Opinion

Nuchols, William Craig v. Jayell Ranch

  • 2022 TN WC App. 7
Court
Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
Filed
Feb 18, 2022
Status
Published
On the bench
Timothy W. Conner, David F. Hensley, Pele I. Godkin
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 7.5%

The opinion

FILED

Feb 18, 2022

12:06 PM(CT)

TENNESSEE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

APPEALS BOARD

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

William Craig Nuchols ) Docket No. 2021-03-0523

)

v. ) State File No. 800270-2021

)

Jayell Ranch )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )

Compensation Claims )

Pamela B. Johnson, Judge )

Affirmed and Remanded

The claimant worked for a company that offers horseback riding tours to customers. He

injured his left arm while leading a group of riders on a guided tour. The employer alleged

the claimant was an independent contractor, not an employee, and was therefore not

entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The trial court determined the claimant had

come forward with sufficient evidence that he was an employee at the time of the accident.

As a result, the court ordered the employer to initiate medical benefits and also determined

that, because the employer did not have workers’ compensation insurance at the time of

the accident, the claimant was eligible to seek benefits from the Uninsured Employers

Fund. The employer has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

Presiding Judge Timothy W. Conner delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which

Judge David F. Hensley and Judge Pele I. Godkin joined.

Ryan L. Sarr, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellant, Jayell Ranch

John R. Rosson, Jr., Knoxville, Tennessee, for the employee-appellee, William Nuchols

Memorandum Opinion 1

William Nuchols (“Claimant”) worked for Jayell Ranch (“Employer”) as a

horseback riding guide. On March 24, 2021, Claimant was leading a guided horseback

1

“The Appeals Board may, in an effort to secure a just and speedy determination of matters on appeal and

with the concurrence of all judges, decide an appeal by an abbreviated order or by memorandum opinion,

whichever the Appeals Board deems appropriate, in cases that are not legally and/or factually novel or

complex.” Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-22-.03(1) (2020).

1

tour when a child requested to be removed from one horse and placed on a parent’s horse.

While he was lifting the child, the horse started to run, and Claimant fell to the ground. He

immediately complained of severe pain in his left shoulder. Claimant was taken to a local

emergency room and was diagnosed with a left shoulder dislocation. He was then referred

to an orthopedic physician.

Employer declined to authorize medical treatment for Claimant’s injury and

asserted Claimant was an independent contractor. Following Claimant’s filing of a petition

for benefits, the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation completed an investigation that

revealed Employer had no workers’ compensation coverage in place as of the date of

Claimant’s accident.

Thereafter, the trial court conducted an expedited hearing at which Claimant and

Employer’s representative apparently testified. 2 Claimant asserted Employer hired him at

a set hourly rate, told him what days to work, and provided all tools necessary to perform

his job. He denied any company representative advised him he was being hired as an

independent contractor. Conversely, Employer’s representative testified Claimant was

hired as an independent contractor and was told he would receive as compensation a set

monetary amount every day he worked, plus tips.

Following the expedited hearing, the trial court issued an order in which it

concluded Claimant had come forward with sufficient evidence to show a likelihood of

proving at trial that he was an employee, not an independent contractor. The court accepted

Claimant’s testimony that Employer controlled Claimant’s work schedule and furnished

all tools Claimant needed to perform his work. The court determined, however, that

Employee had not established an entitlement to temporary disability benefits. The court

ordered Employer to provide Claimant a panel of physicians for authorized treatment, and

it determined Claimant was eligible to seek benefits from the Uninsured Employers Fund.

Employer has appealed.

On appeal, Employer asserts the trial court erred in determining Claimant was an

employee entitled to medical benefits. 3 However, Employer has not filed a transcript of

the hearing, a joint statement of the evidence, or a brief on appeal. As we have noted on

numerous occasions, “[w]ithout a transcript or a statement of the evidence, the appellate

court cannot know what evidence was presented to the trial court, and there is no means by

which we can evaluate the appellant’s assertion that the evidence did not support the trial

court’s decision.” Payne v. D and D Electric, No. 2014-01-0023, 2014 TN Wrk. Comp.

2

We have not been provided a transcript of the expedited hearing. We have gleaned the facts and procedural

history from the technical record and the trial court’s expedited hearing order.

3

Employer was not represented by an attorney when Claimant’s petition for benefits was filed, when

alternative dispute resolution was conducted, and when the expedited hearing occurred. However, although

no notice of appearance has been filed, an attorney filed the notice of appeal on Employer’s behalf.

2

App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *6 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Dec. 17, 2014) (quoting Britt

v. Chambers, No. W2006-00061-COA-R3-CV, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 38, at *8 (Tenn.

Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2007)). Accordingly, “it is essential that the appellate court be provided

with a transcript of the trial proceedings or a statement of the evidence.” Id. at *7. See

also Whitesell v. Moore, No. M2011-02745-COA-R3-CV, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 894,

at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2012) (“without a transcript or a statement of the evidence,

we cannot review the evidence”). In circumstances where no transcript of the hearing has

been provided, we are to presume there was sufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s

factual determinations. Leek v. Powell, 884 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

Moreover, Employer has not filed a brief on appeal explaining how the trial court

allegedly erred. Its notice of appeal, standing alone, is insufficient to constitute a legal

argument. As we have noted previously, “[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.” Lara v. Progress

Rail Servs. Corp., No. 2016-02-0501, 2019 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 33, at *4

(Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. July 18, 2019) (quoting Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l

Responsibility of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010)). Were we to

search the record for possible errors and raise issues and arguments for Employer, we

would be acting as its counsel, which the law prohibits. Webb v. Sherrell, No. E2013-

02724-COA-R3-CV, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2015).

In short, Employer has presented no argument that the trial court erred in its factual

determinations or legal conclusions. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s

order and remand the case. 4 We further conclude, pursuant to Tenn. Comp. R and Regs.

0800-02-22-.09(4), that Employer’s appeal is frivolous. See, e.g., Burnette v. WestRock,

No. 2016-01-0670, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp.

App. Bd. Oct. 31, 2017). Employee did not seek penalties or sanctions associated with the

filing of a frivolous appeal, and we exercise our discretion to award no such penalties or

sanctions. Costs on appeal are taxed to Employer.

4

Neither party has raised any issue on appeal regarding the trial court’s determination that Employee is

eligible to seek funds from the Uninsured Employer’s Fund pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section

50-6-801 et seq.; therefore, we need not address it.

3

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

William Craig Nuchols ) Docket No. 2021-03-0523

)

v. ) State File No. 800270-2021

)

Jayell Ranch )

)

)

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )

Compensation Claims )

Pamela B. Johnson, Judge )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Appeals Board’s decision in the referenced

case was sent to the following recipients by the following methods of service on this the 18th day

of February, 2022.

Name Certified First Class Via Via Sent to:

Mail Mail Fax Email

Ryan L. Sarr X ryansarr@tawpc.com

rebekahrosam@tawpc.com

John R. Rosson, Jr. X rossonlaw@aol.com

rjoyce1960@aol.com

Pamela B. Johnson, Judge X Via Electronic Mail

Kenneth M. Switzer, Chief Judge X Via Electronic Mail

Penny Shrum, Clerk, Court of X penny.patterson-shrum@tn.gov

Workers’ Compensation Claims

Olivia Yearwood

Clerk, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board

220 French Landing Dr., Ste. 1-B

Nashville, TN 37243

Telephone: 615-253-1606

Electronic Mail: WCAppeals.Clerk@tn.gov

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.