The opinion
FILED
Sep 08, 2026
01:55 PM(CT)
TENNESSEE COURT OF
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CLAIMS
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
AT MURFREESBORO
KENIA LORENZO SUAREZ, Docket No. 2024-50-2258
Employee,
v.
WCSC TENNESSEE, LLC, State File No. 63547-2023
Employer,
and
SFM MUT. INS. CO., Judge Dale Tipps
Carrier.
COMPENSATION ORDER GRANTING BENEFITS
The Court held a Compensation Hearing on September 1, 2026, on Ms.
Suarez’s request for medical treatment and temporary and permanent disability
benefits. For the reasons below, the Court holds she is entitled to permanent partial
disability benefits totaling $5,040.45 and future medical benefits.
Claim History
Ms. Suarez was working as a home health provider for WCSC when she fell
and became injured at a client’s home in August 2023. WCSC accepted the claim
and furnished medical treatment at an injury clinic. Ms. Suarez reported pain to her
right shoulder, lower back, and right leg. After a few months of treatment and
physical therapy, the clinic referred her to an orthopedic specialist.
Ms. Suarez selected Dr. Erion Qamirani from a panel and saw him in January
2024. Her MRI showed degenerative changes without stenosis, and he assessed
lumbar sprain and radiculopathy. Dr. Qamirani added, “There are no surgical
indications.” He referred her to Dr. Kenneth Sykes for a right L4-5 epidural steroid
injection. Before the referral appointment took place, a physician assistant in Dr.
Qamirani’s office wrote a prescription for gabapentin. Ms. Suarez testified that she
1
took only one dose because it caused a severe reaction, including facial numbness.
Dr. Sykes discussed Dr. Qamirani’s recommended treatment with Ms. Suarez
during her first visit in March. Because she reported a history of adverse reactions
to steroids, he suggested an epidural injection without the steroid. Ms. Suarez said
she did not want to proceed with any treatment until she was seen for her neck
complaints. Dr. Sykes explained that this would need to be approved by the carrier.
He took her off work until her follow-up appointment.
When Ms. Suarez returned in May, she described lumbar pain radiating down
her right leg. Dr. Sykes discussed a nerve block but said she “wishes to be referred
to a neurologist before proceeding with this.” She wanted a neurologist to evaluate
the facial numbness symptoms she experienced after taking gabapentin. Ms. Suarez
also continued to complain of cervical pain, and Dr. Sykes again explained that the
carrier would have to approve an examination of her neck. He referred her to a
neurologist and kept her off work.
Ms. Suarez selected Dr. Richard Rubinowicz from a neurologist panel and
saw him once. She reported light sensitivity and “right sided facial numbness and
pressure discomfort.” After examining her, the doctor wrote, “I do not feel the
gabapentin produced the symptoms she is reporting. . . . No additional intervention
with neurology is required and she can be discharged.”
After Ms. Suarez saw Dr. Rubinowicz, both he and Dr. Qamirani completed
final medical reports placing her at maximum medical improvement on July 22.
Nonetheless, she continued authorized treatment with Dr. Sykes.
On August 12, Dr. Sykes assessed lumbar sprain and lumbar radiculopathy.
He no longer felt she was a candidate for lumbar nerve blocks or epidural steroid
injections. Instead, he referred her for additional physical therapy, told her to follow
up in six weeks, and kept her off work until then.
Ms. Suarez returned to Dr. Sykes in May 2025. 1 After ordering a new MRI,
1 During the first expedited hearing in February 2025, WCSC acknowledged that Ms. Suarez was
entitled to continuing treatment with Dr. Sykes. The Court was troubled by the fact that the
physical therapy he ordered in August 2024 had not yet taken place and that Ms. Suarez had not
seen him since then. However, as neither party explained the delay nor presented evidence as to
when the therapy was authorized, the Court declined to refer this case for assessment of a civil
penalty.
2
Dr. Sykes assessed lumbar and cervical radiculopathy and spondylosis in November
and discussed a surgical consultation. He released her with work restrictions of
sitting only.
WCSC offered several surgical panels to Ms. Suarez before any of her
selected doctors would agree to see her. She ultimately saw Dr. Daniel Burval in
April 2026. She complained of severe neck pain as well as facial numbness and
burning. He concluded that Ms. Suarez was deconditioned but found her imaging
to be typical for someone her age. Dr. Burval found no need for any invasive
treatment or opiate therapy and said she was at maximum medical improvement with
no restrictions.
Ms. Suarez also saw several unauthorized doctors. Dissatisfied with Dr.
Rubinowicz’s conclusions, she saw neurologist Dr. Norman McNulty with
complaints of pain and paresthesia in her face, as well as pain radiating from her low
back to her right leg and foot. He assessed neuralgia and prescribed oxcarbazepine
but noted that she was “hesitant to try any medication as she believes that gabapentin
caused these symptoms.” Dr. McNulty also discussed a possible diagnosis of
lumbosacral radiculopathy but said it was not apparent in her EMG results.
Other providers included a nurse practitioner, Shelby Hooper, who saw Ms.
Suarez for hip and glute pain. She referred her to Dr. Paul Thomas, an orthopedic
surgeon, who diagnosed a gluteus minimus tear, trochanteric bursitis of the right hip,
sciatica, and degenerative disc disease. Ms. Suarez also saw Dr. Bryce Barques, a
Rhode Island orthopedic surgeon, for an independent medical examination.2
Ms. Suarez testified that since taking the gabapentin, she has experienced
burning or numbness on one side of her face. She feels “fuzzy,” cannot sleep, and
no longer drives. Ms. Suarez has been unable to work. She also complained that
WCSC took too long to offer medical treatment after she reported the injury and did
not offer her a panel within three days, causing her to incur medical bills for
treatment she sought on her own.
Ms. Suarez also argued that WCSC wrongfully stopped paying temporary
disability benefits for noncompliance when she missed an appointment with Dr.
2 Dr. Barques did not give a deposition or complete a C-32 Standard Form Medical Report, so his
report and conclusions were not admitted as evidence. The same is true for a Form C-30A Final
Medical Report completed by Dr. McNulty.
3
Sykes sometime around September 2025. She explained that she missed her
appointment because she had a pain crisis.
On cross-examination, Ms. Suarez acknowledged that she chose Drs.
Qamirani, Rubin, and Burval from panels offered by WCSC. She also confirmed
that WCSC offered her multiple panels after Dr. Qamirani declined to see her again.
Ms. Suarez said she needs additional medical treatment so she can return to
work, and she requested payment of additional temporary disability benefits. She
also contended that Dr. Qamirani should not be considered an authorized physician
because he essentially abandoned her to Dr. Sykes.
WCSC argued that Ms. Suarez is entitled permanent disability benefits based
upon Dr. Qamirani’s 2% rating. It also contended that it has provided all required
medical and temporary disability benefits but acknowledged she is entitled to
continued medical benefits.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ms. Suarez has the burden of proof on all essential elements of her claim and
must show by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to the requested
benefits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2025); Willis v. All Staff, 2015 TN
Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 42, at *18 (Nov. 9, 2015).
Because Ms. Suarez’s injury is compensable, she is entitled to permanent
partial disability benefits for that condition. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-207(3)(A).
Dr. Qamirani was an authorized treating physician and assigned a 2%
impairment rating for Ms. Suarez’s injury under the AMA Guides, 6th edition. At
Ms. Suarez’s compensation rate of $345.71, this rating represents an initial
permanent partial disability award of $3,111.39.
The analysis does not end there, however. If an employee has not returned to
work at an equal or greater rate of pay by the end of the initial compensation period,
they may be entitled to increased benefits based on their work status and age. Id. §
50-6-207(3)(B).
Ms. Suarez testified that she was unable to return to work. WCSC presented
no proof to rebut that testimony and offered no evidence that it had work available
4
for her. For these reasons, the Court finds that Ms. Suarez is entitled to increased
benefits under section 50-6-207(3)(B) because she did not return to work at the end
of her initial compensation period and is over the age of 40. Applying these factors
to the original award, she is entitled to increased permanent partial disability benefits
of $1,929.06.
Turning to Ms. Suarez’s request for disability benefits, an injured worker is
eligible for temporary total disability benefits if: (1) the worker became disabled
from working due to a compensable injury; (2) there is a causal connection between
the injury and the inability to work; and (3) the worker established the duration of
disability. Jones v. Crencor Leasing and Sales, TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS
48, at *7 (Dec. 11, 2015). An employee is not entitled to temporary disability
benefits once they have reached maximum medical recovery. Id.
After the first expedited hearing, the Court ordered payment of temporary total
disability benefits for a six-week period of disability established by Dr. Sykes’s
August 12, 2024 treatment note. However, no additional benefits were ordered
because Ms. Suarez offered insufficient medical proof of the duration of the period
of disability. She did not correct that deficiency in the compensation hearing and
presented no evidence of any period of total disability for which she has not already
received benefits. 3
Alternatively, temporary partial disability benefits are available when the
temporary disability is not total.” Specifically, the Board has explained:
Temporary partial disability refers to the time, if any, during which the
injured employee is able to resume some gainful employment but has
not reached maximum recovery. Thus, in circumstances where the
treating physician has released the injured worker to return to work with
restrictions prior to maximum medical improvement, and the employer
either (1) cannot return the employee to work within the restrictions or
(2) cannot provide restricted work for a sufficient number of hours
and/or at a rate of pay equal to or greater than the employee’s average
weekly wage on the date of injury, the injured worker may be eligible
for temporary partial disability.
3 Similarly, although Ms. Suarez contended WCSC improperly stopped her temporary disability
payments in September 2025, she was unsure of the date that occurred and offered no other proof
in support of that claim.
5
Frye v. Vincent Printing Co., 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 34, at
*15-16 (Aug. 2, 2016) (Citation omitted). This means that Ms. Suarez must show
that her treating physician returned her to work with restrictions that WCSC either
could not or would not accommodate. Id. at *7-8.
Dr. Sykes assigned restrictions on May 19, 2025, and renewed those
restrictions in July and November. Although Ms. Suarez testified she received some
temporary disability benefits at that time before WCSC terminated them for
noncompliance, she offered no specific evidence regarding the dates she received
benefits or when they stopped. Further, the parties offered no proof about whether
WCSC offered appropriate light-duty work during that period, whether Ms. Suarez
declined the offer, or whether the circumstances justified her refusal to return to
work in a restricted-duty position. Hardin v. Royal & Sunalliance Ins.,104 S.W.3d
501, 505 (Tenn. 2003).
Without this information, the Court cannot find that Ms. Suarez has met her
burden of proving entitlement to additional temporary disability benefits.
Finally, regarding medical benefits, under Tennessee Code Annotated section
50-6-204(a)(1)(A), WCSC must provide medical treatment made reasonably
necessary by the work accident. To accomplish this, it must offer a panel of three
physicians. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(i).
Ms. Suarez was deeply dissatisfied with her authorized medical providers and
contended that she needs treatment that they are unwilling or unable to provide.
However, the evidence showed that WCSC repeatedly met the requirements of
section 50-6-204, offering numerous panels and furnishing medical tests and
treatment ordered by the panel doctors.
As for Ms. Suarez’s claim for reimbursement of medical expenses, an
employer may be required to pay for unauthorized treatment if it does not provide
the treatment made reasonably necessary by the work injury. See Hackney v.
Integrity Staffing Solutions, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 29, at *8-9 (July
22, 2016). However, other than her contention that WCSC was slow to accept her
claim and offer the initial panel, she presented no proof that it failed to authorize
treatment. Further, she offered no medical evidence of the amount of her claimed
expenses or that they were reasonable and necessary. Thus, the Court cannot award
a medical expense reimbursement.
6
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:.
1. WCSC shall pay Ms. Suarez initial permanent partial disability benefits of
$3,111.39, plus increased benefits of $1,929.06.
2. WCSC shall continue to furnish reasonable, necessary, and work-related
future medical benefits under section 50-6-204.
3. The Court taxes the $150.00 filing fee to WCSC, to be paid to the Court Clerk
under Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.06 within
five business days of this order becoming final, and for which execution might
issue if necessary.
4. WCSC shall file a Statistical Data Form (SD-2) with the Court Clerk within
ten business days of the date this order becomes final.
5. Unless appealed, this order becomes final 30 days after entry.
ENTERED September 8, 2026.
____________________________________
JUDGE DALE TIPPS
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
7
APPENDIX
Exhibits:
1. Employer’s indexed exhibits
2. Employee’s indexed exhibits
3. Employer’s indexed medical forms
4. Dr. Paul Thomas’s April 1, 2026 encounter summary
5. Dr. McNulty’s July 28, 2026 office note
6. Referral order from Emily Sullivan, NP
7. March 18, 2026 progress note from Shelby Hooper, NP
8. Dr. Sykes’s November 10, 2025 office note
9. June 30, 2026 work status report from Dr. Basques
10.Dr. Basques’s independent medical examination report (I.D. Only)
11.February 3, 2025 email from Ms. Suarez to Christie Greenleaf
12.Various emails submitted by Ms. Suarez
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this order was sent as shown on September 8, 2026.
Name Email Service sent to:
Kenia Lorenzo Suarez, X
Employee
Ryan Mirian, X RMirian@eraclides.com
Employer’s Attorney
____________________________________
PENNY SHRUM, COURT CLERK
wc.courtclerk@tn.gov
8