The opinion
FILED
Nov 07, 2025
03:32 PM(CT)
TENNESSEE COURT OF
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CLAIMS
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
AT MURFREESBORO
GREGORY S. SELLS, ) Docket No.: 2025-50-3662
Employee, )
v. ) State File No.: 3054-2025
)
NOVOLEX HOLDINGS, LLC, ) Judge Robert Durham
Employer, )
And )
)
AMERICAN ZURICH INS. CO., )
Insurer.
EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS
This Court held an Expedited Hearing on October 28, 2025, on Mr. Sells’s request
that Novolex authorize surgery and pay temporary disability benefits for a low-back injury.
Novolex argued that Mr. Sells’s injury happened when he fell from a barn roof. For the
reasons below, the Court denies the requested benefits.
History of Claim
Mr. Sells testified that on January 6, 2025, he was working with maintenance
supervisor Ted Earnhart to unscrew some bolts on a machine. The bolts were stuck and
difficult to reach, so they were using a long “cheater pipe” for additional leverage. They
both put the pipe on their shoulders and lifted to loosen the bolt. Both thought the bolt
moved, but the pipe had merely flexed upward. Mr. Earnhart then stepped away from the
pipe, leaving all the pressure on Mr. Sells’s shoulder. The additional pressure caused him
to bend backward, and he immediately felt pain in his low back and right leg.
Mr. Sells said he saw Billy Wood, Novolex’s manager, and told him that he tweaked
his back and needed ibuprofen. He finished his shift, but his symptoms continued to
worsen after he returned home. He had the next two days off, spending them in bed. On
November 9, he went to work as scheduled. After a few minutes, he was in so much pain
1
that he requested medical attention. A coworker drove him to an urgent care clinic, where
a physician’s assistant diagnosed a lumbar strain, gave work restrictions, and ordered
physical therapy and an MRI. 1
When he failed to improve, Mr. Sells selected Dr. Tarek Elalayli from a panel of
neurosurgeons. Dr. Elalayli diagnosed right sacroiliac inflammation and treated him with
multiple SI joint injections and physical therapy, which did not relieve his pain. In May
2025, Dr. Elalayli recommended an SI joint fusion, which the adjuster later approved.
In the meantime, however, Novolex received statements from three other employees
who said Mr. Sells told them a few weeks before his alleged work accident that he injured
his back when he fell off a barn roof. At the hearing, all three employees testified by
affidavit.
First, Mr. Wood, manager, said that Mr. Sells told him that he fell off a barn roof
while making repairs and hurt his back two weeks before the alleged injury. Mr. Sells said
the barn was on a family farm in Shelbyville that he inherited it from his father. Mr. Wood
said Mr. Sells asked him for the name of his chiropractor and said he might go for an
adjustment. Finally, he testified that Mr. Sells walked and moved normally on January 6,
and he did not report a work injury to him.
Travis Meadows, a maintenance technician, also testified that Mr. Sells told him in
December that he had hurt his back after falling off a barn roof while trying to remove a
tree limb. He said that he did not observe Mr. Sells showing any signs of discomfort while
working on January 6.
Another technician, Justin Wright, corroborated the testimony of Mr. Woods and
Mr. Meadows by recalling that Mr. Sells told him in December that he fell off a barn on
his property while repairing loose tin. He said Mr. Sells told him he planned to see a
chiropractor after tweaking a muscle when he fell. Through the end of December, Mr.
Sells complained about back pain, and Mr. Wright often saw him rubbing his back. He
said that Mr. Sells moved normally while working on January 6 and did not mention
hurting his back at work.
Novolex’s counsel wrote a letter to Dr. Elalayli asking him to consider the coworker
statements in determining whether he could say to a reasonable degree of medical certainty
that Mr. Sells’s January 6 work incident primarily caused the “right sacroiliac joint pain.”
Dr. Elalayli marked “no.” In July, Novolex denied Mr. Sells’s claim.
In September, Mr. Sells saw orthopedic spine surgeon John Burleson for an
1
The parties did not submit any medical records except for the independent medical evaluation report
offered by Mr. Sells.
2
independent medical evaluation. Dr. Burleson agreed with Dr. Elalayli that Mr. Sells
suffers from a sacroiliac joint problem and needs a fusion.
As for causation, Dr. Burleson noted that Mr. Sells told him that he did not have a
history of back problems and related all his symptoms to the January 6 work incident. Mr.
Sells told him that he lives in a subdivision and does not own a barn. He denied being on
a roof or having any other type of fall. Dr. Burleson then concluded that “greater than 50%
of [Mr. Sells’s] need for treatment and ultimately surgery is related to the accident he had
at work.”
At trial, Mr. Sells confirmed he never had any symptoms with his low back that
required medical treatment before the January 6 event. He also testified he did not own a
barn, did not have any property in Shelbyville, and never inherited a farm from his father.
He confirmed that he lived in a subdivision and did not injure his back by falling off a roof.
He conceded that he asked about a chiropractor but said it was for his daughter’s benefit.
Mr. Sells vigorously denied making any of the statements attributed to him in his
coworkers’ affidavits about injuring his back before January 6, and he concluded that they
were lying. He believed they were his friends, and he knew of no reason why they would
lie.
Finally, the Court witnessed Mr. Sells at trial. He was in obvious pain and sat
leaning almost entirely to his left side. He often changed positions from sitting to standing
during the trial.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Mr. Sells must prove a likelihood of prevailing at a hearing on the merits that he is
entitled to the requested benefits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2024).
To prove causation, Mr. Sells must establish that his current symptoms and need for
treatment primarily arose out of his alleged work injury. Id. § 50-6-102(12)(A). Further,
causation must be proven to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty,” which requires an
expert medical opinion. Id. § 50-6-102(12)(C). As the authorized physician, Dr. Elalayli’s
causation opinion is presumed correct under section 50-6-102(12)(E).
In this case, Drs. Elalayli and Burleson agreed that a sacroiliac joint fusion is
reasonable and necessary treatment for Mr. Sells’s current symptoms. The question is
whether the January 6 work incident primarily caused his symptoms. Based on the
coworkers’ statements, Dr. Elalayli said no. Based on Mr. Sells’s account, Dr. Burleson
said yes. Thus, the Court must weigh the evidence given by Mr. Sells and his coworkers.
As Mr. Sells said, the evidence is impossible to reconcile. Either Mr. Sells told
3
three different coworkers that he injured his back in December when he fell off a roof, or
he did not. The Court can only conclude that someone is not telling the truth.
Unfortunately, the evidence is lacking on both sides of the credibility issue.
Novolex’s witnesses all testified by affidavit. They were not subject to cross-examination,
and the Court had no opportunity to assess their credibility. In addition, Novolex did not
produce any corroborative evidence that Mr. Sells inherited a farm in Shelbyville, visited
a chiropractor in December, or ever received treatment for his low back before January 6.
However, Mr. Sells did not call his coworkers as witnesses or take their depositions.
He also offered no explanation as to why three separate witnesses, whom he considered
friends, would all tell such specific falsehoods.
Neither party submitted Mr. Sells’s medical records. They also failed to call Mr.
Earnheart as a witness, even though he was the only one who allegedly witnessed Mr.
Sells’s accident. Mr. Sells did not call any witnesses to corroborate his testimony that he
did not fall off a roof in December and did not suffer from back complaints before January
6. Finally, while the Court believes Mr. Sells suffers from low-back pain, his credibility
on the issue of causation was not particularly persuasive.
Given the lack of independent corroborating evidence, resolution of the causation
issue hinges on the burden of proof. The Appeals Board set out the standard of proof in an
expedited hearing in Buchanan v. Carlex Glass Co., 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS
39, at *5-6 (Sept. 29, 2015):
[A]an injured worker retains the burden of proof at all stages of a workers’
compensation claim. At an expedited hearing, a trial court may grant relief
if the court is satisfied that an employee has met the burden of showing that
he or she is likely [to] prevail at a hearing on the merits. This lesser
evidentiary standard, embodied in section 50-6-239(d)(1), does not relieve
an employee of the burden of producing evidence of an injury by accident
that arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment at an
expedited hearing, but allows some relief to be granted if that evidence does
not rise to the level of a “preponderance of the evidence.”
(citations omitted) (emphasis added). Further, the Court must construe the law “fairly” and
“impartially” and not “in a manner favoring either the employee or the employer.” Id. §
50-6-116.
This case is similar to Qualls v. Federal Mogul, 2023 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd.
LEXIS 10, at *9-10 (Mar. 7, 2023). In Qualls, the employee’s Rule 72 declaration testified
that he hurt his back in a specific incident at work, but his medical records said his back
started hurting two weeks earlier. He did not know how he injured himself. The employer
4
also submitted statements from two managers saying the employee never told them about
a work incident until after he filed a petition. The trial court denied the provision of a
medical panel.
Despite the lesser evidentiary standard for an expedited hearing, the Appeals Board
upheld the denial. The Board determined that the preponderance of the evidence supported
the trial court’s decision that the employee did not offer sufficient proof to show he was
likely to succeed at a hearing on the merits.
This case also bears some similarity to the Board’s recent decision in McGuire v.
TC Restaurants, LLC, No. 2025-60-0654, 2025 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS __, slip
op. at 4-5 (Nov. 5, 2025). In McGuire, the authorized physician changed his mind
regarding causation after reviewing video surveillance. The Board affirmed the trial
court’s decision that the evidence offered by the employee was not enough to overcome
the presumption afforded to the authorized doctor’s opinion.
The Court makes a similar decision here, in that the evidence offered by Mr. Sells,
when weighed against his coworkers’ affidavits and Dr. Elalayli’s opinion, is not enough
to show he is likely to prove a compensable injury at a hearing on the merits. Thus, the
Court denies his claim for benefits at this time.
IT IS ORDERED.
1. Mr. Sells’s request for additional benefits is denied.
2. This case is set for a Scheduling Hearing on January 14, 2026, at 10:30 a.m.
Central Time. The parties must call 615-253-0010. Failure to appear might
result in a determination of the issues without the party’s participation.
ENTERED November 7, 2025.
_____________________________________
ROBERT DURHAM, JUDGE
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
Exhibits:
1. Deposition of Veatrice Storey
2. Dr. Burleson’s independent medical evaluation report
3. Novolex’s Collective Exhibits
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the Order was sent as indicated on November 7, 2025.
Name U.S. Email Service sent to:
Adam Brock-Dagnan, X Adam.brockdagnan@forthepeople.com
Employee’s Attorney
James Tucker, X jtucker@manierherod.com
Gabi Jackson, X gjackson@manierherod.com
Employer’s Attorneys
_____________________________________
PENNY SHRUM, Court Clerk
WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov
6
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