The opinion
FILED
Nov 24, 2025
10:51 AM(CT)
TENNESSEE COURT OF
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CLAIMS
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
AT NASHVILLE
Talin Hubbard, ) Docket No. 2025-60-0029
Employee, )
v. )
Discount Tire, LLC, ) State File No. 37439-2023
Employer, )
And )
Old Republic Insurance Co., ) Judge Kenneth M. Switzer
Carrier. )
COMPENSATION ORDER GRANTING BENEFITS
The Court held a compensation hearing on November 12, 2025, on Talin Hubbard’s
entitlement to permanent disability benefits. The parties dispute two issues. First, did Mr.
Hubbard sustain a 0% impairment assigned by his treating physician, or 1% placed by a
physician from the Medical Impairment Rating Registry? Second, is he entitled to
increased benefits?
The Court adopts the 1% rating because Discount Tire did not offer clear and
convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of correctness given to the Registry
physician’s opinion. Further, Mr. Hubbard has shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that he did not return to work for any employer, so he is entitled to increased benefits.
Claim History
Mr. Hubbard, a tire technician, was injured at work on or about February 28, 2023.
While pulling a bar down to remove a tire, he heard a “pop” in the center of his chest and
felt immediate, severe pain.
Mr. Hubbard later formally reported his claim and selected a physician from a panel
offered by Discount Tire. He did not actually see this doctor but instead saw other doctors
and nurse practitioners from the selected physician’s clinic.
1
Notably, Dr. Peter Silkowski first diagnosed “costal chondritis” and “somatic
dysfunction of costochondral region” in May 2023 and recommended modified duty. Dr.
Robert Kasper repeated those diagnoses a month later and referred Mr. Hubbard to physical
therapy and pain management.
In January 2024, Mr. Hubbard came under the authorized care of Dr. Gale Jackson,
a family medicine physician. Dr. Jackson’s nurse practitioners maintained the same
diagnoses and light-duty restrictions over the next several months.
Ultimately, Dr. Jackson placed Mr. Hubbard at maximum medical improvement on
June 18, 2024, with 0% impairment and no work restrictions. That same day, Dr. Jackson
wrote a letter stating that Mr. Hubbard was diagnosed with costochondritis and explained:
This is an acute condition that can occur due to trauma to chest wall muscle
or strain of cartilage that connects ribs to breastbone (sternal). This is not a
chronic condition that requires people to be unable to work. . . . From an
Occupational Medicine Standpoint this is no longer a work related
[condition] so he needs to follow up with PCP to determine if there is a
chronic [under]lying disorder caused by his non-cardiac chest pain.
(Emphasis added).
As for pain management, in July 2024, Mr. Hubbard saw Dr. Jeff Kindred, whom
Discount Tire also authorized. He ordered a chest MRI, and after reviewing the results in
August, Dr. Kindred wrote that it showed no structural abnormality to explain his chest
pain. Regardless, Dr. Kindred noted, “I do think this is work related,” He also wrote a
separate letter for the carrier saying in part, “in my professional opinion this is a work
related injury.” He repeated that causation opinion in a second letter to the carrier and also
placed work restrictions. At the next visit, Dr. Kindred wrote: “I do not do impairment
ratings but estimated his at 40%.”
Given the wide disparity between the ratings, the parties sought a rating from Dr.
Karen Oldham through the Medical Impairment Rating Registry. She examined Mr.
Hubbard and reviewed and summarized his treatment history, including the July 2024
“normal” chest MRI, and his responses to a Pain Disability Questionnaire.
In her report, Dr. Oldham listed “chronic pain syndrome” as Mr. Hubbard’s
diagnosis with a “ratable permanent impairment causally related to the work injury.”
(Emphasis added). She used Table 3-1 of the Guides, 6th Edition to assign a rating. Dr.
Oldham wrote that Mr. Hubbard’s physical exam showed no muscle atrophy and he has
“normal muscle development tone and strength in the upper extremities and neck,
indicating that he does not avoid using his arms and chest wall muscles.” This would
suggest that Mr. Hubbard has no significant impairment.
2
She continued, however, that “the whole person must be considered in making this
determination.” Dr. Oldham reasoned:
The claimant has a strong emotional component to his pain preventing him
from engaging in social activities or working outside his home. He had
significant anxiety every time he attempted to return to work. The fear of
having the same pain again is paralyzing to him. He depends heavily on his
family to provide income, driving, and help with heavy lifting at home. In
looking at the whole person, it can be said he has no impairment in terms of
activities and function and no impairment from an objective physical exam.
He does have significant emotional impairment due to his pain. In essence,
he has one out of three areas of significant impairment.
Dr. Oldham wrote that the Guides allow for up to 3% impairment for chronic pain,
but she chose to use one out of three for a rating. She concluded, “Therefore, in
consideration of the entire functional, physical, and emotional burden of illness, I feel that
an impairment of one percent [whole person impairment] is appropriate.”
Afterward, Discount Tire deposed Dr. Jackson, who testified, “I support [Dr.
Oldham’s] impairment rating” and “I do not have evidence to dispute Dr. Karen Oldham’s
impairment rating.”
On cross-examination Dr. Jackson said he had “no reason to think [Mr. Hubbard]
was lying saying he hurts when he does certain things.” He further agreed that Dr. Oldham
rated Mr. Hubbard for chronic pain and not costochondritis and that Mr. Hubbard has
ongoing pain. The exchange below also occurred:
Q: Dr. Oldham seems to indicate that because of the injury he suffered at
work he now has some at least permanent impairment.
A: Uh-huh.
Q: And I guess I’m curious. Do you agree with her assessment of that?
A: I agree with her assessment.
Q: Okay.
A: I agree with her assessment.
For his part, Mr. Hubbard testified that the injury has had a dramatic impact on his
work abilities. He was placed on light duty while treating but had difficulty performing
his job even with accommodations. He testified, without contradiction, that after he
reached maximum medical improvement, he was still on work restrictions from his primary
care doctor and Dr. Kindred, but Discount Tire did not offer work within his restrictions.
He has not worked since, fearing that he might reinjure his chest wall if he were to return
to work.
3
As for his personal life, Mr. Hubbard said the chest pain prevents him from carrying
and playing with his children and interferes with sleeping, driving, and performing
household chores. He occasionally feels a rib “pop out.”
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Pretrial motions
Mr. Hubbard moved the Court to continue the compensation hearing, requesting
“additional time to receive newly ordered related medical care.” (Emphasis added). He
argued that his primary care physician recently discovered “a deformity in the chest wall”
and referred him to a thoracic surgeon for further treatment.
Discount Tire opposed the continuance for several reasons, among them that the
supporting medical records Mr. Hubbard offered do not relate the condition and/or need
for treatment with a specialist to the work injury.
The Court agrees. Moreover, Mr. Hubbard was injured in February 2023 and has
had ample time to obtain medical proof. He has not shown good cause, and the motion is
denied.
Mr. Hubbard additionally moved for summary judgment, which the Court took
under advisement at the hearing but now denies, as explained in the accompanying Order
Denying Summary Judgment.
Standard applied and permanent impairment
Mr. Hubbard has the burden of proof on all essential elements of his claim and must
show by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to the requested benefits. Tenn.
Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2024); Willis v. All Staff, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd.
LEXIS 42, at *18 (Nov. 9, 2015).
The central issue in this case is which impairment rating is correct. Dr. Oldham, the
Medical Impairment Rating Registry physician, assigned a 1% rating. Dr. Jackson, the
authorized physician, assigned a 0% rating in June 2024, but at his deposition a year later,
he repeatedly said he agreed with Dr. Oldham’s opinion.
Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(d)(4) states that when parties dispute
medical impairment, “either party may request an independent medical examiner from the
administrator’s registry.” Further, “[t]he written opinion as to the permanent impairment
rating given by the independent medical examiner . . . shall be presumed to be the accurate
impairment rating; provided, however that this presumption may be rebutted by clear and
convincing evidence[.]” Id. § 50-6-204(d)(4) (Emphasis added).
4
Here, Dr. Oldham performed a thorough evaluation, examining Mr. Hubbard,
considering his treatment records, reviewing imaging, and discussing the pain disability
questionnaire with him. She identified which portion of the Guides she used and gave a
detailed explanation of how she arrived at a 1% rating for Mr. Hubbard’s chronic pain
syndrome.
Discount Tire made several unpersuasive arguments.
First, it pointed out that Dr. Jackson gave a different diagnosis than Dr. Oldham.
This argument overlooks Dr. Oldham’s acknowledgement of Mr. Hubbard’s physical
condition—but she went on to write that “the whole person must be considered.” She
reasoned that the Guides allow for up to 3% impairment for chronic pain and chose the
lowest permissible degree of impairment, considering “the entire functional, physical, and
emotional burden of illness.” As for Discount Tire’s contention that Dr. Oldham
erroneously found that Mr. Hubbard satisfied the Guides criteria for a chronic pain
syndrome diagnosis, it offered no expert opinion to support that argument.
Discount Tire further questioned compensability, asserting that Mr. Hubbard
claimed a mental injury. However, Dr. Oldham and both authorized doctors found his
condition work-related. Dr. Jackson testified that Mr. Hubbard’s chest pain was work-
related until he reached maximum medical improvement, while Dr. Kindred wrote in both
records and letters to the carrier that the injury was work-related.
Mr. Hubbard supported the idea that he retains an impairment when he credibly
testified to the physical limitations he now experiences. “[T]he Supreme Court has
consistently held that an employee’s assessment as to his or her own physical condition is
competent testimony that is not to be disregarded.” Limberakis v. Pro-Tech Sec., Inc., 2017
TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 53, at *6 (Sept. 12, 2017).
More importantly, Dr. Jackson deferred to Dr. Oldham’s opinion. Therefore, Mr.
Hubbard has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Oldham’s 1% rating is
correct, and Discount Tire has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that it is
incorrect.
Benefits
Mr. Hubbard is entitled to 450 weeks times his impairment rating of 1% times his
compensation rate of $414.98, which yields an original award of $1,867.41. Id. § 50-6-
207(3)(A).
Further, subdivision 50-6-207(3)(B) states that when an employee has not returned
to work with any employer, the original award shall be increased by multiplying it by 1.35.
5
Considering this, Mr. Hubbard testified that he was unable to perform the modified duty
Discount Tire offered and that eventually it stopped offering him light duty. He also said
that he has not returned to work.
Discount Tire argued that Mr. Hubbard voluntarily resigned, but it introduced no
proof of that, nor did it contradict his testimony that it ceased offering him light duty.
Therefore, Mr. Hubbard has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he has not
returned to work for any employer. His resulting award is $2,521.00, and his attorneys are
entitled to 20% of this sum, or $504.20.1
Finally, Mr. Hubbard additionally requested open medical benefits under
subdivision 50-6-204(a)(1)(A). Discount Tire argued this should be limited to treatment
for costochondritis, not his chronic pain syndrome. However, “[a]n employer is
responsible for reasonable and necessary medical care resulting from an employee’s work-
related injury[.]” Barron v. State Dep’t of Human Servs., 184 S.W.3d 219, 223 (Tenn.
2006). Dr. Oldham concluded that his chronic pain syndrome relates to work. Mr.
Hubbard has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to reasonable,
necessary, and work-related treatment for costochondritis and chronic pain syndrome.
IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Discount Tire shall pay Mr. Hubbard permanent partial disability benefits of
$2,521.00. His attorneys are entitled to a 20% fee from this award under section
50-6-226(a)(1), or $504.20. If appropriate, they may file a motion for
discretionary costs and an affidavit under Rule 54 of the Tennessee Rules of
Civil Procedure within seven days of the date of this Order.
2. Discount Tire shall provide reasonable, necessary, and work-related future
medical benefits with Drs. Jackson and/or Kindred.
3. The Court taxes the $150.00 filing fee to Discount Tire, to be paid to the Court
Clerk under Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.06
(2023) within five business days, and for which execution might issue.
4. Discount Tire shall file a Statistical Data Form (SD-2) with the Court Clerk
within ten business days of the date of this order.
5. Unless appealed, this order becomes final 30 days after entry.
1
Mr. Hubbard additionally requested fees under subdivision 50-6-226(d)(1)(B) but made no argument in
support in his brief or at the hearing, so the request is waived.
6
ENTERED November 24, 2025.
________________________________________
JUDGE KENNETH M. SWITZER
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
Appendix
Exhibits:
1. Deposition transcript, Dr. Jackson
2. Composite medical records
3. Medical Impairment Rating Registry Report
4. Panel
5. Final medical report and attachments, Dr. Jackson
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on November 24, 2025.
Name Certified Regular Email Sent to
Mail mail
Victoria Herman, X vherman@poncelaw.com
Michael Ponce, mponce@poncelaw.com
employee’s kfaig@poncelaw.com
attorneys
Greg Fuller, Noah X ghfuller@mijs.com
Klinsky, employer’s naklinsky@mijs.com
attorneys
_______________________________________
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