The opinion
FILED
Aug 28, 2026
07:00 AM(CT)
TENNESSEE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
APPEALS BOARD
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
Clifford Montrell Hicks Docket No. 2023-08-7416
v. State File No. 81108-2023
Fullen Dock and Warehouse, LLC, et al.
Appeal from the Court of Workers’
Compensation Claims
Shaterra R. Marion, Judge
Affirmed and Certified as Final
This is the second appeal in this case in which the employee fell onto a steel dock at work
and reported pain in his neck, back, and shoulders. The employer accepted the
compensability of the claim and provided benefits under the Longshore and Harbor
Workers’ Compensation Act. After he was released at maximum medical improvement,
the employee filed a petition for workers’ compensation benefits with the Tennessee
Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court issued
an order denying the requested benefits, which we affirmed on appeal. The trial court
issued a scheduling order setting specific deadlines, but the employee failed to offer any
additional proof prior to the expiration of the deadlines. The employer then filed a motion
for summary judgment, to which the employee did not respond. He also did not appear for
the hearing on the motion. The trial court granted the employer’s motion for summary
judgment, and the employee has appealed. Following our careful consideration of the
record, we affirm the trial court’s order and certify its order granting summary judgment
to the employer as final.
Judge Pele I. Godkin delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which Presiding Judge
Timothy W. Conner and Judge Meredith B. Weaver joined.
Clifford Montrell Hicks, employee-appellant, pro se
Fredrick R. Baker and Donna Brown Wilkerson, Cookeville, Tennessee, for the employer-
appellee, Fullen Dock and Warehouse, LLC
1
Factual and Procedural Background
We previously discussed the facts and procedural history of this case in our prior
decision:
Clifford Montrell Hicks (“Employee”) was working for Fullen Dock and
Warehouse, LLC (“Employer”) on June 21, 2022, when he fell while
attempting to connect hooks to cargo that needed to be lifted off of the boat.
After the fall, a coworker took him directly to Methodist University Hospital,
where he reported falling approximately 6 feet, with no loss of
consciousness, and feeling pain in his neck, back, and shoulders. Employee
underwent a CT scan of the head, cervical spine, and lumbar spine, all of
which were read as normal. He was diagnosed with a back contusion and a
scalp hematoma and was given instructions to rest, take Tylenol as needed
for pain, and to follow up with his primary care provider in the next two days.
. . . Employer accepted the claim under the Longshore and Harbor
Workers’ Compensation Act, which allows the employee to name a
preference for a treating physician. Employee indicated he had no
preference, and as such, Employer scheduled an appointment with Dr.
Christopher Pokabla, an orthopedic specialist. Meanwhile, on August 4,
2022, Employee sought medical treatment on his own with Dr. Mohamad
Moughrabieh for complaints of pain in his left shoulder and neck. Dr.
Moughrabieh’s records reflect that Employee reported falling approximately
twenty feet at work. He also reported suffering a loss of consciousness at the
time of the fall. Dr. Moughrabieh prescribed a steroid and an anti-
inflammatory and also gave Employee injections in his left arm and left hip.
He instructed Employee to follow up as needed.
Employee also went on his own to a “Minor Medical Center” at
Methodist Healthcare on August 15, 2022, where he saw a nurse practitioner
for pain in his left shoulder and neck. The nurse practitioner obtained X-rays
of Employee’s neck and left shoulder, which were normal, and she prescribed
a muscle relaxer and Ibuprofen. The week after that appointment, on August
22, 2022, Employer terminated Employee for excessive absences and
tardiness.
On September 19, 2022, Employee went to his first authorized
appointment with Dr. Pokabla at OrthoSouth in Memphis. He reported to
Dr. Pokabla that he fell almost twenty feet and was unconscious for five
minutes. Dr. Pokabla ordered X-rays of the cervical spine, lumbar spine, and
left shoulder, which revealed no findings suggesting an acute injury. He
referred Employee for an MRI of the cervical spine, lumbar spine, and left
2
shoulder, restricted Employee to light duty, and prescribed a narcotic pain
reliever. The MRIs were completed on September 20, 2022, and Dr. Pokabla
reviewed the results with Employee on October 24, 2022. Dr. Pokabla stated
that the majority of the pathology was degenerative in nature. He then
released Employee at maximum medical improvement and stated he could
return to work full duty, although he did recommend Employee follow up
with a spinal surgeon under his own private insurance. Dr. Pokabla
completed a [Final Medical Report] the following day, assigning a 0%
permanent medical impairment for Employee’s purported injuries.
Employee sought further medical care on his own with two more
primary care physicians and an orthopedic physician over the following year.
These records indicate diagnoses of arthralgia and shoulder sprain. In
addition, a referral was made to a neurosurgeon. None of these records
reflect any statements regarding causation of the varied diagnoses or the need
for a neurosurgical referral.
Employee filed a petition for benefit determination in October 2023
and requested an expedited hearing for temporary disability and medical
benefits. The trial court held an expedited hearing on August 20, 2024, at
which Employee testified. Employer submitted into evidence the deposition
of Dr. Pokabla, which Employee did not attend despite having notice of the
deposition. Dr. Pokabla testified he saw no evidence of trauma in his initial
examination or in the X-rays he obtained at Employee’s first appointment.
He also testified the MRIs taken following that appointment correlated with
the exam and X-rays in only documenting degenerative changes in the spine.
Furthermore, Dr. Pokabla testified the work-related injury caused neither a
permanent impairment nor the degenerative changes noted in the diagnostic
testing. Finally, he testified that Employee needed no further medical
treatment as a result of his work injury, and the only additional medical
treatment Employee needs is treatment for his non-work-related degenerative
arthritis.
Hicks v. Fullen Dock and Warehouse, LLC, No. 2023-08-7416, 2024 TN Wrk. Comp. App.
Bd. LEXIS 42, at *1-5 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Nov. 12, 2024) (footnote
omitted). Based on the medical evidence presented at the expedited hearing, the trial court
issued an order denying Employee’s request for benefits. Employee appealed, and we
affirmed the trial court’s order, noting that Employee did not file a transcript of the
expedited hearing, a statement of the evidence, or a brief. Further, Employee had presented
no evidence at the hearing establishing that his alleged need for treatment was primarily
caused by the work accident or that he had missed work as a result of his work injury such
that he was entitled to temporary disability benefits.
3
On remand, the trial court entered a scheduling order setting out specific deadlines
for each party to obtain and/or file additional proof. However, Employee took no
depositions and submitted no additional proof before his deadlines for completing
discovery and proof depositions of experts had expired. On March 18, 2026, Employer
filed a motion for summary judgment. Employee did not file a response to Employer’s
motion and did not appear for the hearing.1 On April 27, the trial court granted Employer’s
motion, concluding that it had successfully negated an essential element of Employee’s
claim, namely causation, with Dr. Pokabla’s testimony that Employee’s employment did
not contribute more than 50% to his injury. Further, the court stated that Employee
presented no medical evidence that his injury arose primarily out of or in the course and
scope of his employment. Thus, the court concluded that no genuine issue of material fact
existed as to causation and that Employer was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of
law. As a result, it dismissed Employee’s petition, and Employee has appealed.
Standard of Review
The grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment is a matter of law that we
review de novo with no presumption that the trial court’s conclusions are correct. See Rye
v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 250 (Tenn. 2015). As such,
we must “make a fresh determination of whether the requirements of Rule 56 of the
Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied.” Id. Moreover, a trial court has
broad discretion to control the pace of litigation and set hearings to address pre-trial
motions. Valladares v. Transco Products, Inc., Nos. 2015-01-0117 & -0118, 2016 TN
Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 31, at *26 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. July 27, 2016)
(“a trial court has the necessary discretion to control the pace of litigation through the use
of case supervision and docket management”); see also Smith v. Smith, No. E2017-01295-
COA-R3-CV, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 59, at *20 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2019) (“trial
courts have broad discretion to control their dockets”).
Analysis
On his notice of appeal, Employee asserts only that he is “in constant pain and it [is]
100% [Employer’s] fault.” However, Employee did not file a brief on appeal offering any
legal theory as to how the trial court erred in granting Employer’s motion. As stated by
the Tennessee Supreme Court, “[i]t is not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to
research or construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her.” Sneed v. Bd. of Pro.
Resp. of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010). Indeed, were we to
search the record for possible errors and raise issues and arguments for Employee, we
1
In its order, the trial court noted that Employee attempted to call in for the telephonic hearing the day
prior, which was a Sunday. He also emailed requesting confirmation as to the date and time of the hearing
and was informed of the correct date and time. The trial court waited five minutes after the scheduled time
before starting the hearing, and Employee did not appear before the hearing was concluded.
4
would essentially be acting as his counsel, which the law clearly prohibits us from doing.
Courts on appeal will not “dig through the record in an attempt to discover arguments or
issues that [a party] may have made” because doing so “would place [the opposing party]
in a distinct and likely insurmountable and unfair disadvantage.” Webb v. Sherrell, No.
E2013-02724-COA-R3-CV, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12,
2015).
Here, we have only an order granting Employer’s motion for summary judgment
after Employee did not respond to the motion in writing or appear for the hearing and a
notice of appeal filed by Employee alleging only that Employer is responsible for his pain.
He has not identified any legal or factual errors he alleges the trial court made. Thus, we
discern no error with the trial court’s conclusion that Employer negated an essential
element of Employee’s claim and was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the court’s order granting summary judgment
and certify it as final. Costs on appeal are waived.
5