The opinion
FILED
Jun 25, 2026
01:41 PM(CT)
TENNESSEE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
APPEALS BOARD
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
Jayne-Anne Patrick Docket No. 2025-60-6990
v. State File No. 57728-2024
Topgolf, et al.
Appeal from the Court of Workers’
Compensation Claims
Dale A. Tipps, Judge
Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Remanded
In this interlocutory appeal, the employer asserts the trial court erred in awarding additional
temporary disability benefits. The employee sustained an injury to her left knee when she
slipped on a wet floor at work. Her claim was accepted as compensable, and certain
medical and temporary disability benefits were provided. The employee underwent
surgery to repair a torn meniscus and was placed at maximum medical improvement
approximately six-and-a-half months later. After a different specialist recommended a
second surgery, the employee sought additional temporary disability benefits. The
employer denied that request and argued that the original physician’s determination of
maximum medical improvement had not been retracted or otherwise shown to be
premature. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court awarded additional temporary
disability benefits from the date the second specialist recommended surgery, and the
employer has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm in part and
reverse in part 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.
Tiffany Sherrill Hranicky, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellant, Topgolf
Martin Sir, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employee-appellee, Jayne-Anne Patrick
Factual and Procedural Background
Jayne-Anne Patrick (Employee) worked at Topgolf (“Employer”) as a bartender.
On June 1, 2024, Employee was restocking a beer cooler when she slipped on a wet spot,
1
struck her left knee on a wall, and fell backwards. Employee testified she told her
supervisors “in passing” about the accident that night, then gave notice to her manager the
next morning. Employer accepted the accident as compensable and provided certain
medical and temporary disability benefits.
Employee eventually came under the care of Dr. Calvin Robinson Dyer at
Tennessee Orthopedic Alliance. In Dr. Dyer’s first report dated September 20, 2024, he
noted Employee’s history of slipping and falling at work and her complaints of left knee
pain. X-rays of the left knee did not reveal any bony abnormalities. Dr. Dyer ordered a
left knee MRI, but the report from that diagnostic scan is not in the record. Dr. Dyer
diagnosed a “complex tear of the medial meniscus . . . left knee.” He recommended
surgery, which was performed January 16, 2025. In the operative report, Dr. Dyer
confirmed a left medial meniscus tear, which he repaired, and also noted “chondral blister
grade 3 medial femoral condyle.” After surgery, Employee attended a course of physical
therapy. As of February 27, 2025, Dr. Dyer released her to return to restricted work duty,
including no squatting, kneeling, or climbing, and advised her to alternate sitting and
standing for thirty minutes at a time.
In his April 30, 2025 report, Dr. Dyer stated he anticipated “maximum medical
improvement with return to regular duty” in five to six weeks. However, on May 29, he
ordered work hardening due to Employee’s continued complaints of pain, although he
stated he believed her complaints were “out of proportion or beyond expectations.”
Employee’s work restrictions continued during this time, and she attempted to work
approximately three shifts but testified during the expedited hearing she was unable to
perform some of her work duties. Employee testified that Employer was unable to
accommodate her restrictions, and she was eventually “auto-terminated.”
In a written report dated June 27, 2025, Dr. Dyer placed Employee at maximum
medical improvement (“MMI”) as of June 26. He assigned a 1% permanent medical
impairment rating with no work restrictions. Specifically, Dr. Dyer stated that “[a]ny
deficits for work will simply be her choice.” On July 13, 2025, Employer terminated
Employee’s temporary disability benefits based on Dr. Dyer’s MMI determination.
During the expedited hearing, Employee asserted her pain improved somewhat after
surgery, but she developed ongoing symptoms and “physically couldn’t go back to work.”
She testified she could only walk for five minutes at a time without support, her knee stayed
swollen, and her leg turned purple. She sought additional medical treatment on her own
and was evaluated by Dr. Tiffany Meals in mid-August 2025. Dr. Meals recommended a
left knee MRI, but the report from that scan is not contained in the record. On September
9, 2025, Dr. Meals stated that “[Employee] will need surgical arthroscopy of the left knee
for plica excision and lateral release.” She then commented, “This is from her work related
injury that she has not improved from.” Dr. Meals did not address MMI.
2
On November 19, 2025, Employee selected Dr. William Garside from Employer’s
panel for a second opinion on the need for additional surgery. In Dr. Garside’s December
3, 2025 report, he indicated he had reviewed medical records, including diagnostic scans,
and completed a physical examination. Dr. Garside stated Employee had “persistent
chronic left knee pain,” but her post-surgical MRI “reveals no recurrent pathology.” He
recommended additional strength training and the use of a brace for symptom management.
He stated that “[s]urgical treatment is not recommended at this time” and that Employee
“can continue full unrestricted duties and activities.” He recommended she follow up with
Dr. Dyer given that he had performed the prior surgery, but Dr. Dyer declined to treat
Employee at that point.
Once Dr. Dyer declined to see Employee again, Employer agreed to provide another
panel of specialists, from which she chose Dr. Sean Kaminsky. In his January 5, 2026
report, Dr. Kaminsky reviewed Employee’s history of knee pain and prior medical records,
including Dr. Dyer’s operative report. Dr. Kaminsky noted that, “[d]espite both
conservative and surgical treatment[,] [Employee] has been having continued pain.” He
also noted, however, that her postoperative MRI “did not reveal any significant
abnormalities.” Dr. Kaminsky diagnosed left knee pain and chondromalacia. With respect
to further possible treatment, Dr. Kaminsky stated:
We discussed options of simply living with the symptoms, medications[,]
activity modification[,] and icing. [Employee] feels she has tried all of these
treatments[,] including surgery[,] without success. We discussed as a last
option revision knee arthroscopy. However, I discussed I cannot guarantee
this will resolve symptoms, but few other options remain at this point.
Thereafter, Employee filed a request for an expedited hearing, seeking an order
compelling Employer to authorize additional surgery and pay additional temporary
disability benefits. Several days before the hearing, Employer agreed to authorize the
surgery with Dr. Kaminsky, and the parties proceeded to the expedited hearing on the issue
of Employee’s claim for additional temporary disability benefits. Employee also asked the
court to reflect in its order that Employer would be responsible for reasonable and
necessary medical expenses, including surgery, with Dr. Kaminsky.
Following that hearing, the court issued an order compelling Employer to provide
medical treatment “made reasonably necessary by [the] June 1, 2024 injury . . . , including
the surgery recommended by Dr. Kaminsky.” It also concluded that Employee was entitled
to additional temporary disability benefits beginning as of the date Dr. Kaminsky
recommended surgery, reasoning that “the underlying premise that [Employee] reached
[MMI] has now proven to be premature and incorrect, as suggested by the need for a second
3
surgery.” The court further noted that “[n]o contrary opinion from Dr. Dyer was offered
as evidence.” Employer has appealed. 1
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
We previously addressed an employee’s entitlement to temporary disability benefits
following an authorized physician’s determination of MMI in 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). In that case, the employee reported a
back injury and received authorized medical treatment. Id. at *2. After that physician
placed the employee at MMI, he sought additional medical treatment approximately ten
months later. Id. at *4. Following a lengthy period of additional treatment for both work-
related and non-work-related medical conditions, the employee sought additional
temporary disability benefits, which the trial court awarded. Id. at *6. On appeal, we
reversed the award of additional temporary benefits, explaining as follows:
[T]o affirm the trial court’s finding with respect to [the employee’s] claim
for additional temporary disability benefits, we would be required to
conclude that the authorized treating physician’s original MMI determination
1
In her request for an expedited hearing, Employee also sought an award of attorney’s fees for Employer’s
alleged failure to timely authorize the second surgery and pay additional temporary disability benefits. That
request was denied, and that determination was not appealed.
4
was premature or medically incorrect in some way without any expert
medical opinion to support such a conclusion. This we cannot do, as such a
conclusion would be speculative. As we have noted previously, “judges, like
lawyers, are poorly positioned to formulate expert medical opinions.” Love
v. Delta Faucet Company, No. 2015-07-0195, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App.
Bd. LEXIS 45, at *15-16 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Sep. 19, 2016);
see also Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, No. 2015-01-0055 2015 TN
Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *8 (Tenn. Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. Aug.
18, 2015) (“Judges are not well-suited to second-guess a medical expert’s
treatment, recommendations, and/or diagnoses absent some conflicting
medical evidence or some other countervailing evidence properly admitted
into the record.”) (Emphasis added).
Id. at *11-12.
In the present case, the trial court initially determined that Employee had “offered
no expert medical proof that Dr. Dyer placed her at MMI prematurely or that he had
retracted that determination or otherwise reversed his opinion.” As a result, the court
concluded that Employee “has not yet shown she is likely to prove entitlement to temporary
disability benefits between June 26, 2025, and January 5, 2026.” However, the court
distinguished the current case from Mansell and determined that once Dr. Kaminsky
recommended a second surgery on January 6, the “underlying premise that [Employee]
reached [MMI] has now proven to be premature and incorrect, as suggested by the need
for a second surgery.” In support of this determination, Employee cited a 1994 unreported
opinion from the Tennessee Supreme Court’s Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals
Panel in Wise v. Murfreesboro Health Care Ctr., no number in original, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS
389, at *9 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel Dec. 22, 1994).
In Wise, the Appeals Panel affirmed an award of additional temporary disability
benefits following a subsequent surgery. Significantly, the second surgeon testified that
“the original condition and surgery resulted in a weakened condition that rendered [the
employee] susceptible to a spontaneous subsequent rupture.” Id. at *8. The court then
noted that the second period of temporary disability “followed the second surgery” and,
consequently, “the trial judge correctly awarded additional compensation for that time
frame.” Thus, in Wise, the Appeals Panel relied on expert medical testimony supporting a
second period of temporary disability following the second surgery. Id.
We conclude there are critical differences between Wise and the present case.
Unlike in Wise, the recommended surgery in the present case had not yet occurred as of
the date of the hearing at which additional temporary benefits were sought. The subsequent
period of temporary disability in Wise was premised on evidence of the employee’s
disability following surgery for a condition the surgeon testified arose from the original
work injury. The trial court in Wise did not award additional temporary disability benefits
5
as of the date the additional surgery was recommended, as is the case here. 2 Moreover,
there is conflicting evidence in the record as to whether Employee was under any current
work restrictions as of the date she first saw Dr. Kaminsky. According to Dr. Dyer’s June
25, 2025 report, Employee “will not have any permanent restrictions.” Dr. Garside
reiterated this in his December 3, 2025 report, stating, “She can continue full unrestricted
duties and activities.” Yet, Dr. Kaminsky stated without explanation in his January 5, 2026
report, “She currently is on work restrictions.” He then assigned light duty restrictions as
of the date of his examination, but there is no evidence in the record as to whether those
restrictions were presented to Employer and/or whether there was any discussion about a
return to work in light of any such restrictions.
In sum, the critical question in the present case is whether an award of additional
temporary disability benefits after an authorized physician’s MMI determination can be
based on purely circumstantial evidence. We conclude it cannot. Injured workers who are
treated and placed at MMI will often need additional medical treatment caused primarily
by the work injury. 3 The fact that additional treatment is medically necessary does not,
standing alone, negate a prior determination of MMI. Instead, to support an award of
additional temporary disability benefits after an authorized physician’s MMI
determination, the employee must present evidence from either the original authorized
physician or another medical expert stating that the previous MMI determination was
premature and/or should be retracted. Mansell, 2025 TN Wrk Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 9,
at *12. Absent such evidence in the present case, we are compelled to reverse the award
of additional temporary disability benefits at this stage of the case.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order to the extent the court
ordered Employer to provide additional medical treatment it has agreed to provide, we
reverse the award of additional temporary disability benefits, and we remand the case for
further proceedings. Costs on appeal are taxed to Employee.
2
The issue of post-surgery disability was discussed during the hearing. The court asked counsel for
Employer during closing arguments whether Employer would voluntarily pay additional temporary
disability benefits if Dr. Kaminsky were to restrict Employee from working after the revision surgery.
Counsel replied that should Dr. Kaminsky indicate Employee is not at MMI after surgery, “then obviously
my client will reconsider.” We conclude it is premature, at this point, to address any entitlement to
additional temporary disability benefits post-surgery based on expert medical evidence currently in the
record.
3
This analysis presumes that the authorized physician’s MMI determination pertains to the same condition
for which additional treatment has been recommended. Employees with multiple injuries resulting in more
than one medical condition must be placed at MMI separately for each compensable condition.
6