The opinion
FILED
Dec 30, 2025
08:12 AM(CT)
TENNESSEE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
APPEALS BOARD
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
Mary Christina Shurina, as Personal Docket No. 2021-03-0083
Representative of the Estate of Gregory
Joseph Shurina, Decedent Employee State File No. 16323-2021
v.
FedEx Ground, et al.
Appeal from the Court of Workers’
Compensation Claims
Pamela B. Johnson, Judge
Affirmed and Remanded
In this interlocutory appeal, the personal representative of the estate of the decedent
employee filed a pro se petition seeking to recover any benefits to which the estate may be
entitled following what the personal representative asserts was the decedent’s work-related
death. The parties agreed the decedent had no dependents within the meaning of the
Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law. Following the filing of a hearing request and a
motion for protective order by the personal representative of the estate, the trial court issued
an order in which it determined that neither the personal representative of the estate nor the
estate itself can proceed with litigation in a pro se capacity. It therefore directed the estate
to hire a licensed attorney, and the personal representative has appealed the court’s order.
Having carefully reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and binding case precedent, we
affirm the trial court’s order 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.
Mary Christina Shurina, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gregory Joseph
Shurina, decedent-employee, Lenoir City, Tennessee, petitioner-appellant, pro se
Jonathan West, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, FedEx Ground
1
Memorandum Opinion 1
The sole issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the estate of a deceased worker,
through its executor, administrator, or personal representative, can litigate a case in the
Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims and/or the Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Board without being represented by an attorney. For the following reasons, we
agree with the trial court that it cannot.
First, we note the administrator of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation is
statutorily authorized to “promulgate rules and regulations consistent with this chapter.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-237 (2025). Pursuant to that authority, the administrator
promulgated Rule 0800-02-21-.04, which provides, in part, that “[a]ny corporation or other
artificial person . . . must be represented by a licensed attorney in the court of workers’
compensation claims and the workers’ compensation appeals board.” Tenn. Comp. R. &
Regs. 0800-02-21-.04(1)(c) (2023). This regulation has the force and effect of law. See
Hadzic v. Averitt Express, No. 2014-02-0064, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 14,
at *7 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. May 18, 2015) (“It is well-settled that
administrative rules and regulations have the force and effect of law.”) (citing Kogan v.
Tenn. Bd. of Dentistry, No. M2003-00291-COA-R3-CV, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 933, at
*17 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2003)).
Second, the Tennessee Court of Appeals has addressed whether an estate and/or its
personal representatives can file a complaint on behalf of the estate in a pro se capacity. In
Grose v. Stone, No. W2023-00090-COA-R3-CV, 2024 Tenn. App. LEXIS 186 (Tenn. Ct.
App. Apr. 25, 2024), the personal representatives of an estate sought to file a wrongful
death action on behalf of the estate of the deceased person in a pro se capacity. Id. at *3.
In their complaint, the personal representatives stated they “sought with due diligence” to
retain counsel but were unable to do so. Id. They asked the court to allow the case “to
rightfully move forward in a pro se status.” Id. The trial court determined the personal
representatives of an estate could not file a complaint on behalf of any other beneficiaries
or entities, including the estate, because they were not attorneys. Id. at *12. On appeal,
the Tennessee Court of Appeals emphasized that a person who is not an attorney “may
conduct and manage the person’s own case . . . without violating the prohibition against
the unauthorized practice of law.” Id. at *25 (quoting Beard v. Branson, 528 S.W.3d 487,
495 (Tenn. 2017) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). Yet, the Court also
stated that “a non-attorney may not conduct litigation on behalf of an entity or another
individual, because doing so would constitute the unauthorized practice of law.” Id.
Here, because the decedent employee had no dependents as defined in Tennessee
Code Annotated section 50-6-210, the only potential means of recovery is set out in
Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-209, which provides, in relevant part:
1
This decision is being filed pursuant to Tenn. Comp. R. and Regs. 0800-02-22-.03(1) (2023).
2
In all cases of death of an employee covered by this chapter, and where the
employee leaves no dependents, as provided in § 50-6-210, then the lump
sum amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) shall be paid to the estate
of the deceased employee.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-209(b)(2) (emphasis added). Thus, in circumstances where a
deceased employee has no dependents who could qualify for death benefits, Tennessee’s
Workers’ Compensation Law limits any potential recovery to a lump sum amount paid to
the deceased employee’s estate, not to any particular beneficiaries of that estate. In short,
a claim for the benefit provided in subsection 209(b)(2) belongs to the estate of the
deceased worker, not to the personal representatives or beneficiaries of that estate. Hence,
individual beneficiaries have no claim to pursue on their own behalf in a pro se capacity. 2
Instead, the estate, as an artificial legal entity, can pursue a claim for the lump sum payment
set out in subsection 209(b)(2), which, if successful, results in a payment directly to the
estate. Yet, as Tennessee’s appellate courts have concluded, the personal representatives
of an estate cannot pursue a claim on behalf of the estate in a pro se capacity because filing
a petition, initiating or responding to discovery, engaging in settlement negotiations, and
presenting the claim of the estate in court all require “the professional judgment of a lawyer,
and [are], therefore, the practice of law.” Old Hickory Eng’g and Mach. Co. v. Henry, 937
S.W.2d 782, 786 (Tenn. 1996) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
Before concluding, we acknowledge the statements of the personal representatives
indicating they have tried to retain counsel to represent the estate but have been unable to
do so. We further acknowledge the difficulties this creates for the personal representatives,
who are trying to fulfill their fiduciary duties to their son’s estate. Nevertheless, we cannot
ignore clear statutory and regulatory directives, and we are bound by precedent that
requires an artificial legal entity, such as an estate, to have legal representation in court. 3
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court and remand the
case. Costs on appeal are taxed to the estate’s personal representative.
2
Moreover, the beneficiaries of an estate and the dependents of a deceased employee are separate and
distinct categories. See Campbell v. Walker’s Crane Serv., 1984 Tenn. LEXIS 933, at *7 (Tenn. Aug. 6,
1984). By definition, persons who may share in the distribution of an estate and thus receive a portion of
the benefits described in subsection 209(b)(2) are not dependents of the deceased employee who could
qualify for death benefits under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-210 and pursue a claim for such
benefits in a pro se capacity.
3
We further note that the personal representatives have asserted certain constitutional violations they
believe stem from the requirement that the estate be represented by a licensed attorney in court. However,
we have no jurisdiction to address a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute or regulation. See
Wigdor v. Elec. Research & Mfg. Coop., Inc., No. 2022-07-0416, 2023 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS
57, at *3 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Nov. 21, 2023).
3
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
Mary Christina Shurina, as Personal Docket No. 2021-03-0083
Representative of the Estate of Gregory
Joseph Shurina, Decedent Employee State File No. 16323-2021
v.
FedEx Ground, et al.
Appeal from the Court of Workers’
Compensation Claims
Pamela B. Johnson, 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 30th day of
December, 2025.
Name Certified First Class Via Via Sent to:
Mail Mail Fax Email
Mary Christina Shurina, as Personal X knoxshu@ix.netcom.com
Representative of the Estate of Gregory knoxshu@aol.com
Joseph Shurina, Decedent Employee 8653828156@vtext.com
Jonathan M. West X jonathan.west@qpwblaw.com
jamie.glass@qpwblaw.com
Jay Hicks X james.hicks@tn.gov
Pamela B. Johnson, Judge X Via Electronic Mail
Kenneth M. Switzer, Chief Judge X Via Electronic Mail
Penny Shrum, Clerk, Court of Workers’ X penny.patterson-shrum@tn.gov
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