The opinion
FILED
Apr 29, 2026
08:53 AM(ET)
TENNESSEE COURT OF
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CLAIMS
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
AT KNOXVILLE
WALTER HUBERT MYERS, Docket No. 2025-30-4778
Employee,
v.
ALCOA, INC. and ARCONIC
CORP., State File No. 860186-2024
Employer,
and
INDEMNITY INS. CO. OF
NORTH AMERICA, Judge Pamela B. Johnson
Carrier.
EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER
Walter Myers alleged occupational exposures and sought medical benefits
including monitoring under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Alcoa/Arconic denied
his requests, asserting defenses of late notice, statute of limitations, and causation.
For the reasons below, the Court holds Mr. Myers is not likely to prevail at a
compensation hearing and denies his request for benefits at this time.
Claim History
Mr. Myers worked for Alcoa/Arconic as a utility service worker and
equipment operator from May 1979 until June 6, 2007. In the smelting process for
manufacturing aluminum, he was exposed to various toxins, including dust, bauxite,
carbon, fluoride, asbestos, and coal tar pitch. He was not provided protective
clothing or respirators.
In 2007, while at work, Mr. Myers suffered a heart attack. Alcoa has provided
medical benefits since 2007. He never returned to work afterward and was never
evaluated for permanent impairment. Mr. Myers’s heart attack workers’
compensation claim with a separate constitutional challenge are pending in other
courts.
1
Medical Treatment
Mr. Myers’s medical history reflected treatment for various conditions as well
as tobacco use for more than 45 years.
A July 2004 sleep study revealed multiple complaints, including difficulties
with breathing, swallowing, and memory. At the conclusion of the sleep study, Mr.
Myers was diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea.
In November 2007, Mr. Myers saw neurologist Dr. Bruce LeForce for
dizziness after his heart attack. Mr. Myers additionally reported some forgetfulness.
Dr. LeForce diagnosed a June 6, 2007 myocardial infarction followed by dizziness.
He also noted that Mr. Myers suffered a stroke at some point.
In May 2015, Mr. Myers saw his primary-care physician, Dr. Britton Bishop,
who noted Mr. Myers had “quite a bit of wheezing” as well as morning cough and
had been a heavy smoker since childhood. Dr. Britton diagnosed chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, obstructive sleep apnea, and coronary artery disease. He
recommended a complete pulmonary function test and smoking cessation.
Mr. Myers saw his cardiologist Dr. Paul Holcomb in January 2020, reporting
that he continued to smoke and experienced shortness of breath with exertion. He
stated that the shortness of breath could be related to his smoking or heart. Dr.
Holcomb discussed the long-term pulmonary and vascular effects of continued
tobacco use and recommended tobacco cessation and lung cancer screening due to
his lengthy history of smoking.
Dr. Britton saw Mr. Myers again in August 2020 and September 2022. Dr.
Briton maintained his diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
obstructive sleep apnea, and coronary artery disease.
In the spring of 2023, Mr. Myers was involved in a motor vehicle accident
and hired counsel. His attorney referred him to Dr. C.M. Salekin for evaluation of
his injuries from the motor vehicle accident.
Mr. Myers returned to Dr. Salekin on April 25, 2024, and reported that he had
shortness of breath for 18 to 20 years; trouble swallowing for six to seven months;
and difficulties with memory, attention and concentration for ten to 12 years. Dr.
Salekin determined that Mr. Myers “most likely [had] restrictive lung disease from
long standing exposure to aluminum dust, carbon dust, and asbestos.” He also
2
diagnosed impaired cognitive function, “most likely from aluminum dust exposure
over a long period of time.” Dr. Salekin further determined that “[c]oal tar/creosote
exposure [was] likely contributing to [Mr. Myers’s] difficulty in swallowing.”
After his evaluation, Dr. Salekin completed a Form C-32 Standard Medical
Report. He described Mr. Myers’s injury as “injury to cerebral cortex due to
aluminum dust” and the mechanism of injury as “inhalation of aluminum dust at
work while working at Alcoa[.]” Dr. Salekin concluded that Mr. Myers’s
employment activity, more likely than not, was primarily responsible for the injury
or need for treatment. Dr. Hina Kouser, a primary-care physician, responded to a
questionnaire from Mr. Myers and agreed with Dr. Salekin’s findings.
In July 2024, Dr. Britton answered a causation letter at Alcoa’s/Arconic’s
request. Dr. Britton agreed that Mr. Myers’s pulmonary and cognitive injuries
developed before April 25, 2023. He related Mr. Myers’s pulmonary symptoms,
more likely than not, to his history of heavy smoking. Dr. Britton related Mr.
Myers’s cognitive problems, more likely than not, to the heart attack and/or stroke.
In his deposition, he stated that he did not recall Mr. Myers having cognitive
problems when he saw him from 2007 through 2024.
Procedural History
On May 23, 2024, Mr. Myers filed a petition for benefit determination seeking
benefits for injuries to his “whole body, restrictive lung disease, and impaired
cognitive function.” He listed an injury date of April 25, 2024, and that he gave
notice on May 1, 2024. Mr. Myers voluntarily dismissed his case on July 15, 2025.
Alcoa/Arconic filed two reverse petitions for benefit determination on July
24, 2025, seeking a dismissal with prejudice. It listed injury dates of June 6, 2027,
and April 25, 2024. It wrote that Mr. Myers gave notice on May 1, 2024.
Mr. Myers filed a counter-petition alleging potential occupational exposures
and seeking panels of gastroenterologists, pulmonologists, urologists, neurologists,
and cardiologists for monitoring due to toxic exposures at work.
Alcoa/Arconic argued that Mr. Myers’s claims are barred by the statute of
limitations and notice provisions. It also asserted that the Court lacks jurisdiction
based on the date last worked.
3
Hearing Testimony
Mr. Myers testified that he worked at Alcoa for 27 years. He said he was
exposed to various toxins, chemicals, and dust at work as an equipment operator and
utility worker. He described the work environment as hot and dusty. He denied
wearing protective clothing or respirators. He said he has had memory problems,
difficulty swallowing, and lung problems for several years, but no one ever explored
the cause of his symptoms or the relationship to his work at Alcoa.
Adrianne Stoltenberg, an industrial hygienist at Arconic, testified that Alcoa
generally conducted a pre-employment physical of an employee to establish the
employee’s health status at the time of hire. During employment, an employee’s
exposure levels would be monitored if exposure levels reached a certain threshold.
However, Ms. Stoltenberg was unable to find any records related to Mr.
Myers’s employment and potential exposure levels. Ms. Stoltenberg acknowledged
that aluminum dust, aluminum oxide, bauxite, silica, coal tar pitch, creosote, and
potentially manganese and carbon dust were present at Alcoa. She further agreed
that it was reasonable for an employee exposed to various toxins to undergo yearly
evaluations by the employee’s primary-care physician.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
At the Expedited Hearing stage, Mr. Myers must prove he is likely to prevail
at a compensation hearing that he is entitled to the requested benefits. 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).
Notice
In occupational disease cases, the employee must give notice within 30 days
of “first distinct manifestation” of disease as required in Tennessee Code Annotated
section 50-6-305. Id. § 50-6-305(a); Pool v. Jarmon D&Q Transp., 2016 TN Wrk.
Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 1, at *9 (Feb. 18, 2016).
Notice of an occupational illness is tolled if an employee is reasonably
unaware that the condition is work-related. Wilson v. O.G. Kelley & Co., 2019 TN
Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 13, at *9 (Mar. 15, 2019). “Usually, the first
manifestation is considered to occur when there is a diagnosis from a physician and
the employee knows or should know that his problems are work-related.” Id. at *10.
4
Mr. Myers filed his petition for injuries to his “whole body, restrictive lung
disease, and impaired cognitive function” on May 23, 2024. He listed an injury date
of April 25, 2024, and that he gave notice on May 1, 2024.
In the reverse petitions filed by Alcoa/Arconic, it listed injury dates of June 6,
2027, and April 25, 2024, and that Mr. Myers gave notice on May 1, 2024.
Applying Wilson, Mr. Myers did not learn that his alleged occupational
illnesses of restrictive lung disease and cognitive impairment were related to his
employment until April 25, 2024. Mr. Myers gave Alcoa/Arconic notice of his
occupational illnesses within 30 days of their “first distinct manifestation.”
Thus, the Court finds that Mr. Myers is likely to prevail at a compensation
hearing that he gave timely notice of his occupational illnesses.
Statute of Limitations
Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-306(a) provides that the statute of
limitations for an occupational disease claim begins to run as of the date of the
beginning of the incapacity for work. Moreover, “the partial or total incapacity for
work . . . resulting from an occupational disease . . . shall be treated as the happening
of an injury by accident[.]” Morgan v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2019 TN Wrk.
Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 76, at *6 (Dec. 3, 2019).
The Appeals Board wrote: “[A]n incapacity for work resulting from an
occupational disease begins when such occupational disease, with the knowledge of
the employee, or knowledge that he should have had in the exercise of reasonable
caution, . . . has injuriously affected his capacity to work to a degree amounting to a
compensable injury.” Id. at *6 (quotations omitted).
Here, Mr. Myers was exposed to various toxins at work for Alcoa/Arconic.
On April 25, 2024, Mr. Myers saw Dr. Salekin, who determined that he “most likely
[had] restrictive lung disease from long standing exposure to aluminum dust, carbon
dust, and asbestos.” He also diagnosed impaired cognitive function, “most likely
from aluminum dust exposure over a long period of time.” Dr. Salekin further
determined that “[c]oal tar/creosote exposure [was] likely contributing to [Mr.
Myers’s] difficulty in swallowing.”
In his C-32, Dr. Salekin described Mr. Myers’s injury as “injury to cerebral
5
cortex due to aluminum dust” and the mechanism of injury as “inhalation of
aluminum dust at work while working at Alcoa[.]” Dr. Salekin concluded that Mr.
Myers’s employment, more likely than not, was primarily responsible for the injury
or need for treatment.
Before April 25, 2024, no physician related his restrictive lung dysfunction or
cognitive impairment to exposures at work.
Applying Morgan, Mr. Myers’s “incapacity for work” resulting from his
alleged pulmonary dysfunction and cognitive impairment began to run on April 25,
2024. Thus, his filing of his petition on May 23, 2024, was timely. The petition also
provided timely notice. Although Mr. Myers voluntarily dismissed his case in July
2025, Alcoa’s/Arconic’s reverse petition filed nine days later revived his case under
section 50-6-239(c)(3) and Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-
21-.24 (2026).
Thus, the Court finds that Mr. Myers is likely to prevail at a compensation
hearing that his claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.
Medical Benefits
Sections 50-6-301(a)(1)-(2) provide that the partial or total incapacity for
work resulting from an occupational disease shall be treated as the happening of an
injury by accident, and the employee shall be entitled to compensation, including the
same hospital, medical and miscellaneous benefits as an employee who has a
compensable injury by accident.
To recover medical benefits, Mr. Myers must prove that his occupational
illnesses arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. He
must show, by expert medical opinion, that his employment contributed more than
50% in causing the injury and need for treatment, considering all causes. Id. § 50-6-
102(12)(A)-(D).
The record shows that Mr. Myers complained of shortness of breath, memory
problems, and difficulty swallowing as early as 2004. In May 2015, Dr. Britton noted
Mr. Myers had “quite a bit of wheezing” as well as morning cough and had been a
heavy smoker since childhood. He diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, obstructive sleep apnea, and coronary artery disease. Dr. Britton
recommended a complete pulmonary function test and smoking cessation.
6
Based on his treatment, Dr. Britton agreed that Mr. Myers’s pulmonary and
cognitive injuries developed before April 25, 2023. He related Mr. Myers’s
pulmonary symptoms, more likely than not, to his history of heavy smoking. Dr.
Britton related Mr. Myers’s cognitive problems, more likely than not, to the heart
attack and/or stroke. In his deposition, he admitted that he did not recall Mr. Myers
having cognitive problems when he saw him from 2007 through 2024.
In January 2020, Dr. Holcomb informed Mr. Myers of the long-term
pulmonary and vascular effects of continued tobacco use and recommended tobacco
cessation and lung cancer screening due to his lengthy history of smoking.
In contrast, Dr. Salekin evaluated Mr. Myers on April 25, 2024, and noted that
Mr. Myers reported shortness of breath for 18 to20 years; trouble swallowing for six
to seven months; and difficulties with memory, attention and concentration for ten
to12 years. Dr. Salekin determined that Mr. Myers “most likely [had] restrictive lung
disease from long standing exposure to aluminum dust, carbon dust, and asbestos.”
He also diagnosed impaired cognitive function, “most likely from aluminum dust
exposure over a long period of time.” Dr. Salekin further concluded that “[c]oal
tar/creosote exposure [was] likely contributing to [Mr. Myers’s] difficulty in
swallowing.”
In his C-32, Dr. Salekin described Mr. Myers’s condition as “injury to cerebral
cortex due to aluminum dust” and the mechanism of injury as “inhalation of
aluminum dust at work while working at Alcoa[.]” He concluded that Mr. Myers’s
employment, more likely than not, was primarily responsible for the injury or need
for treatment.
When presented with competing expert opinions, the Court can consider the
experts’ qualifications, the circumstances of their examinations, the information
available to them, and the importance attached to the information by other experts.
Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 803 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tenn. 1991). Moreover,
“[i]t seems reasonable that the physicians having greater contact with the [employee]
would have the advantage and opportunity to provide a more in-depth opinion, if not
a more accurate one.” Id. at 677.
Here, Dr. Britton treated Mr. Myers from 2007 to 2024, while Dr. Salekin saw
Mr. Myers once for the occupational illnesses at issue. Dr. Britton saw Mr. Myers
for primary care and treatment, while Dr. Salekin saw him for an expert medical
opinion for litigation. Dr. Britton is a primary-care physician, while Dr. Salekin is a
neurologist and occupational-medicine specialist.
7
However, despite Mr. Myers’s long history of heavy smoking, Dr. Salekin did
not address the causal relationship of Mr. Myers’s smoking history on his pulmonary
dysfunction and cognitive impairment, focusing only on his occupational exposures.
The same can be said for Dr. Britton, in that he causally related Mr. Myers’s
pulmonary dysfunction to his smoking without consideration of any occupational
exposures.
In sum, the expert opinions cancel each other out. Thus, considering the record
as a whole, the Court cannot find that Mr. Myers is likely to prevail at a
compensation hearing that he is entitled to the requested benefits.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:
1. Mr. Myers’s request for benefits is denied at this time.
2. The parties shall appear for a Status/Scheduling Hearing on August 3, 2026,
at 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time. The parties must call 855-543-5041 to participate.
ENTERED April 29, 2026.
____________________________________
JUDGE PAMELA B. JOHNSON
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
8
APPENDIX
The technical record consists of all documents filed on the TNComp
electronic filing system. 1
Exhibits:
1. Employer’s responses to admissions
2. Deposition of Adrianne Stoltenberg
3. Form C-32 of Dr. Salekin with attachments
4. Causation letter of Dr. Hina Kouser
5. Deposition of Dr. Britton Bishop
6. Medical Records with Table of Contents
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this order was sent as shown on April 29, 2026.
Name Email Service sent to:
David H. Dunaway, X dhdunaway@aol.com
Employee’s Attorney
Tiffany S. Hranicky, X tbhranicky@mijs.com
Employer’s Attorney
____________________________________
PENNY SHRUM, COURT CLERK
wc.courtclerk@tn.gov
1
Mr. Hodge asked the Court to take judicial notice of “certain publicly available documents and
adjudicative facts.” They included findings of the Tennessee Supreme Court in a 2008 opinion
arising from a wrongful death negligence claim and/or matters discussed in a January 2014 press
release from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The motion was taken under
advisement. The Court denies the motion, concluding the proposed facts are not relevant.
9
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.
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.
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.