Laymance , Glenda v K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc., dba Food City

FILED

Jan 14, 2026

11:03 AM(CT)

TENNESSEE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

APPEALS BOARD

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Glenda Laymance Docket No. 2024-30-5862

v. State File No. 25114-2023

K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc., d/b/a Food

City, et al.

Appeal from the Court of Workers’

Compensation Claims

Pamela B. Johnson, Judge

Affirmed and Remanded

In this appeal, the employer questions the trial court’s order requiring it to pay additional

temporary total disability benefits despite the employee’s authorized physician previously

placing her at maximum medical improvement. The employee sustained a compensable

right shoulder injury for which the employer provided workers’ compensation benefits.

The authorized treating physician placed her at maximum medical improvement and

released her to return to work, but the employee was unable to perform the duties of her

job and asked to return to her physician. After objective testing revealed a need for

additional treatment related to the work injury, including surgery, the authorized physician

rescinded his prior determination that the employee had reached maximum medical

improvement and restricted her from working. The employer declined to pay additional

temporary total disability benefits. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court

concluded the employee had met her burden of proving she will likely prevail at trial in

showing she is entitled to additional temporary total disability benefits, and the employer

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.

Jeffrey M. Cranford, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellant, K-VA-T Food

Stores, Inc., d/b/a Food City

Lauren Blair Ray, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employee-appellee, Glenda Laymance

1

Factual and Procedural Background

Glenda Laymance (“Employee”) worked as a deli coordinator for K-VA-T Food

Stores, Inc., d/b/a Food City (“Employer”). On March 31, 2023, she injured her right

shoulder while working at the store’s pizza station. Employer accepted the claim and

provided a panel of physicians from which Employee selected Dr. Aaron Roberts. He

provided Employee medical care for a fracture and multiple rotator cuff tears in her right

shoulder, including surgery in July 2023. Following a course of physical therapy, Dr.

Roberts opined that Employee had reached maximum medical improvement (“MMI”) on

November 17, 2023, with no permanent work restrictions. Prior to Dr. Roberts’s MMI

determination, Employer had paid temporary total disability (“TTD”) benefits.

After being placed at MMI, Employee returned to work performing the same job

she had prior to the injury, but she began to experience increased shoulder symptoms. She

tried to return to Dr. Roberts, but his office informed her that Employer had not authorized

any additional treatment. On September 3, 2024, Employee filed a petition for benefit

determination seeking an appointment with Dr. Roberts and attorney’s fees for wrongful

denial of treatment. 1 Thereafter, Employer authorized an appointment with Dr. Roberts

for October 2, 2024. During that visit, Dr. Roberts noted that Employee reported

occasional numbness as well as pain with lifting and reaching and “grinding” during work.

An MRI revealed severe post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the right shoulder. Dr. Roberts

opined that Employee’s condition arose primarily out of her March 31, 2023 injury and

recommended a reverse total right shoulder replacement. He performed the recommended

surgery on January 28, 2025, and took Employee off work post-surgery.

On April 2, 2025, Dr. Roberts responded to a questionnaire sent by Employee’s

attorney stating that that his previous MMI determination was rescinded. He confirmed

that the development of post-traumatic osteoarthritis required additional surgery and that

Employee had been unable to work since the surgery. Based on these medical opinions,

Employee requested that her TTD benefits be reinstated. Employer denied Employee’s

request, asserting that its obligation to pay temporary disability benefits ended when

Employee was initially placed at MMI.

The parties deposed Dr. Roberts on August 27, 2025. He testified that Employee

was off work following the most recent surgery from January 28, 2025, through June 2,

2025, when she was released to full duty work, but that he took her off work again on June

16, 2025, because of increasing symptoms. Dr. Roberts opined that Employee’s right

shoulder injury, including the post-traumatic osteoarthritis and need for a right reverse total

shoulder arthroplasty were primarily related to the work injury. He further testified that

the original MMI date of November 17, 2023, should be rescinded and, as of the date of

the deposition, she had not reached MMI for her work-related conditions.

1

Employee contends she had requested to see Dr. Roberts since February 2024.

2

With regard to the nature of her injuries and his initial opinion placing her at MMI,

Dr. Roberts testified that Employee had fractured her shoulder and torn her rotator cuff.

He stated that at the time he initially placed her at MMI, he did not expect future changes

in her condition or the need for future medical treatment. He confirmed that he had released

her without restrictions because he felt, “given her improvement with physical therapy as

well as her clinical exam, that she would be able to do the duties associated with her job.”

He did not schedule a follow-up appointment but instead instructed Employee to contact

him if she needed anything further. When asked if he believed the treatment of her work-

related injury was concluded at that point, Dr. Roberts responded, “I did.” However, when

Employee returned for further evaluation, he discovered she had developed severe post-

traumatic arthritis, which he opined was primarily caused by the work injury. He testified

that, following surgery, he released Employee to return to work on June 2, 2025, but

restricted her from work again on June 16 due to increased pain. He further testified that,

in his medical opinion, Employee had not reached MMI as of the date of his deposition.

Dr. Roberts explained:

I felt that she had [reached MMI] in November when she was doing quite

well, and had been able to return to work. When she returned to me with the

arthritic changes and the clear post-traumatic arthritis, I felt that, as this did

relate to the original injury, that maximum medical improvement had no

longer been present.

During the expedited hearing, Employee testified that she had returned to work after

initially reaching MMI and had continued to work until her surgery in January 2025.

Following surgery and her recovery, she worked for a short period of time in June but had

not worked since June 9. Employee sought TTD benefits beginning January 28, 2025, and

ongoing, except for the days she worked in June. She argued that Dr. Roberts’s rescission

of MMI was proof that placing her at MMI in November 2023 was incorrect or premature

and Employer’s refusal to provide TTD benefits was unjust/unreasonable, entitling her to

a 25% penalty and attorney’s fees.

For its part, Employer asserted that TTD benefits terminate upon reaching MMI or

returning to work. Since Employee was placed at MMI in November 2023, and since Dr.

Roberts did not anticipate changes in her condition and the need for future medical

treatment, his opinion in November 2023 was not incorrect or premature. Employer

maintained that a physician’s statement simply rescinding a previously-expressed opinion

as to MMI is insufficient to support a new period of temporary disability.

Following the hearing, the trial court noted in its order that the underlying facts of

the case are largely undisputed and that both parties relied on Wise v. Murfreesboro Health

Care Ctr., no number in original,1994 Tenn. LEXIS 389, at *9 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp.

Panel Dec. 22, 1994) and Mansell v. Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc., No. 2023-07-5993,

2025 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 9 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Mar. 12, 2025)

3

to support their respective positions. The court determined that Employee had met her

burden of proving an entitlement to additional temporary disability benefits based on the

testimony of Dr. Roberts. Specifically, the court found that Employee had: (1) become

disabled from working due to a compensable injury; (2) provided medical proof that a

causal connection exists between the injury and her inability to work; and (3) established

the duration of the period of disability. The court ordered ongoing TTD benefits beginning

January 28, 2025, with the exception of the period from June 2 to June 16 during which

Employee worked, at the agreed weekly compensation rate of $355.67. Regarding

Employee’s request for a penalty and attorney’s fees, the court held both issues in abeyance

until a later evidentiary hearing. Employer 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 credibility determinations made by the trial court. Madden v. Holland Grp.

of Tenn., Inc., 277 S.W.3d 896, 898 (Tenn. 2009). However, “when it comes to deposition

testimony, an appellate panel is in the same position as the trial court to make credibility

determinations.” Edwards v. Peoplease, LLC, No. W2024-01034-SC-R3-WC, 2025 Tenn.

LEXIS 514, at *18 (Tenn. Dec. 22, 2025). Thus, when medical proof is presented by

deposition, “the reviewing court may draw its own conclusions about the weight and

credibility of the expert testimony.” Id. Moreover, 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).

Analysis

On appeal, Employer asserts the trial court erred in ordering additional temporary

disability benefits because Employee had already reached MMI, which terminated her

entitlement to such benefits. Employer argues that the evidence presented at the expedited

hearing was insufficient to show that Dr. Roberts’s initial opinion placing Employee at

MMI was incorrect or premature. In support of its position, Employer cites Dr. Roberts’s

testimony agreeing that, as of the date his original MMI determination was made, he

believed that decision to be correct. Employee responds that when subsequent events were

4

taken into consideration, Dr. Roberts “properly rescinded” his prior MMI determination,

thus making Employee eligible for additional temporary benefits. 2

To qualify for TTD, an employee must establish: (1) that he or she became disabled

from working due to a compensable injury; (2) that there is a causal connection between

the injury and the inability to work; and (3) the duration of the period of disability. Jones

v. Crencor Leasing and Sales, No. 2015-06-0332, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS

48, at *7 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Dec. 11, 2015) (citing Simpson v. Satterfield,

564 S.W.2d 953, 955 (Tenn. 1978)). An employee has the burden of establishing his or

her entitlement to temporary disability benefits by a preponderance of the evidence. See

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6). Moreover, an employee’s entitlement to TTD ends

when the employee reaches MMI or is able to return to work. Simpson, 564 S.W.2d at 955

(“Temporary total disability benefits are terminated either by the ability to return to work

or attainment of maximum recovery.”).

Here, Employee offered evidence supporting her entitlement to additional TTD

benefits through Dr. Roberts’s testimony. Dr. Roberts testified that Employee’s original

fracture and rotator cuff tears were caused by the fall at work. Once Dr. Roberts believed

Employee had sufficiently recovered from those injuries, he expressed an opinion that she

had reached MMI. However, when Employee returned for further evaluation, Dr. Roberts

discovered the development of post-traumatic osteoarthritis and concluded that condition

was primarily caused by the original work injury and resulted in the need for the second

surgery. Thus, he rescinded his previous MMI determination and provided additional

treatment for the post-traumatic osteoarthritis that rendered her unable to work. Dr.

Roberts took Employee off work as of January 28, 2025, and continuing through the date

of the expedited hearing, except for specific dates Employee was able to work in June 2025.

Consequently, we conclude the preponderance of the evidence presented to date supports

the trial court’s determination.

We also agree with the trial court that the decisions in Wise and Mansell both

support an award of additional TTD benefits. In Wise, the employee sought additional

medical treatment approximately one year after being placed at MMI. Wise, 1994 Tenn.

LEXIS 389, at *2. An MRI revealed the need for additional surgery, which the doctor

opined was causally related to the initial work injury. Id. at *3. As a result, the trial court

found that the initial MMI determination was “premature and incorrect” and reinstated

temporary disability benefits, and the Tennessee Supreme Court’s Special Workers’

Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed that finding. Id. at *9. Here, similar to Wise,

Employee’s original injury led to post-traumatic osteoarthritis and the eventual need for

additional surgery. Dr. Roberts testified that Employee’s condition was caused primarily

2

In her brief on appeal, Employee argues that we should decline to consider Employer’s brief, which was

filed on November 25, 2025, asserting that it was filed a day late. Given that a state holiday fell on

November 11, a day after Employer filed its transcript, we conclude Employer’s brief was due on November

25 and was, therefore, timely filed.

5

by the original injury and resulted in the need for a reverse total shoulder replacement,

prompting him to retract the original MMI date.

In Mansell v. Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc., No. 2023-07-5993, 2025 TN Wrk.

Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 9, at *2-4 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Mar. 12, 2025), the

employee sustained injuries in the course and scope of his employment, received medical

treatment, and was placed at MMI. Approximately ten months later, the employee reported

that his back pain had returned, although an MRI revealed no new findings. Id. at *4-5.

The employer initially reinstated temporary disability benefits, but it ceased payments

based on the doctor’s previous determination that the employee had reached MMI. Id.

Following a hearing, the trial court ordered the employer to pay temporary disability

benefits, reasoning that the employee had established he was disabled from working due

to his workers’ compensation injury and had established the period of disability. Id. The

court also noted there was no evidence that a settlement offer had been extended at the time

the employee was originally placed at MMI. Id. On appeal, we reversed, noting that the

employee had been placed at MMI by his authorized treating physician and had provided

no countervailing medical proof that the original MMI determination was “premature,

incorrect, or ha[d] been retracted by his authorized treating physician.” Id. at *12. Here,

unlike in Mansell, Employee has offered medical proof that her initial placement at MMI

was in error, and Employer has presented no expert medical proof to counter that

testimony. As noted above, we have previously determined that additional TTD benefits

may be appropriate when an authorized treating physician rescinds a prior MMI

determination due to the need for additional work-related treatment. See Beene v. Metro

Services, Inc., No. 2016-01-0264, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 1 (Tenn.

Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Jan. 12, 2017). In short, we conclude that Mansell is

distinguishable from the present case.

In sum, Employee was placed at MMI by her authorized treating physician in

November 2023; however, after returning to work, she experienced additional symptoms

that resulted in her returning to her authorized physician. Dr. Roberts obtained an MRI,

which revealed severe post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the right shoulder. He then provided

an opinion that Employee’s condition arose out of the original work injury and

recommended a reverse total right shoulder replacement. Dr. Roberts retracted his original

opinion placing Employee at MMI and has testified that she still has not reached MMI due

to the development of and treatment for severe post-traumatic osteoarthritis. Accordingly,

we conclude that the preponderance of the evidence supports the trial court’s determination

that Employee is likely to prevail at trial in establishing an entitlement to additional TTD

benefits.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order awarding additional

temporary disability benefits and remand the case. Costs on appeal are taxed to Employer.

6

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Glenda Laymance Docket No. 2024-30-5862

v. State File No. 25114-2023

K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc.,

d/b/a Food City, 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 14th day of

January, 2026.

Name Certified First Class Via Via Sent to:

Mail Mail Fax Email

Jeffrey M. Cranford X jcranford@kmfpc.com

eharrison@kmfpc.com

Lauren Ray X lray@forthepeople.com

madison.lawrence@forthepeople.com

Pamela B. Johnson, 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