The opinion
FILED
Apr 13, 2026
12:12 PM(CT)
TENNESSEE COURT OF
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CLAIMS
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
AT MURFREESBORO
PAULA SMITH, Docket Nos. 2025-50-5373
Employee, 2025-50-5374
v.
MCNEILUS COMPANIES, State File Nos. 50279-2025
Employer, 51831-2025
and
HARTFORD ACC. AND INDEM. Judge Dale Tipps
CO.,
Carrier.
EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS
The Court held an Expedited Hearing on April 7, 2026. The issues were
whether Ms. Smith is likely to prove at trial that she is entitled to additional
temporary disability and medical benefits. For the reasons below, the Court holds
that Ms. Smith has not shown she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that
she is entitled to the requested benefits.
Claim History
Over the course of several weeks in 2025, Ms. Smith reported left-wrist
problems to McNeilus. Each time, McNeilus furnished on-site care until she
reported another injury on July 10, when it sent her to an urgent care facility. There,
the nurse practitioner assessed unspecified synovitis and tenosynovitis and assigned
light-duty restrictions.
Ms. Smith continued working until July 23, when she reported an injury to
her right knee. McNeilus again authorized treatment at the same clinic and, after
some delay, began paying temporary disability benefits. It later offered Ms. Smith
1
an orthopedic panel, and she selected Dr. Timothy Steinagle. 1
Dr. Steinagle saw Ms. Smith on October 23 and ordered an MRI. He also
returned Ms. Smith to work with restrictions. The MRI showed “[m]ild edema of
the suprapatellar fat pad, suggestive of fat pad impingement syndrome” and “[n]o
other significant internal derangement of the knee identified.”
On December 11, Dr. Steinagle reviewed the MRI and noted it showed “no
evidence of internal derangement.” He assessed subjective complaints of knee pain
with minimal objective findings and concluded that “there is no evidence of an acute
work-related accident or injury.” He added that the diagnostic studies did not
suggest any abnormalities requiring treatment. He released her and later assigned a
maximum medical improvement date of December 11. A Worklink report states,
“No follow up required,” but Dr. Steinagle has not refused to see Ms. Smith again.
Based on Dr. Steinagle’s maximum medical improvement finding, McNeilus
discontinued temporary disability benefits.
Ms. Smith testified she still has pain in her right knee. She asked to see a
different doctor, but McNeilus denied her request. Additionally, Ms. Smith
described problems getting medical treatment early in her claim, such as not initially
receiving a panel of physicians. Then, she claimed she went months without care.
Regarding her wrist injury, Ms. Smith said it was partially denied, which led
to the carrier clawing back some payments from the clinic, which then sent her a bill
for the balance.
Ms. Smith also described problems with temporary disability benefits.
Specifically, she said her payments were consistently late, including some checks
that were delayed by a week or more. These delays caused financial hardship.
Disability payment records show that the payment was issued on August 21
for four weeks of benefits that had already accrued. One other payment was skipped
and made up with a double payment a week later. Ms. Smith said that the other
checks were delivered late until the carrier started direct deposit in October.
Ms. Smith requested an order for continuing medical treatment, specifically
physical therapy for her knee. She also contended that she is entitled to additonal
1 Around the same time that the panel was offered, McNeilus terminated Ms. Smith’s employment.
2
temporary disability benefits from the date they were terminated. As she believes
her compensation rate was incorrectly calculated, she additionally sought
compensation for the underpayment. Finally, Ms. Smith argued that a penalty for
the late temporary disability benefits is appropriate. 2
McNeilus countered that it furnished or paid all benefits to which Ms. Smith
was entitled.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ms. Smith must show she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. Tenn.
Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2025); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015
TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015).
Turning first to Ms. Smith’s request for additional medical benefits for her
knee, under section 50-6-204(a)(1)(A), McNeilus must provide medical treatment
made reasonably necessary by the work accident. To accomplish this, it must offer
a panel of three physicians. Id. § 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(i).
McNeilus met these requirements, as Ms. Smith chose Dr. Steinagle from a
panel. It then authorized her visits with the doctor until he released her.
Ms. Smith contended that she still needs physical therapy. She also argued
that the Court should credit the findings of the MRI, specifically the suggestion of
the fat pad impingement syndrome, over Dr. Steinagle’s conclusion that she needed
no further treatment. These contentions are unpersuasive.
First, courts cannot formulate their own medical opinions and must rely on
doctors for issues of diagnosis and treatment. See Love v. Delta Faucet Co., 2016
TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 45, at *15-16 (Sept. 19, 2016) (“judges, like
lawyers, are poorly positioned to formulate expert medical opinions.”). Dr.
Steinagle reviewed the MRI, examined Ms. Smith, and concluded he saw no
evidence of an acute work injury nor any need for additional treatment.
2 She also complained of wrongful termination and problems getting copies of her medical records.
Further, Ms. Smith objected to McNeilus asking her to sign blanket authorizations or documents
she felt were inaccurate, as well as the nurse case manager wanting to attend the actual doctor
examination. The Court explained that it has no authority to address these issues. Any recourse
she might have for those allegations lies outside of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims.
3
The Court recognizes Ms. Smith’s dissatisfaction with Dr. Steinagle. She felt
he spent inadequate time with her, and she questioned how she could have reached
maximum medical improvement without any actual treatment. Further, she
contended that his opinion was at odds with the MRI results.
However, Dr. Steinagle reviewed the MRI and apparently concluded that the
possibility of fat pad impingement did not constitute an internal derangement. His
opinion is presumed correct under section 50-6-102(12)(E), and Ms. Smith presented
no medical opinions to challenge his conclusions or overcome that presumption.
This means the Court cannot find she is likely to prove entitlement to a new panel
of physicians or additional treatment.
Notably, Ms. Smith remains entitled to treatment with Dr. Steinagle, since he
has not declined to treat her. See Limberakis v. Pro Tech Sec., 2017 TN Wrk. Comp.
App. Bd. LEXIS 53, at *10 (Sept. 12, 2017) (In a compensable claim, where an
authorized treating physician refuses to allow a return visit, the trial court correctly
ordered an employer to replace that physician on a panel to allow the employee to
select another physician for any “reasonable and necessary medical treatment
causally-related to the work injury.”).
Similarly, the Court has insufficient information to determine whether the bill
Ms. Smith claims she received for her wrist treatment should have been paid by
McNeilus.
Turning to Ms. Smith’s claim for temporary disability benefits, these are
generally not owed after an employee reaches maximum medical improvement.
Contrary to Ms. Smith’s argument, a court order is not required for an employer to
stop temporary disability payments in that situation. Further, an employee “still
must show that he would likely prevail at trial in proving that the original [maximum
medical improvement] determination was premature.” Mansell v. Southeast
Personnel Leasing, Inc., 2025 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 9, at *11 (Mar. 12,
2025).
As with the request for additional treatment, the only medical proof regarding
maximum medical improvement was Dr. Steinagle’s opinion that Ms. Smith reached
that objective on December 11. Without additional evidence, she is unlikely to prove
entitlement to an additional period of temporary disability benefits.
Regarding the correct compensation rate, Ms. Smith disagreed with the rate
McNeilus calculated, but she presented no proof of a miscalculation or of the correct
4
rate.
Finally, Ms. Smith requested the imposition of penalties. As to the timing of
her medical treatment for the knee, Ms. Smith reported the injury on July 23 and
received authorized treatment at the urgent care clinic on the 28th. It appears her last
visit to the clinic was August 4. McNeilus issued a panel of orthopedic specialists
on August 20, which Ms. Smith did not sign until September 30. At that point an
appointment with Dr. Steinagle was scheduled for October 23. The Court does not
find this timetable to be unusual, much less egregious, and declines to refer the case
for a penalty determination.
Ms. Smith also requested an order penalizing McNeilus under section 50-6-
205(b)(3), which provides a 25% penalty for temporary disability benefits not paid
under the statute. Regarding the payment that she alleges was a week late, section
50-6-205(b)(2) only requires semimonthly payments, so the Court declines to
impose a penalty for the late installment.
However, McNeilus’s own payment register shows that it did not pay the first
temporary disability benefit until August 21, four weeks after she stopped working.
As required by section 50-6-205(b)(3), the Court therefore orders McNealus to
provide documentation no later than May 4, 2026, as to why the civil penalty should
not be assessed. 3
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:
1. Ms. Smith’s request for additional benefits is denied at this time. She remains
entitled to any reasonable and necessary medical treatment causally related to
the work injury with Dr. Steinagle.
2. This case is set for a Status Hearing on July 1, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. Please call
855-874-0473 to participate. Failure to call might result in a determination of
the issues without your further participation. All conferences are set using
Central Time.
ENTERED April 13, 2026.
3 Ms. Smith described many of the payments as being received much later than the issuance date
but provided no precise dates as to when she received them, nor any evidence that McNeilus had
any control over the alleged delay. Therefore, the order for additional documentation does not
include these problems.
5
____________________________________
JUDGE DALE TIPPS
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
APPENDIX
Exhibits:
1. Sworn declaration of Paula Smith
2. Dr. Steinagle’s October 23, 2025 MRI order and Worklink report
3. Ascension St. Thomas request for payment (identification only)
4. Partial indemnity payment record from carrier’s app
5. First report of injury
6. Wage statement
7. Urgent Care records for left wrist
8. July 24, 2025, Return to Work Letter
9. Urgent Care records for right knee
10. Notice of Denial
11. Form C-42 Choice of Physician
12. Dr. Steinagle’s treatment records
13. August 22, 2025 termination letter
14. Temporary disability payment printout
15. November 22, 2025 MRI report and December 11, 2025 Worklink report
16. Printout of August 22, 2025 termination voicemail
17. Printout of December 16, 2025 text from Holly Lewis
18. Printout of November 19, 2025 text from Paula Smith
19. Printout of Paula Smith’s email request for medical records to Medicopy
20. Printout from National Library of Medicine’s website (identification only)
21. Printout from Cornell Law School website (identification only)
22. Printout of excerpt from an Appeals Board opinion (identification only)
23. Printout of email exchange between Ms. Smith and McNealus’s counsel
24. Printout from Unemployment Compensation website (identification only)
25. Printout of email exchange between Ms. Smith and Marian Perry
26. Printout of email exchange between Ms. Smith and Robin Blocher
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this order was sent as shown on April 13, 2026.
Name Email Service sent to:
Paula Smith X Ginabinnna779@icloud.com
Neil McIntire, X nmcintire@howell-fisher.com
Employer’s Attorney
____________________________________
PENNY SHRUM, COURT CLERK
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