips, who accepted her claim. She chose a walk-in clinic for care, received an orthopedic
referral, and then selected orthopedic surgeon Dr. Keith Douglas from a panel.
Dr. Douglas evaluated her during a visit that both she and the doctor recorded. In
both the medical record and audio recording, Dr. Douglas adamantly maintained that her
job as a hairdresser did not cause trigger finger. He called it a “super common problem”
for “all ages, all jobs.” When she told him Dr. Staelin had called it work-related, he
responded, “Definitely not.” He reiterated, “This is not a work-related condition.” After
stating the percentage required for her employment to be considered a primary cause of her
injury, he said, “Unfortunately, this is not a particularly close case.” Instead, he explained,
“This is more related to your underlying biology.”
Still, Dr. Douglas treated her finger with an injection and wrote, “The patient was
informed that this condition is not work-related and that future treatments would need to
be through either self-pay or private insurance.”
In addition to audio recordings of the doctors, Ms. Kean submitted a handout from
Dr. Staelin’s office about the condition, which read in part, “The cause of this [condition]
is not known.” However, the handout did identify four risk factors for developing trigger
finger: gender, age, certain underlying health conditions, and repetitive activity “that
requires a strong grip.” The document continued, “Repeated and strong gripping may lead
to the condition. In most cases, the cause of the trigger finger is not known.”
Ms. Kean said all the risk factors except an underlying health condition apply to her,
since she grips repetitively all day while cutting hair. She estimated she cuts hair 25 times
a day on average over five days a week. During a haircut, she grips approximately 11 times
by using things like brushes, clippers, scissors, thinning and blending shears, and spray
bottles. In total, she estimated she grips repetitively around 1,375 times per week.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
To receive benefits at an expedited hearing, Ms. Kean must prove she is likely to
prevail at a final hearing. McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp.
App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015).
Here, Ms. Kean must show “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [the
work accident] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement
or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Further, the panel physician’s
opinion, Dr. Douglas’s, is presumed correct on causation but is rebuttable by a
preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(A-E) (2025).
Medical causation in this case turns on the opposing opinions of two doctors. Dr.
Douglas, who said unequivocally that her trigger finger is unrelated to her employment.
Dr. Staelin stated that it was. Dr. Douglas’s opinion is presumed correct. So, to prevail at
a final hearing, Ms. Kean must overcome this presumption by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Although Dr. Staelin disagreed with Dr. Douglas, this does not overcome the
presumption of correctness attached to Dr. Douglas’s opinion; it is simply a difference of
opinion.
Also, Dr. Staelin’s opinion, without additional proof, is not persuasive for several
reasons. First, the context of Dr. Staelin’s statements in the recording impairs the impact
of his opinion. The Court interprets his statements as an attempt to show Ms. Kean that her
trigger-finger condition was unrelated to her previous claim while also explaining that her
condition could relate to her work for Great Clips.
Second, neither Dr. Staelin’s recorded nor written statements are sufficient to meet
Ms. Kean’s statutory burden. Dr. Staelin used language like “theoretically,” “could be
related,” “could cause,” and “likely related.” At most, he assured her, “[I]f you were here
seeing me right now under Great Clips, I would say that it’s work-related.” However, he
was not seeing her for that injury. Dr. Douglas was, and he definitively said it was not
caused by her work for Great Clips.
Lastly, Dr. Staelin gave Ms. Kean a handout with information about trigger finger.
The handout clearly states the condition’s cause is unknown, and that repetitive activity
requiring a strong grip is a risk factor but not the condition’s sole or even primary cause.
For these reasons, the Court holds that Ms. Kean is unlikely to prevail on
overcoming the presumption afforded to Dr. Douglas’s opinion at a final hearing.
It is ORDERED as follows:
1. Ms. Kean’s request for benefits is denied at this time.
2. The Court sets a status hearing for Monday, October 27, 2025, at 1:00 p.m.
Central Time. The parties must call (615) 741-2113 to participate. Failure to call
might result in a determination of the issues without your participation.
ENTERED August 12, 2025.
______________________________________
JOSHUA D. BAKER, JUDGE
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
APPENDIX
Exhibits:
1. Rule 72 declaration of Carma Kean
2. Medical records filed by Employer
3. First Report of Injury
4. Notice of Denial
5. Medical records filed by Employee
6. Panel choosing Dr. Keith Douglas, dated November 3, 2024
7. Recordings of doctors’ visits with Dr. Tyler Staelin on August 28, 2024,
and with Dr. Keith Douglas on December 2, 2024
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as shown on August 12, 2025.
Name Mail Email Service sent to:
Carma Kean, X carmaiskean@gmail.com
Employee
Kitty Boyte, X Kitty.boyte@petersonwhite.com
Employer’s Attorney Denise.mccorkle@petersonwhite.com
______________________________________
PENNY SHRUM, COURT CLERK
wc.courtclerk@tn.gov
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