Anderson,Bennie v. City of Knoxville Department of Recreation

FILED

Jan 05, 2026

11:32 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

APPEALS BOARD

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Bennie Anderson Docket No. 2022-03-0885

v. State File No. 41632-2022

City of Knoxville Department of

Recreation

Appeal from the Court of Workers’

Compensation Claims

Brian K. Addington, Judge

Affirmed and Remanded

In this appeal, the employee sustained injuries after slipping and falling from his truck at

work. The employer accepted the compensability of the accident and provided medical

care and temporary disability benefits for his work injuries. Following a course of

conservative medical treatment, authorized treating providers placed the employee at

maximum medical improvement, assigned impairment ratings for his shoulder, neck, and

back, and released him to return to work. The employee was not satisfied with the

treatment provided and sought unauthorized medical care, including treatment for

gastroparesis, high blood pressure, seizures, and a hernia, for which he underwent surgical

repair. Thereafter, the employee requested additional medical and temporary disability

benefits for these conditions. In response, the employer asserted: (1) it had provided all

medical treatment reasonably necessitated by the work accident; (2) the conditions for

which the employee sought treatment were not causally related to the work accident; and

(3) the employee was not entitled to additional temporary disability benefits because he

had been placed at maximum medical improvement by his authorized physicians.

Following an expedited hearing, the trial court determined the employee was unlikely to

prevail at trial in proving his entitlement to additional medical treatment or temporary

disability benefits, and the employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record,

we affirm the trial court’s decision and remand the case.

Judge Pele I. Godkin delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which Presiding Judge

Timothy W. Conner and Judge Meredith B. Weaver joined.

Bennie Anderson, Knoxville, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se

1

Jim Johnson, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, City of Knoxville

Department of Recreation

Memorandum Opinion 1

Bennie Anderson (“Employee”) was employed as a knuckle boom truck driver for

the City of Knoxville Department of Recreation (“Employer”). On June 6, 2022, Employee

slipped and fell from a truck, landing on his feet before falling to the ground. Employee

reported the incident to Employer and noted that he experienced pain in his head, shoulders,

neck, and mid-section. Employer authorized workers’ compensation benefits, and

Employee was initially seen by Katy Tillery, NP, at The Center – Premise Health (“The

Center”), Employer’s on-site medical services provider, before being referred to a

specialist. Employee then saw Dr. Daniel B. Wells, an orthopedic surgeon with Tennessee

Orthopaedic Alliance, beginning on June 13, 2022. Dr. Wells documented Employee’s

neck and bilateral arm pain. Diagnostic studies revealed no cervical spine stenosis but

showed “some degenerative changes” with “no myelomalacia present.” Dr. Wells

prescribed a course of physical therapy and assigned light duty restrictions. During a

follow-up visit, Employee reported difficulty performing work tasks and stated that his

symptoms were worse with physical therapy. Employee also suggested to Dr. Wells that

he might be “missing something” because of his ongoing symptoms. In response, Dr.

Wells noted he was “unclear what was going on with [Employee]” since his symptoms

seemed to be different from what he reported previously, his MRI showed “no high-grade

cervical stenosis and no myelomalacia,” and, during his physical examination, Dr. Wells

did not “appreciate any swelling in his bilateral upper extremities.” Dr. Wells referred

Employee to his colleague, Dr. Patrick M. Bolt, an orthopedic surgeon, to determine if

there was something he missed but noted that he would see Employee again, if needed.

On June 22, 2022, Employee was evaluated by Dr. John M. Reynolds, IV, also an

orthopedic surgeon with Tennessee Orthopaedic Alliance, for his shoulder symptoms. Dr.

Reynolds recorded Employee’s complaints of neck pain radiating into both shoulders and

noted Employee was seeing Dr. Wells for his cervical spine. An MRI of the right shoulder

revealed “tendinopathy with no significant rotator cuff tear and mild AC joint arthrosis.”

The left shoulder MRI revealed “rotator cuff tendinopathy with a very small low-grade

partial articular sided tear of the distal supraspinatus, but no evidence of any acute or full-

thickness or high-grade tear.” AC arthrosis was also noted. Dr. Reynolds determined there

was “no evidence of any surgical pathology in either shoulder,” placed Employee at

maximum medical improvement (“MMI”), and released him to full duty work with no

permanent impairment from the perspective of his shoulder condition.

Dr. Bolt evaluated Employee on August 29, 2022, and noted that he had previously

been seen by his colleagues, Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Wells. Dr. Bolt believed that

1

This decision is being filed pursuant to Tenn. Comp. R. and Regs. 0800-02-22-.03(1) (2023).

2

Employee’s pain was “out of proportion” with diagnostic findings. He recorded that the

“MRI of the cervical spine reveals cervical degenerative changes [at] C2-C5 without

significant neural impingement at any level.” In addition, the “MRI of the right shoulder

reveals supraspinatus and mild AC joint osteoarthritis without tear.” Dr. Bolt ordered an

MRI of Employee’s thoracic and lumbar spine “to rule out other causes of discomfort” and

a nerve conduction study of Employee’s upper extremities. Results of that MRI were

unremarkable, and Dr. Bolt advised Employee that he “would not recommend surgical

intervention or injection therapy with the absence of a specific finding on imaging.” 2 He

prescribed physical therapy, but, after completing that treatment, Employee reported

ongoing pain in the neck and low back with minimal relief. Thereafter, Dr. Bolt referred

Employee for a functional capacity evaluation (“FCE”). Dr. Bolt reviewed the FCE results

with Employee and explained that it indicated Employee was “significantly self-limiting

and consequently, no permanent restrictions can be recommended.” Dr. Bolt reiterated he

was only treating Employee’s neck and back conditions and, thus, had “nothing further to

offer [Employee]” regarding his “non-musculoskeletal/orthopedic complaints” related to

the shoulder symptomology. On January 23, 2023, Dr. Bolt placed Employee at MMI and

released him from his care with no permanent work restrictions. Dr. Bolt assigned an

impairment rating of 4% to the whole body for the cervical spine condition.

On September 18, 2023, Employee obtained a second opinion from Dr. Jay Jolley

at Southeastern Spine in Chattanooga. 3 Following that examination, Dr. Jolley completed

a final medical report reflecting a diagnosis of cervical spondylosis, “[m]ulti-focal

complaints,” and a cervical sprain. He agreed with Dr. Bolt’s recommendation against

surgical intervention and concluded that Employee had reached MMI, was able to return

to full duty work without restrictions, and retained no permanent impairment.

Employee was also seen by Dr. D. Macolm Spica, Ph.D., who Employer authorized

to perform a neuropsychological examination of Employee. Dr. Spica determined that

Employee retained no injury “on a neurobehav[ior]al bas[i]s” as a result of the work

incident and “defer[red] comment regarding [Employee’s] additional physical conditions

(e.g., pain, numbness, etc.) to appropriate medical resources.”

Thereafter, Employer continued to authorize medical treatment related to the work

incident; however, Employee expressed his dissatisfaction with the medical care Employer

had provided to date. As a result, he sought unauthorized treatment, including emergent

2

In October 2022, Employee was called by Dr. Desiree Roa, a provider at The Center, to discuss the results

of a CT head and neck scan performed on October 18, 2022. Dr. Roa explained that Employee’s findings

were “negative for any acute findings to explain his symptoms.” During this call, she also addressed a

negative CT of Employee’s head that he chose to obtain on his own at an emergency department in Johnson

City on October 16, 2022.

3

The record is silent as to whether the second opinion was authorized by Employer or whether Employee

obtained the second opinion on his own.

3

care. In his written request for additional medical and disability benefits, Employee

asserted that he “hurts all over” and did not have these issues prior to his injury. In

response, Employer contended it had furnished appropriate treatment for all conditions that

medical providers determined were primarily related to the work accident. Further,

Employer argued that Employee is not entitled to additional temporary disability benefits

because he was placed at MMI for all work-related conditions.

Following an expedited hearing, the trial court concluded that Employee failed to

offer evidence from a medical expert supporting the need for additional medical treatment

arising primarily from his work injuries. The court emphasized that Employee’s testimony,

in and of itself, is insufficient to show that his conditions were primarily caused by the

work incident. Ultimately, the court also found Employee failed to show a likelihood of

prevailing at trial in proving his entitlement to additional temporary disability benefits

because he had been placed at MMI by his authorized treating physicians for all conditions

primarily related to the work incident. Employee has appealed.

In his notice of appeal, Employee argues the trial court’s decision was “incorrect

based on the evidence” and asserts it “didn’t let me give my medical testimony.”

Employee filed an “Appeal Writing Checklist” consisting of what appears to be reproduced

portions of medical records and filings, with personal comments interspersed throughout.

Employee submits the trial court showed “favoritism” toward Employer, and he “didn’t get

a chance to show my medical fact to represent my medical fact not opinions.”

However, no transcript of the hearing or statement of the evidence was filed in

conjunction with this appeal. “Without a transcript or a statement of the evidence, the

appellate court cannot know what evidence was presented to the trial court, and there is no

means by which we can evaluate the appellant’s assertion that the evidence did not support

the trial court’s decision.” Britt v. Chambers, No. W2006-00061-COA-R3-CV, 2007

Tenn. App. LEXIS 38, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2007). Moreover, although Employee

filed a brief, it fails to provide any “argument in support of . . . [his] contention” on appeal.

Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Resp. of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010)

(further stating “[i]t is not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or construct

a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her”). “In short, an incomplete appellate record

is fatal to an appeal, and a reviewing court must conclusively presume that the evidence

presented supported the facts as found by the trial court.” Payne v. D & D Electric, No.

2014-01-0023, 2014 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp.

App. Bd. Dec. 17, 2014) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

When an appellant fails to offer substantive arguments on appeal, an appellate

court’s “ability to conduct meaningful appellate review is significantly hampered.”

Holmes v. Ellis Watkins d/b/a Watkins Lawn Care, No. 2017-08-0504, 2018 TN Wrk.

Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 7, at *3-4 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Feb. 13, 2018).

Moreover, “where a party fails to develop an argument in support of his or her contention

4

or merely constructs a skeletal argument, the issue is waived.” Sneed, 301 S.W.3d at 615.

It is not our role to search the record for possible errors or to formulate a party’s legal

arguments where that party has provided no meaningful argument or authority to support

its position. Cosey v. Jarden Corp., No. 2017-01-0053, 2019 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd.

LEXIS 3, at *8 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2019). As our appellate courts

have explained, were we to search the record for possible errors and raise issues and

arguments for Employee, we would be acting as her counsel, which the law prohibits. See,

e.g., Webb v. Sherrell, No. E2013-02724-COA-R3-CV, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645, at

*5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2015) (stating “we cannot write [a party’s] brief for [them],

and we are not able to create arguments or issues where none otherwise are set forth”).

In short, Employee has offered nothing on appeal to indicate the trial court erred in

denying his request for additional medical or disability benefits at this stage of the case.

An employee’s opinion about the medical cause of his or her conditions, without

supporting expert medical proof, is insufficient to support an award of benefits. See Scott

v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, No. 2015-01-0055, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS

24, at *12 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015) (“Employee’s lay testimony

in this case, without corroborative expert testimony, did not constitute adequate evidence

of medical causation.”). Here, multiple authorized physicians evaluated Employee’s

complaints, prescribed treatment, and then placed Employee at MMI with no

recommendations for further treatment. Employee has offered no conflicting expert

medical opinions to date. Consequently, we conclude the record on appeal supports the

trial court’s order.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court and remand the

case. Costs on appeal are waived.

5

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Bennie Anderson Docket No. 2022-03-0885

v. State File No. 41632-2022

City of Knoxville Deptartment of

Recreation

Appeal from the Court of Workers’

Compensation Claims

Brian K. Addington, 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 5th day of

January, 2026.

Name Certified First Class Via Via Sent to:

Mail Mail Fax Email

Bennie Anderson X bkimm1423@aol.com

Jim Johnson X jjohnson@knoxvilletn.gov

Brian K. Addington, 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