The opinion
FILED
Aug 13, 2025
11:33 AM(CT)
TENNESSEE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
APPEALS BOARD
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
Brittney Russell ) Docket No. 2024-10-4034
)
v. ) State File No. 860217-2024
)
Werner Enterprises, Inc., et al. )
)
)
Appeal from the Court of Workers’ ) Heard August 1, 2025,
Compensation Claims ) in Nashville, Tennessee
Thomas L. Wyatt, Judge )
Affirmed and Remanded
In this interlocutory appeal, the employer questions the trial court’s decision to award
benefits following an expedited hearing based on its determination that the assault the
employee suffered was inherently connected to her employment. The employee sustained
serious injuries when she was assaulted while loading her delivery truck at a customer’s
location. The employer argued that the employee’s injuries arose from a purely personal
dispute that had no connection to her employment or, in the alternative, that the incident
was a random, “neutral force” assault without sufficient connection to the employment.
The trial court concluded that the assault was inherently connected to the employment
because it was perpetrated by the husband of a customer who inserted herself in a verbal
dispute between the employee and the store manager regarding the manner in which the
employee was performing her job. The employer has appealed. Having carefully
considered the record and arguments of counsel, we affirm the trial court’s decision and
remand the case.
Presiding Judge Timothy W. Conner delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which
Judge Pele I. Godkin and Judge Meredith B. Weaver joined.
John Barringer and Jenna McNair, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellant,
Werner Enterprises, Inc.
Adam Brock-Dagnan, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employee-appellee, Brittney Russell
1
Factual and Procedural Background
The facts of this claim are largely undisputed. Brittney Russell (“Employee”), an
Alabama resident, worked as a delivery driver for Werner Enterprises, Inc. (“Employer”),
making deliveries to various Dollar General stores. Merchandise delivered to Dollar
General locations is typically placed on reusable rolling carts and loaded onto Employer’s
trucks. On May 16, 2024, Employee’s first delivery was to a Dollar General store in
Sevierville, Tennessee. When Employee arrived at that location, she unloaded the
merchandise going to that store, then went inside to present the store manager, Ray Cadell,
with paperwork that needed to be signed. After a brief conversation, Mr. Cadell refused to
sign the paperwork until she had loaded the empty rolling carts from previous deliveries
onto her truck to return to Employer. Employee explained that, because this was the first
of several stops, she did not have enough room in the truck for the empty carts. Mr. Cadell
insisted that she load and take the empty carts, and the dispute escalated. As Mr. Cadell
contacted his supervisor, Employee attempted to text one of her managers but was unable
to get an immediate response.
As Employee and Mr. Cadell were discussing the issue, a shopper, who was
apparently a regular customer at the store, inserted herself into the conversation. She made
statements that Employee perceived as racially offensive, and she advised Mr. Cadell to
force Employee to leave the store. Employee initially went into the back room of the store,
but the customer followed her and again told Mr. Cadell to make her leave. In the
meantime, the customer stated she had contacted the police. Employee called another
Employer manager and requested that she be allowed to leave the store premises without
having secured the necessary paperwork because the situation had escalated and she no
longer felt safe. She was instructed to load the empty containers onto her truck and was
also told that she could not leave without the required paperwork.
After the police arrived, the customer who had become involved in the dispute spoke
to the officer then left the store. As she passed Employee, she commented that she would
soon “show you just how crazy I am.” After the customer left, Employee told the police
she did not feel safe and asked the officer to stay at the location while she loaded the empty
containers onto her truck. The officer declined and left.
While Employee was loading the empty containers so she could leave, a pickup
truck arrived at the store and parked next to her truck. A man exited the truck with some
kind of club, approached Employee, and violently struck her in the head with the club.
Employee attempted to run away but fell, injuring her hand and legs. The man yelled at
Employee to “get the f*** out of here.” He then returned to his truck and left. He was
later identified by Mr. Cadell as the husband of the customer who had inserted herself in
the verbal altercation between him and Employee shortly before. 1
1
The record indicates the assailant was arrested and charged with aggravated assault.
2
Following the incident, Employee was transported to a local emergency room for
medical care. Since that time, she has also received psychiatric care. Employee did not
return to work for Employer, and her psychiatric expert has opined that her ability to return
to work in the open labor market has been affected by the incident. 2
Employee filed a petition for benefits and requested an expedited hearing.
Employer denied the claim, asserting that the assault did not arise primarily out of the
employment. Employer argued instead that the assault arose from a purely personal dispute
between Employee and the assailant and that Employee’s presence at a worksite when the
assault occurred was merely coincidental. In the alternative, Employer argued that the
assault was from a “neutral force” and there was not a sufficient connection to the
employment. Finally, Employer asserted that the assault was unrelated to Employee’s job
performance and appeared to be racially motivated.
After the hearing, the trial court determined the assault stemmed from a verbal
altercation over Employee’s job performance. The assailant’s wife, who was a customer
in the store, inserted herself into a verbal dispute between Employee and Employer’s
customer, Dollar General, which in turn resulted in the assailant driving to the store for the
sole purpose of assaulting Employee. The court concluded that Employee would likely
prevail at trial in establishing that her injuries arose primarily out of the employment and
ordered Employer to pay certain benefits. 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
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(7) (2024). 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 factual findings made by the trial court. Madden v. Holland Grp. of Tenn.,
Inc., 277 S.W.3d 896, 898 (Tenn. 2009). However, “[n]o similar deference need be
afforded the trial court’s findings based upon documentary evidence.” Goodman v.
Schwarz Paper Co., No. W2016-02594-SC-R3-WC, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 8, at *6 (Tenn.
Workers’ Comp. Panel Jan. 18, 2018). Similarly, 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 (2024).
2
The nature and extent of Employee’s injuries and potential vocational disability are not at issue in this
appeal, so we need not discuss them further.
3
Analysis
On appeal, the sole issue, as phrased by Employer, is whether Employee “met her
burden of proof regarding the primary cause of her current need for treatment and [the]
compensability of her injury.” Employer’s argument is two-fold: first, that the assault did
not arise out of a dispute connected to the employment; and second, that the assault
stemmed from a “neutral source” and, in considering the totality of the circumstances, is
not compensable.
We have previously addressed the compensability of workplace assaults and noted
that the Tennessee Supreme Court has categorized such assaults as follows:
(1) Assaults with an “inherent connection” to employment such as disputes
over performance, pay or termination; (2) assaults stemming from
“inherently private” disputes imported into the employment setting from the
claimant’s domestic or private life and not exacerbated by the employment;
and (3) assaults resulting from a “neutral force” such as random assaults on
employees by individuals outside the employment setting.
....
Assaults with an “inherent connection” to employment are compensable.
Assaults stemming from “inherently private” disputes imported into the
employment setting from the claimant’s domestic or private life and not
exacerbated by the employment are not compensable. Assaults resulting
from a “neutral force” such as random assaults may or may not be
compensable depending on the facts and circumstances of the employment.
Kennard v. Mid-South Transp. Mgmt., Inc., No. 2019-08-0805, 2021 TN Wrk. Comp. App.
Bd. LEXIS 23, at *8-9 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. July 21, 2021) (citing Woods. v.
Harry B. Woods Plumbing Co., 967, S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tenn. 1998) (emphasis added)).
Here, Employer argues the assault had no inherent connection to the employment;
rather, it was simply coincidental that Employee was at work when the assault occurred.
Although the record indicates the assailant in this case had no prior connection to Employee
and had no formal connection to the Dollar General store where the assault occurred, we
conclude Employer’s argument ignores the genesis of the conflict. It is undisputed that
Employee was performing her work duties as a delivery driver for Employer when the
conflict with Mr. Cadell began. It is further undisputed that the conflict with Mr. Cadell
concerned the manner in which Employee was performing her job duties. Finally, it is
undisputed that a customer, the assailant’s spouse, inserted herself into the conflict,
resulting in a verbal exchange between Employee and the customer concerning the manner
in which she was performing her job and leading to a call to the police. In short, there is
4
ample evidence in this record that the genesis of the conflict leading to the assault was
connected to Employee’s performance of her job duties.
Employer insists “the interaction between Employee and [the customer] had no
bearing on Employee’s performance, pay, or termination.” We disagree. The
preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the assault was directly related to the
verbal altercation between Employee, Mr. Cadell, and the assailant’s spouse concerning
Employee’s job performance. Moreover, Employer has pointed to no authority, and we
are aware of none, requiring that such an assault be tied to the worker’s “performance, pay,
or termination” to be considered as inherently connected to the employment. Although the
Supreme Court has described those circumstances as examples of assaults with an inherent
connection to the employment, the Court did not state that such a list was exhaustive. See,
e.g., Wait v. Travelers Indem. Co., 240 S.W.3d 220, 227 (Tenn. 2007).
Finally, Employer emphasizes the lack of any evidence of a relationship between
itself, the assailant, and the assailant’s spouse in support of its position that this was a
“random force” assault that merited a different analysis by the trial court. Employer also
maintains the assault was, at least in part, racially motivated, thereby supporting its
argument that the assault was not inherently connected to the employment. We conclude,
however, that such factors are not determinative of the outcome in this case; rather, the
critical issue is the “catalyst [that] spurred the assault.” Id. at 228. We conclude the catalyst
spurring the assault in this case was a customer’s decision to insert herself into a
disagreement between Employee and Mr. Cadell regarding Employee’s job performance.
The record contains little or no evidence that the original disagreement had a racial
component. Although the conflict may have, at some point, included a racial component,
the essential disagreement between Employee, Mr. Cadell, and, ultimately, the assailant’s
spouse, was directly related to the manner in which Employee performed her job. Thus,
we conclude the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that a work-related
disagreement was the catalyst for the assault, and the court appropriately analyzed the case
under the framework established by binding precedent. Consequently, we agree with the
trial court that Employee presented sufficient evidence at the expedited hearing to indicate
a likelihood of prevailing at trial.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.
Costs on appeal are taxed to Employer.
5
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
Brittney Russell ) Docket No. 2024-10-4034
)
v. ) State File No. 860217-2024
)
Werner Enterprises, Inc., et al. )
)
)
Appeal from the Court of Workers’ ) Heard August 1, 2025,
Compensation Claims ) in Nashville, Tennessee
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 13th day of
August, 2025.
Name Certified First Class Via Via Sent to:
Mail Mail Fax Email
John W. Barringer X jbarringer@manierherod.com
pcarr@manierherod.com
Adam C. Brock-Dagnan X adam.brockdagnan@forthepeople.com
christopher.howell@forthepeople.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