The opinion
FILED
Jan 06, 2026
09:54 AM(CT)
TENNESSEE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
APPEALS BOARD
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
Wayne Freeman Docket No. 2024-50-8550
v. State File No. 31297-2024
United Road Services, Inc., et al.
Appeal from the Court of Workers’
Compensation Claims
Thomas L. Wyatt, Judge
Affirmed and Remanded
The employee in this case has two pending claims: the first involves a compensable left
shoulder injury that is the subject of a separate appeal; the second involves an alleged right
shoulder injury the employee contended occurred several days before surgery on his left
shoulder, when he was closing upper deck extensions on a vehicle hauler. The employer
denied this second claim, asserting that the employee did not give notice of the alleged
accident until more than fifteen days after its occurrence and offered no reasonable excuse
for his failure to give timely notice. Following an expedited hearing on this second claim,
the trial court determined the employee is not likely to prevail at trial in proving he gave
timely notice of his alleged right shoulder injury or had a reasonable excuse for the failure
to give timely notice, and it denied his request for medical benefits related to the right
shoulder condition. The employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record,
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.
Wayne Freeman, Summertown, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se
Heather H. Douglas and Jenna M. Macnair, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employer-
appellee, United Road Services, Inc.
Factual and Procedural Background
Wayne Freeman (“Employee”) drove a vehicle hauler for United Road Services,
Inc. (“Employer”). In 2022, Employee suffered a work-related injury to his left shoulder,
1
which Employer accepted as compensable. Following a course of authorized medical
treatment, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in 2023 that was approved by the
trial court. This agreement resolved Employee’s claim for an original award of permanent
disability benefits and left open Employee’s entitlement to future medical benefits for his
left shoulder injury pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204. Thereafter,
Employee continued to report left shoulder symptoms, and his authorized physician
recommended surgery.
Several days before his scheduled left shoulder surgery, on April 6, 2024, Employee
was closing the upper deck extensions on a vehicle hauler when he experienced pain and
symptoms in his right shoulder. He did not inform Employer of this incident at the time.
He then underwent left shoulder surgery on April 9 and was out of work during a period of
recovery. On or about May 1, 2024, twenty-five days after the alleged right shoulder
incident, Employee gave notice by email to Employer’s workers’ compensation claims
manager of the work incident involving his right shoulder. Employer’s terminal manager
received a similar email the following day. Employer’s insurer denied Employee’s right
shoulder claim based on late notice. Employee was released to return to work following
the left shoulder surgery, but he was subsequently involved in a motor vehicle accident
while driving a company vehicle that resulted in his termination. In December 2024,
Employee filed a petition for benefit determination seeking authorized medical treatment
for his right shoulder condition. Following an expedited hearing in October 2025, the trial
court issued an order denying Employee’s request for medical benefits, concluding
Employee was not likely to prevail at trial in proving he provided timely notice of the
accident or had a reasonable excuse for the failure to provide timely notice. Employee has
appealed.
Standard of Review
The standard we apply in reviewing a trial court’s decision presumes that the court’s
factual findings are correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(7) (2025). When the trial judge has had the opportunity
to observe a witness’s demeanor and to hear in-court testimony, we give considerable
deference to factual findings made by the trial court. Madden v. Holland Grp. of Tenn.,
Inc., 277 S.W.3d 896, 898 (Tenn. 2009). However, “[n]o similar deference need be
afforded the trial court’s findings based upon documentary evidence.” Goodman v.
Schwarz Paper Co., No. W2016-02594-SC-R3-WC, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 8, at *6 (Tenn.
Workers’ Comp. Panel Jan. 18, 2018). Similarly, the interpretation and application of
statutes and regulations are questions of law that are reviewed de novo with no presumption
of correctness afforded the trial court’s conclusions. See Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone
N. Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393, 399 (Tenn. 2013). We are also mindful of our
obligation to construe the workers’ compensation statutes “fairly, impartially, and in
accordance with basic principles of statutory construction” and in a way that does not favor
either the employee or the employer. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-116 (2025).
2
Analysis
Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-201(a) places the burden on an injured
worker to provide the employer with timely notice of a work-related injury. It requires the
employee, or a representative of the employee, to “immediately upon the occurrence of an
injury, or as soon thereafter as is reasonable and practicable, give or cause to be given to
the employer who has no actual notice, written notice of the injury.” Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 50-6-201(a)(1) (2024). Moreover, the second sentence of subsection (a)(1) provides that
an employee shall be entitled to “no compensation” unless “the written notice is given to
the employer within fifteen (15) days after the occurrence of the accident.” Id. (emphasis
added). Further, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-201(b) makes clear that injuries
occurring “as the result of gradual or cumulative events or trauma” have additional
statutory provisions to consider. If, however, the alleged injury occurred as the result of a
sudden event, subsection 201(b) is not applicable. 1
In Ernstes v. Printpack, Inc., No. 2020-07-0617, 2023 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd.
LEXIS 25 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. June 6, 2023), we examined the history of
Tennessee’s notice requirement and concluded that, when considering whether an
employee provided timely notice of the work-related injury, the court should apply the
following framework:
A. Did the employee provide timely written notice of the alleged work-related
injury?
B. If no timely written notice was provided, did the employer have “actual
knowledge” of the alleged work-related accident or injury?
C. If no timely written notice was provided and no actual knowledge has been
proven, did the employee show a “reasonable excuse” for the failure to give
proper notice to the employer? In considering whether the employee has
shown by a preponderance of the evidence a reasonable excuse, a court can
consider, among other things: (1) the employer’s actual knowledge of the
employee’s injury, (2) lack of prejudice to the employer by an excusal of
the notice requirement, and (3) the excuse or inability of the employee to
timely notify the employer. However, as previously stated by the
Tennessee Supreme Court, lack of prejudice alone would not be sufficient
to excuse notice.
1
Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-201 was amended as of July 1, 2025, but the present case arose
prior to the effective date of such amendments, so we have relied on the language of section 201 as it existed
prior to the most recent amendments.
3
D. If the court determines that: (1) no timely written notice was provided; (2)
the employer did not have actual knowledge of the alleged accident or
injury; and (3) the employee did not prove a reasonable excuse for the
failure to give timely notice, the claim should be denied and dismissed.
E. If written notice was provided, but the employer affirmatively asserts there
was a defect or inaccuracy in the notice, the burden of proof shifts to the
employer to prove actual prejudice it suffered as a result of the defective or
inaccurate notice and, if such prejudice is found, the trial court can fashion
a remedy, if appropriate, “only to the extent of the prejudice.”
Id. at *34 (internal citations and some quotation marks omitted). 2
Here, Employee’s allegations include components of both a purported gradual
injury and a sudden, traumatic event. First, Employee asserted that his previous left
shoulder injury had caused him to overuse his right shoulder at work, resulting in increased
pain over a period of time. However, there is no evidence in the record that Employee
timely reported an overuse injury to Employer or sought medical treatment for an overuse
injury. He also offered no medical evidence supporting his contention that he sustained an
overuse injury to his right shoulder. Second, Employee alleged a specific event occurring
on April 6, 2024, which resulted in significant acute pain in his right arm and shoulder.
The trial court determined, as an initial matter, that Employee did not come forward with
sufficient evidence at the expedited hearing to indicate a likelihood of proving he had
suffered a compensable gradual injury to his right shoulder primarily caused by work, and
we agree with that determination. Thus, we must consider whether Employee gave proper
notice of the alleged accident on April 6 and, if not, whether he is likely to prevail at trial
in proving he had a reasonable excuse for the failure to give timely notice.
It is undisputed that Employee did not give Employer timely, written notice of the
alleged April 6 accident and that Employer had no actual knowledge of that event. In a
sworn declaration admitted into evidence during the hearing, Employee acknowledged he
did not report the April 6 incident causing right shoulder symptoms to Employer because
he hoped his condition would improve. Although Employer later testified that Employee
told the adjuster for his left shoulder claim about his right shoulder condition either just
before or just after his left shoulder surgery, the trial court did not find this testimony
credible. On appeal, we give deference to a trial court’s credibility determinations, absent
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Jones Fiber
Products, LLC, No. 2019-02-0046, 2020 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 72, at *18-19
(Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Dec. 28, 2020) (quoting Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685
2
Our opinion in Ernstes was affirmed on appeal by the Tennessee Supreme Court’s Special Workers’
Compensation Appeals Panel. Ernstes v. Printpack, Inc., No. W2023-00863-SC-R3-WC, 2024 Tenn.
LEXIS 1 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel Jan. 2, 2024).
4
(Tenn. 2014)). For evidence to be clear and convincing, it must eliminate any serious or
substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence. Id.
Here, we conclude the evidence supports the trial court’s determination as to this issue.
Consequently, this appeal hinges on an analysis of Step C, above, which requires
the employee to offer a reasonable excuse for the failure to give timely written notice. In
such circumstances, a trial court can consider, among other pertinent factors, whether the
employer had actual knowledge of the accident, whether the employee was unable to timely
notify the employer of the accident, and/or whether the employer suffered any prejudice
caused by the lack of timely notice. Evidence of lack of prejudice, standing alone, is not
enough to support a finding that the employee offered a reasonable excuse for the lack of
timely notice. Ernstes, 2023 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 25, at *34 (citing Aluminum
Co. of Am. v. Rogers, 364 S.W.2d 358, 361 (Tenn. 1962)).
The trial court considered two elements in its reasonable excuse analysis. First,
Employee testified he did not inform Employer of the April 6 incident because he believed
his shoulder pain would improve. As we have previously noted, however, the statute
requires an employee to give notice within fifteen days of the occurrence of the accident,
not within fifteen days after the employee believes his medical condition arising from that
accident necessitates medical attention. Yeoman v. Transwood Logistics, Inc., No. 2024-
30-2931, 2025 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 57, at *8-9 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App.
Bd. Nov. 13, 2025). Further, we concluded that an employee’s lack of understanding of
the seriousness of his medical condition does not constitute a reasonable excuse for the
failure to give timely notice of a workplace accident. Id. at *9. Thus, we agree with the
trial court that Employee’s sworn statements addressing why he did not inform Employer
of the April 6 incident earlier did not constitute a reasonable excuse.
Second, Employee alleged that the medication he was given following his left
shoulder surgery made it impossible or impracticable to provide Employer with notice of
the April 6 incident. Yet, as noted by the trial court, Employee offered no evidence of the
type of medication he was given or its effect, if any, on his mental or physical capacity.
Thus, we agree with the trial court that the evidence Employee presented to date is
insufficient to support a finding that he had a reasonable excuse for the failure to provide
timely notice of the right shoulder accident.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s interlocutory order and remand
the case. Costs on appeal are taxed to Employee.
5
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
Wayne Freeman Docket No. 2024-50-8550
v. State File No. 31297-2024
United Road Services, Inc., et al.
Appeal from the Court of Workers’
Compensation Claims
Thomas L. Wyatt, 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 6th day of
January, 2026.
Name Certified First Class Via Via Sent to:
Mail Mail Fax Email
Wayne Freeman X freemanwayne@gmail.com
Heather H. Douglas X hdouglas@manierherod.com
Jenna M. Macnair jmacnair@manierherod.com
ecollins@manierherod.com
Thomas L. Wyatt, 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