The opinion
FILED
Dec 10, 2025
01:59 PM(CT)
TENNESSEE COURT OF
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CLAIMS
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
AT MEMPHIS
JUDITH HOLLAND, ) Docket No.: 2021-08-1180
Employee, )
v. )
RANDSTAD, )
Employer, ) State File No.: 39214-2019
And )
INDEMNITY INS. CO. OF N. AM., )
Carrier. ) Judge Shaterra R. Marion
)
________________________________________________________________________
COMPENSATION HEARING ORDER GRANTING BENEFTIS
The Court held a compensation hearing on December 3, 2025, in this post-
settlement medical benefits case. The main issue is whether Ms. Holland is entitled to a
lumbar fusion surgery ordered by Dr. Samuel Schroerlucke. For the reasons below, the
Court holds that Ms. Holland is entitled to the surgery and attorney’s fees.
History of Claim
Ms. Holland was injured at work on May 28, 2019. She selected Dr. Schroerlucke
from a panel as her authorized treating physician.
Dr. Schroerlucke is a board-certified orthopedic spine surgeon, who did both adult
and pediatric spine fellowships.
Dr. Schroerlucke treated Ms. Holland for six years, including a microdiscectomy in
October 2019 after an MRI and injection. She continued to have right-leg pain, so he
ordered another injection and physical therapy in January 2020.
Ms. Holland had continued symptoms in 2021, so Dr. Schroerlucke ordered another
injection in February that did not help. After an MRI in May revealed a recurrence of Ms.
Holland’s stenosis, he performed a lumbar fusion in July 2021. She did relatively well after
1
the fusion, so he ordered physical therapy and ultimately placed her at maximum medical
improvement on March 24, 2022.
At his deposition, Dr. Schroerlucke testified that when he released Ms. Holland at
maximum medical improvement, he noted she would need future medical treatment
because of the risk of degeneration at the levels of her spine next to the fusion. He also said
that some people continue to have back problems after a lumbar fusion.
The parties reached a settlement of Ms. Holland’s claim, which included her right
to future medical care with Dr. Schroerlucke.
Ms. Holland testified that she worked from November 2023 to August 2024 as a
parttime cashier for two separate employers. While they allowed her breaks to sit down,
her pain forced her to stop working. She did home exercises from her physical therapy until
late 2024, when it became too painful.
Unable to work, Ms. Holland returned to Dr. Schroerlucke. In November 2024, he
ordered a new MRI because of her complaints of severe left-leg pain. The MRI showed
disc herniation at the level above her previous lumbar fusion.
An injection on February 17, 2025, did not help with her symptoms. On March 6,
Dr. Schroerlucke found Ms. Holland had left, more so than right, lower-extremity
radiculopathy. Due to that, and because she “failed all conservative management,” he
ordered another lumbar fusion surgery. Randstad denied the surgery.
Randstad submitted the surgical order to utilization review on May 2 and only
provided a March 2025 medical note for review. 1 Dr. Sean Lager, a board-certified
orthopedic surgeon, noted severe low-back pain radiating to the left greater than right lower
extremity that persisted despite an epidural steroid injection. However, he remarked that
the MRI report cited by the record was not submitted for review. He did not recommend
surgery. Ms. Holland appealed the utilization review denial to the Medical Director, Dr.
Robert Snyder, who upheld the denial.
Dr. Schroerlucke continues to treat Ms. Holland and to recommend surgery to treat
her pain and radiculopathy. He testified that due to the amount of time since her last MRI,
he would need to do a repeat MRI and a preoperative CT scan if surgery is approved.
He explained that although he did not refer her for an independent psychological
evaluation, he considered her psychiatric condition when recommending surgery.
Although he did not order additional physical therapy, he considered that she had been
doing her home exercises until they became too painful. He stated that conservative
1
Randstad submitted the surgery to Utilization Review almost two months later than the rules allow.
2
measures had been considered and were ineffective and no other options remain for her
except surgery.
Dr. John Lochemes conducted an independent medical examination of Ms. Holland
on November 13 and did not think the fusion was medically necessary. He recommended
additional physical therapy and further injections to attempt to locate the source of her pain.
He did not believe the lumbar fusion would significantly improve Ms. Holland’s
symptoms. He also testified he found no qualifying radiculopathy on his exam, although
his exam did show left-side pain that matches Ms. Holland’s MRI. He did not recommend
another surgery because her past fusion was unsuccessful. He defined “unsuccessful” as a
lack of return to work or life function.
Dr. Lochemes is a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, but he is not certified in spine
surgery. He has not done any spine fellowships. He testified that he did not have Ms.
Holland’s 2024 and 2025 records when he examined her and prepared his report. However,
he reviewed the records before his deposition, and they did not change his opinion. He
reviewed the MRI reports but not the MRI images themselves. He admitted his report is
not a true account of the records he reviewed.
Dr. Lochemes does not perform spine surgery and agreed that if one of his patients
needs spine surgery, he refers them to a spine specialist. He acknowledged that Dr.
Schroerlucke is well regarded in the area, and the medical necessity of the lumbar fusion
is just a difference of opinion between two doctors.
Ms. Holland also argued for attorney’s fees because Randstad unreasonably failed
to approve the surgery. Randstad stated it did nothing wrong and the fees should not be
awarded because they are discretionary.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Evidentiary Ruling
Ms. Holland attempted to enter emails through Dr. Lochemes’s deposition on the
scheduling of his deposition. Randstad objected, stating they are hearsay and lack proper
foundation.
All the emails are between Dr. Lochemes’s staff and counsel for Randstad. Dr.
Lochemes did not say if he reviewed them as part of his opinions. In fact, he testified that
he would have to ask his business staff to be able to answer any scheduling questions. The
Court sustains the objection, as the emails are inadmissible hearsay.
3
Analysis and Decision
The issue is whether the lumbar fusion surgery ordered by Dr. Schroerlucke is
medically necessary. Ms. Holland must prove her entitlement to the surgery by a
preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2025). The Court finds
she met this burden.
When an employee suffers a compensable work injury, the Workers’ Compensation
Law states that an employer must furnish “medical and surgical treatment as ordered by
the attending physician . . . made reasonably necessary by accident[.]” Id. § 50-6-
204(a)(1)(A).
The parties agreed that Dr. Schroerlucke was selected from a panel and is the
authorized treating physician. His opinion is thus presumed to be medically necessary for
Ms. Holland’s treatment. Id. § 50-6-204(a)(3)(H). Therefore, the burden of proof “shifts to
the employer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that such prescribed treatment
is not medically necessary.” Rhea v. Titan Transport, Inc., 2023 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd.
LEXIS 16, at *8-9 (Apr. 11, 2023) (Emphasis in original).
Randstad offered the opinions of Dr. Lochemes, Dr. Lager, and Dr. Snyder. When
deciding which medical opinion to accept, the Court can consider the experts’
qualifications, the circumstances of their examinations, the information available to them,
and the importance attached to the information by other experts. Orman v. Williams
Sonoma, Inc., 803 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tenn. 1991). As shown below, all the factors favor
Dr. Schroerlucke.
Dr. Schroerlucke’s specific board certification as a spine surgeon favors him on the
factor of qualifications. Drs. Lochemes and Lager are board-certified orthopedic surgeons
but without a certification in spine surgery. Dr. Lochemes testified that he would refer
patients to someone with a spine surgery certification, like Dr. Schroerlucke, for operations
similar to the lumbar fusion here.
The circumstances favor Dr. Schroerlucke as well. He treated Ms. Holland over the
course of six years and performed her two earlier surgeries. Dr. Lochemes saw her once,
and the other doctors did not see her at all. “It seems reasonable that the physicians having
greater contact with the Plaintiff would have the advantage and opportunity to provide a
more in-depth opinion, if not a more accurate one.” Id. at 677.
As far as the information available and importance of information, Dr. Schroerlucke
had all the information available. He reviewed the MRI reports and independently reviewed
the imaging as well. Dr. Lochemes testified he did not have Ms. Holland’s most recent
records at the time of his report and examination, and what he reviewed is unclear. This is
especially important because Dr. Schroerlucke’s medical records conflict with some of Dr.
4
Lochemes’s opinions. Particularly, Dr. Schroerlucke consistently documented
radiculopathy, and Ms. Holland testified that she returned to work after the first fusion.
As for the other doctors, Dr. Lager only reviewed one visit of Ms. Holland’s six-
year medical history for his utilization review, and Dr. Snyder’s report did not specify
which records he reviewed.
All factors favor Dr. Schroerlucke and his conclusion that Ms. Holland “failed all
conservative management” before he ordered this surgery. The Court agrees with Dr.
Lochemes that this is simply two doctors disagreeing, and Randstad has not shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that its physicians’ opinions rebutted the presumption
afforded Dr. Schroerlucke.
Therefore, the Court holds that the lumbar fusion surgery ordered by Dr.
Schroerlucke, along with the necessary preoperative diagnostics including an MRI and CT
scan, are medically necessary and shall be approved by Randstad.
Attorney’s Fees
Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-226(d)(1) states an employee’s attorney
may be awarded a fee when the employer “[f]ails to furnish appropriate
medical . . . treatment or care . . . provided for in a settlement . . . or judgment under this
chapter.”
In this case, the parties entered into a court-approved settlement agreement in
September 2022. That agreement stated in relevant part: “Employer agrees to pay for
reasonable and necessary future medical expenses for the work injury under Tennessee
Code Annotated section 50-6-204.”
This section of the statute does not require a detailed analysis. McCool vs Prof’l
Care Servs., 2025 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 59, at *18 (Nov. 18, 2025). “Employer
either provided the medical benefits as described in the court-approved settlement
agreement, or it did not.” Id.
Here, Randstad declined to approve medical care that Ms. Holland is entitled to
under the terms of both the settlement agreement and section 50-6-204. Therefore, Ms.
Holland’s attorney is entitled to fees under section 226(d)(1)(A). The Court need not
address Ms. Holland’s request for an award under section 226(d)(1)(B).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows:
1. Randstad or its workers’ compensation carrier shall provide Ms. Holland
reasonable and necessary future medical benefits under Tennessee Code Annotated
5
section 50-6-204(a)(1)(A), including the lumbar fusion surgery, along with any
required preoperative diagnostics, ordered by Dr. Schroerlucke.
2. The Court grants Ms. Holland’s request for attorney’s fees under Tennessee Code
Annotated section 50-6-226(d)(1)(A) because of Randstad’s failure to approve the
lumbar fusion. Ms. Holland’s attorney shall file a motion for fees and expenses
incurred in obtaining the lumbar fusion, itemized by task, date of performance, time
spent, and the requested hourly rate, within ten days of the date of this order.
Randstad shall have five days to respond.
3. Randstad shall pay the $150.00 filing fee to the Clerk within five business days of
this order becoming final, for which execution might issue as necessary.
4. Unless appealed, this order shall become final 30 days after entry.
ENTERED December 10, 2025.
________________________________________
Judge Shaterra R. Marion
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
APPENDIX
Exhibits:
1. Deposition of Dr. Schroerlucke, including attachments and Utilization Review
Report of Dr. Lager
2. Jointly-Submitted Medical Records, with Table of Contents
3. Deposition of Dr. Lochemes, with attachments except for those listed in #4 below
4. [For Identification Only] Emails attached to Dr. Lochemes’s deposition related to
scheduling his deposition
5. Letter from Dr. Snyder upholding the utilization review denial
6. Settlement Agreement dated September 29, 2022
7. Settlement Agreement dated July 19, 2023
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this Order was sent as indicated on December 10, 2025.
Name Email Service sent to:
Jonathan May, X jmay@forthepeople.com
Employee’s Attorney sshook@forthepeople.com
Jenna Macnair, X jmacnair@manierherod.com
Rhoberta Orsland, rorsland@manierherod.com
Employer’s Attorneys
_____________________________________
Penny Shrum, Court 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