The opinion
FILED
May 07, 2026
01:58 PM(ET)
TENNESSEE COURT OF
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CLAIMS
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
AT KNOXVILLE
BONNIE BAIRD, Docket No. 2020-03-1286
Employee,
v.
TARGET CORP.,
Employer, State File No. 24645-2015
and
INDEMNITY INS. CO. OF
NORTH AMERICA,
Carrier. Judge Pamela B. Johnson
COMPENSATION ORDER
Bonnie Baird uses a wheelchair after a life-altering work injury. The sole issue
was the extent of reasonable and necessary home modifications she required. Ms.
Baird requested a tear down of her home and building a new house, as well as
attorney fees. Target argued the modifications should be made to her existing home.
It also asked for a deadline to require Ms. Baird to move out of an assisted living
facility, and it denied her entitlement to fees.
For the reasons below, the Court holds Ms. Baird is entitled to modifications
to her existing home. Additionally, Ms. Baird must leave assisted living within 30
days of completion of the home modifications or become responsible for its cost.
Finally, Ms. Baird is not entitled to attorney fees.
Claim History
Injury and Settlement
On March 16, 2015, Ms. Baird was struck by a falling shelf, injuring her right
foot. Ms. Baird was diagnosed with bilateral complex regional pain syndrome and
needed multiple surgeries, including bilateral above-knee amputations, which left
1
her using the wheelchair.
The parties settled Ms. Baird’s claim for 100% permanent disability with
future medical benefits, which the Court approved in 2024. In the agreement, the
parties reserved the issue of the “nature, extent, and scope of any medically
necessary home modification(s).”
Ms. Baird moved into her home three days before her work injury. Her home
was built in 1945 and has approximately 1,200 square feet living space with a
similarly-sized basement. She moved into an assisted-living facility in 2021 because
she could not live independently in her home. Target paid for the facility, whose
services included housing, food, and nursing.
Regarding her home, Ms. Baird said the entry and interior doorways are too
narrow for her wheelchair to pass. Ms. Baird could not use the stairs to her basement
so she can operate the sump pump and keep water from her basement. She also could
not access the deck, back steps, or backyard because she could not clear the back
doorway or use the steps in her wheelchair.
In her kitchen, Ms. Baird could not reach the heating surfaces of the stove or
its controls, so she removed it and used an electric hot plate to warm her meals. She
was unable to reach all refrigerator and freezer shelves. She also could not reach all
shelves in her upper and lower cabinets or the back of her counters. She was unable
to reach the controls of her faucet to wash dishes.
In her laundry room, she could not reach to load her top-load washer.
In her bathroom, she had difficulties reaching all shelving in her vanity as well
as the faucet controls. She also cannot roll herself into the shower to bathe and must
transfer from her wheelchair to a shower seat, but the space is too narrow for her to
transfer. She said she needs a shower with accessible water controls and a handheld
shower head.
In her bedroom, she needs a lower bed to allow her to transfer from her
wheelchair.
Ms. Baird said she preferred to tear down her existing home and build a single-
level home with an open-floor plan, designed to be more functional and compatible
with her limitations. She is concerned that modifications to her existing home, based
on its age, will reveal structural, electrical, plumbing and/or other problems and
2
potentially reveal asbestos. She wants her home to be safe and comfortable.
Further, Ms. Baird testified that her bones are soft due to her complex regional
pain syndrome, so it is painful to put pressure on her stumps, and she is unable to
wear prostheses. She also has hip pain and might require more surgery. Despite this,
Ms. Baird has tried to remain physically active and prefers a manual wheelchair to
engage her core and upper body. She does not want to change to an electric
wheelchair or electric lift chair for fear of losing her physical strength and
independence.
Once her home is modified or rebuilt, she is willing to leave assisted living
within a reasonable time. She asked the Court to award the amount to her in a lump
sum.
Home Modification Recommendations
Target deposed Dr. William Obremsky, her authorized treating physician. He
testified that changes to Ms. Baird’s home are necessary to allow her to perform
activities of daily living, such as entering/exiting the home, reaching and using her
appliances, and bathing, cooking, and cleaning. Ms. Baird’s home would require a
ramp to allow access to the home, installation of grab bars, and widening of
doorways. She would also need a roll-under sink and lower counters in the kitchen
and bathroom and a front-loading washer. However, Dr. Obremsky could not say
the exact home modifications needed or the costs, as these opinions fall outside his
medical expertise.
Target also deposed Cindi Petito, a licensed occupational therapist, home
accessibility specialist, and certified wheelchair-seating specialist and assistive
technology specialist. She reviewed medical records, interviewed Ms. Baird, and
performed a virtual home assessment so Ms. Baird “can return home and live
independently and safely.” In summary, she recommended:
• A safety-alert system and smart-home system
• A level landing front and back doors with wider entry doors
• A new ramp or lift at the front door
• A paved concrete driveway with a landing
• Paved paths to the back of the home with concrete landings
• A ramp at the back deck or lift to access the back door
• An automatic garage-door opener
3
• An interior stair lift for basement access
• Wider interior doors and doorways
• An enlarged bathroom for safe transfers
• Relocation of laundry from the basement to the main level
• Lower, wheelchair-compatible shelving in the kitchen, bath, and
laundry
• Lower, compatible kitchen appliances, bathroom vanity, and laundry
• Roll-under sinks in the bathroom and kitchen
• A roll-in shower
• Carpet removal and installation of solid-surface flooring
• Other details.
Ms. Petito also recommended a power-lift wheelchair for Ms. Baird that
would give her full access to all current cabinets and appliances and prevent overuse
of her upper body.
Ms. Baird’s Expert
Ms. Baird hired Jason Watson with Holp Construction to prepare estimates to
modify her home and to tear down and rebuild. His estimate to modify the home was
$282,641.15. The modifications included widening all entry and interior doorways
and hallways, removing all carpet and installing solid-surface flooring. Additionally,
lifts would be added to the back deck and interior basement steps, providing access
to Ms. Baird’s backyard and basement. Alternatively, a ramp would be added to the
back deck for backyard access.
Cabinetry in the kitchen and bath would be replaced with cabinetry designed
to her abilities. Kitchen appliances would be replaced with compatible appliances.
The kitchen sink would be replaced with a roll-under sink, giving Ms. Baird access
to the faucet controls. The bathroom would be enlarged for a roll-in shower and with
an accessible vanity and toilet.
The estimate also included building a detached garage to provide Ms. Baird
access to her home from the detached garage to the ramp at her front door. Mr.
Watson estimated that the remodel would take nine months to one year to complete.
He estimated that to demolish the existing home and rebuild a new,
compatible home would cost $369,000. He believed a tear down and new single-
level floor plan would be a better option for Ms. Baird because the home’s current
4
two-level design with a basement and power-dependent lifts are problematic. A
newly constructed slab home would have an attached garage.
On cross-examination, Mr. Watson admitted that he is not a licensed
contractor. He does not have medical training and did not rely on any medical
records or opinions to determine the extent of modifications needed to meet Ms.
Baird’s needs. He did not meet with Ms. Baird or measure her abilities or wheelchair.
Target’s Expert
Target hired general contractor Arch Willingham to evaluate and recommend
home modifications to make Ms. Baird’s home accessible. He inspected the home
and reviewed medical records, including home assessments by occupational
therapists. He estimated that necessary modifications would cost $257,581.00 and
take fewer than two months once the lifts arrived.
Mr. Willingham recommended widening every door and entryway throughout
the interior and exterior of the home. A touchless, automatic door opener would be
installed with a smart lock and camera system. He also recommended a fall alert
system and camera system with two exterior cameras.
The front door ramp would be replaced with a lift, concrete landing, and
separate stairs. A lift would be added to the back of the home as well. A concrete
driveway and sidewalk would be added to allow access from the driveway to the
front door and around to the back deck. A stairlift could be added to interior
basement steps for access to the basement but was not included in the estimate.
In the kitchen, the cabinets would be replaced with cabinets at her reach height
from a manual wheelchair. The refrigerator and stove would be replaced with a
refrigerator with a bottom, pull-out freezer and a stove with front controls. The sink
would be replaced with a roll-under sink.
The bathroom would be enlarged significantly to allow transfer from her
wheelchair to the toilet and shower. Modifications would include installing a fully
accessible vanity, toilet, and shower.
The washer and dryer would be moved to the main floor and replaced.
Wheelchair-accessible shelving and a clothing rack would be added.
The estimate includes removing the carpeting and replacing it with solid
5
surface flooring throughout the home.
Attorney Fees
Ms. Baird argued that she is entitled to attorney fees because two years have
passed since she settled her claim and left open the issue of home modifications.
During that time, Target has not made any modifications to the home but instead
offered to pay her for the modifications and let her manage the modifications or the
tear down and rebuild.
However, she cannot supervise any home modification or tear down and
rebuild. She claimed that the work required to prosecute the home modification
award was not contemplated in the original attorney fee. She asked for an adequate
sum to compensate her attorney for his work since the settlement.
Target objected to attorney fees for the home modification dispute based on
the lack of any authority. For the last five years, Target paid over $1,000,000 in
medical, housing, and food for Ms. Baird in assisted living. Further, Ms. Baird has
not shown that Target unreasonably failed to provide medical benefits under section
50-6-226(d)(1)(B). Target initiated efforts to resolve the home modification issue by
first writing Dr. Obremsky and later deposing him and hiring the home assessment
specialist, Ms. Petito, and general contractor, Mr. Willingham.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ms. Baird must prove her claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn.
Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2025).
Medically Necessary Home Modifications
Section 50-6-204(a)(1)(A) requires the employer to furnish, free of charge to
the employee, medical treatment and other reasonable and necessary apparatus
ordered by the attending physician.
Ms. Baird argued that “apparatus” includes a tear down of her home and the
rebuild. Target disagreed. It acknowledged responsibility for home modifications
but denied that it must build a new home. It also argued that it should not be required
to continue to pay for her assisted living.
In Dennis v. Erin Truckways, Ltd., 188 S.W.3d 578, 592 (Tenn. 2006), the
6
Tennessee Supreme Court discussed the employer’s responsibility when an injured
employee needs a wheelchair. The Court declined to award specialized housing to
the employee, stating:
Requiring an employer to pay the full cost of specialized housing would
be an unintended windfall for the injured employee because it would
relieve that employee of the entire cost of housing—a cost which the
statute contemplates he will be paying with the wage-replacement he
receives in the form of compensation benefits.
However, the Court added:
Unlike the entire cost of housing itself, in our view, modifications such
as ramps, grab bars, widened doorways, and accessible cabinets and
appliances are within the statute’s definition of “apparatus” when such
modifications are found to be medically necessary. If it is possible to
modify the injured employee’s existing home, then the employer shall
bear the cost of all modifications deemed medically necessary.
Id.
Here, Dr. Obremsky agreed that Ms. Baird’s home required modifications to
allow her to perform activities of daily living. Ms. Petito specified the home
modifications made reasonably necessary by Ms. Baird’s work injury and
wheelchair.
The parties disagreed to the extent of the modifications, with Ms. Baird
preferring a new home. While a new build may be preferred, this Court does not
have the authority to order a rebuild under Dennis and the Workers’ Compensation
Law. See also Calderon v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., No. M2015-01707-SC-R3-WC,
2016 Tenn. LEXIS 813, at *9-10 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp Panel Oct. 24, 2016).
Ms. Baird’s wish for a safe, comfortable home is reasonable. But an
expectation that Target remedy significant problems with the house such as asbestos
is not reasonable and strikes the Court as an unintended windfall. Ms. Baird’s desire
for a manual wheelchair is also reasonable. But occasional use of lifts in a modified
home, rather than a brand-new home, would not entirely frustrate her goal of
maintaining physical strength and independence.
Next, this Court must decide the extent of home modifications made
7
reasonably necessary by the work injury. Both Mr. Watson and Mr. Willingham
offered opinions on the modifications required, but Mr. Willingham offered the more
persuasive opinions. He is a general contractor and relied on the recommendations
of medical professionals, while Mr. Watson did not.
Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Court holds that Ms. Baird is
entitled to all modifications included in Mr. Willingham’s report (Exhibit 6, pages
9-11) at $250,905. So that she may stay in her manual wheelchair, she is also entitled
to modifications to her kitchen, which Mr. Willingham said at trial would cost an
additional $6,676. Ms. Baird is further entitled to interior access to her basement
through a stair lift and to exterior access through an automatic garage door opener
compatible with the smart-home system. Mr. Willingham did not offer the cost of
these items in his report or trial testimony.
Ms. Baird asked in her closing argument that the total cost of the home
modifications be paid directly for her to manage and take the risk. Target agreed.
However, the parties offered no authority allowing this Court to order the proposed
result without a full agreed settlement. Thus, Target shall provide the home
modifications by hiring a general contractor and paying the contractor directly.
Ms. Baird shall move from assisted living within 30 days after completion of
the modifications or resume full responsibility for the cost of the facility.
Attorney Fees
Section 50-6-226 allows attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases.
Section 50-6-226(a)(1) provides for an award of 20% of the amount of the recovery
to the injured employee, but the fees must be paid by the party employing the
attorney. However, under section 50-6-226(a)(2), medical costs voluntarily paid by
the employer are excluded in determining the award for calculating the attorney’s
fee.
Further, section 50-6-226(d)(1) states in part that, in addition to attorney fees
available above, the Court may award reasonable attorney fees when the employer
fails to furnish medical benefits provided for in a settlement or unreasonably fails to
timely initiate benefits to which the employee is entitled, including medical benefits
under section 50-6-204.
Ms. Baird agreed that Target has not denied any medical benefits or any
request for home modifications to her home. Instead, Target initiated the home
8
assessment, the taking of Dr. Obremsky’s deposition, and hired the general
contractor to prepare an estimate. In the interim, Target continued to pay for Ms.
Baird’s assisted living, which included medical, housing, and food, for five years.
Moreover, Ms. Baird cited no authority allowing for an award of attorney fees
beyond the fees awarded at the time she settled her claim.
Thus, the Court finds Ms. Baird has not shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that she is entitled to additional attorney fees under sections 50-6-226(a)(1)
or (d)(1).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:
1. Ms. Baird’s request for home modifications is granted as outlined above.
2. Target shall no longer be responsible for the cost of assisted living after 30
days of the completion of the home modification, or sooner if Ms. Baird leaves
the facility before then.
3. Ms. Baird’s request for attorney fees is denied.
4. Target shall pay the $150.00 filing fee within five business days of entry of
this order, for which execution may issue.
5. Target shall file a Statistical Data Form (SD-2) within ten business days of
entry of this order.
6. Unless appealed, this order shall become final in 30 days.
ENTERED May 7, 2026.
____________________________________
JUDGE PAMELA B. JOHNSON
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
9
APPENDIX
The technical record consists of all documents filed on the TN Comp
electronic filing system.
Exhibits:
1. Photos
2. Mr. Watson’s Report
3. Deposition of Dr. Obremsky
4. Deposition of Ms. Petito
5. Mr. Willingham’s CV
6. Mr. Willingham’s report
7. Enlarged Rendering of Modified Home
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this order was sent as shown on May 7, 2026.
Name Mail Email Service sent to:
John Rosson, X rossonlaw@aol.com
Employee’s Attorney
Robert J. Uhorchuk, X rju@spicerfirm.com
Thomas Smith, tsmith@spicerfirm.com
Employer’s Attorneys
____________________________________
PENNY SHRUM, COURT CLERK
wc.courtclerk@tn.gov
10
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.