The opinion
FILED
Mar 06, 2023
02:39 PM(CT)
TENNESSEE COURT OF
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CLAIMS
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
AT NASHVILLE
JIAN DI YAN, ) Docket No. 801034-2022
Employee, )
v. ) State File No. 2022-06-1442
)
NENG YUAN LAN, d/b/a CHINA ) Judge Joshua D. Baker
KING, )
Employer.
EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS
______________________________________________________________________
The Court held an expedited hearing on February 23, 2023, to consider Mr. Yan’s
request for benefits from China King’s owner, Neng Lan. Due to insufficient evidence that
Mr. Yan was an employee and that China King was an employer, the Court denies his
request.
Claim History
Mr. Yan alleged he burned his right foot when changing hot oil in a leaky fryer
while working in China King’s kitchen on May 25, 2022.1
He visited a local emergency room on May 25 with his right foot severely burned.
After a couple of weeks of treatment, medical staff noted that he wanted to return home to
New York. In that same June 14 record, a physician’s assistant recounted that Mr. Yan’s
injury had happened “while at his friend’s house” in White House, Tennessee, and she
attributed the following account to Mr. Yan: “He states that he was cooking with hot oil
and his friend told him not to move it yet as it was still hot however he did not wake [sic]
long enough for it to cool down in [sic] it spilled on his foot.”
1
Mr. Yan is not proficient in English but used English on his petition. Bureau staff apparently misread his
handwriting and typed his injury date as “01/21/2022.” However, Mr. Yan testified through an interpreter
that the accident occurred on May 25, and his hospital visit that day supports this assertion.
1
In New York, four days later, medical staff noted in a June 18 record that Mr. Yan
injured himself “by hot oil at home yesterday.” However, the same record also recorded
his injury as an “arm skin burn” rather than as a burn to his foot.
While Mr. Lan argued these discrepancies in medical records revealed deception,
Mr. Yan claimed Mr. Lan had interpreted for him and intentionally misled medical staff to
disguise a work injury as an at-home accident. Mr. Yan also claimed the records from this
visit were forwarded to New York, where the lie perpetuated. Mr. Lan insisted he did not
take Mr. Yan to the hospital, did not interpret for him, and did not witness or know about
his injury.
The most significant evidence came from the two men’s testimony, and they only
agreed that Mr. Lan gave Mr. Yan money and had evicted him from his home.
Mr. Yan said he worked for China King intermittently, receiving unreported income
through a personal check in August 2020 and then through near-monthly deposits into his
bank account or wire transfers to his family in China from October 2020 through May
2022. He estimated he had received about fifty to sixty thousand dollars as wages and said
two of his co-workers also received unreported income. Additionally, Mr. Lan paid some
of his living expenses, like his car insurance, and let him stay at his home. But then Mr.
Lan evicted him for seeking help for his work injury, so he returned home to New York.
Mr. Lan’s explanation for sending the money differed considerably, and he
estimated the amount as roughly ten thousand, not fifty or sixty. Rather than wages, he
portrayed the money as a loan to help his cousin, Mr. Yan, who gambled heavily and
frequently needed financial help.
Mr. Lan testified he received a call from Mr. Yan on May 26, saying he had a severe
burn injury and needed somewhere to stay. Mr. Lan allowed him to stay in his home until
June 12, when Mr. Yan set off the smoke alarm at midnight by smoking marijuana, which
angered Mrs. Lan and sparked a terrible argument.
The two men disputed their relationship to one other, including whether they are
even related. Mr. Yan maintained he worked at the restaurant as an employee and has no
relationship to Mr. Lan’s family. However, he did not describe any specific job duties or
give any other details, except that he sometimes brought food for lunch.
Mr. Lan admitted they often ate lunch together before their argument, but he denied
that Mr. Yan ever worked for China King. Rather, Mr. Yan visited the restaurant frequently
only because he is his cousin on his mother’s side. She was an instrumental part of China
King’s operation, as one of only three employees. He said Mr. Yan never told him where
he worked, only saying he worked nearby, and he never said where he had injured himself.
2
China King submitted tax forms showing it reported wages for three employees in
2021 and 2022: Nengyi Lan, Chunhua Zhu, and Yujia Tang. Mr. Lan said these three
people were the restaurant’s only employees.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Mr. Yan need only present sufficient evidence at this stage that he would likely
prevail at a final hearing. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2022); McCord v.
Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *9 (Mar. 27,
2015).
Under Workers’ Compensation Law, an employee is defined as someone “in the
service of an employer, as employer is defined in subdivision (11), under any contract of
hire or apprenticeship, written or implied.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(10)(A). An
employer is defined as using “the services of not less than five (5) persons for pay[.]” Tenn.
Code Ann. § 50-6-102(11).
This case is plagued by directly opposing but somehow interconnected storylines.
What one said, the other denied: right down to whether they are even related. Maybe the
truth lies somewhere down the middle.
Mr. Yan’s testimony is the only evidence that China King employed him. Although
he testified that China King also paid two other people unreported income, he did not
subpoena them to testify, nor did he subpoena anyone else to testify that he worked at China
King.
Mr. Lan refuted Mr. Yan’s testimony with his own testimony, admitting he gave
Mr. Yan money but not for working at China King. Further, Mr. Lan testified that China
King had never employed five or more people, and tax forms supported that assertion.
As the alleged employee, it is Mr. Yan’s burden to prove he was an employee, and
that China King was an employer under Workers’ Compensation Law. However, he did
not present sufficient evidence for the Court to find he is likely to prevail in proving that
employment relationship at a final hearing. Therefore, his request for benefits is denied at
this time.
It is ORDERED as follows:
1. The Court denies Mr. Yan’s requested relief at this time.
2. The parties shall complete written discovery on or before April 21, 2023.
3. The Court sets this claim for a status conference on May 8, 2023, at 9:30 a.m.
3
Central Time. The parties must call (615) 741-2113 or toll-free at (855) 874-0474
to participate. Failure to call might result in a determination of the issues without
the party’s participation. Mr. Lan’s attorney must arrange for a Court-certified or
registered interpreter.
ENTERED March 6, 2023.
____________________________________
Judge Joshua D. Baker
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
4
APPENDIX
Exhibits:
1. Rule 72 Declaration of Yan Jian Di
2. Medical Records
3. Financial Records from China King
4. UEF Report
Technical record:
1. Petition for Benefit Determination
2. Dispute Certification Notice
3. Request for Expedited Hearing
4. Employer’s Motion to Dismiss
5. Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this order was sent as indicated on March 6, 2023.
Name Certified Via Via Service sent to:
Mail Fax Email
Yan Jian Di, X 450692677@qq.com
Employee
Joe Weyant, X jweyantesq@gmail.com
Employer’s Attorney
_____________________________________
Penny Shrum, Court Clerk
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov
5
Expedited Hearing Order Right to Appeal:
If you disagree with this Expedited Hearing Order, you may appeal to the Workers’
Compensation Appeals Board. To appeal an expedited hearing order, you must:
1. Complete the enclosed form entitled: “Notice of Appeal,” and file the form with the
Clerk of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims within seven business days of the
date the expedited hearing order was filed. When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must
serve a copy upon all parties.
2. You must pay, via check, money order, or credit card, a $75.00 filing fee within ten
calendar days after filing of 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 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 the appeal.
3. You bear the responsibility of ensuring a complete record on appeal. You may request
from the court clerk the audio recording of the hearing for a $25.00 fee. If a transcript of
the proceedings is to be filed, a licensed court reporter must prepare the transcript and file
it with the court clerk within ten business days of the filing the Notice of
Appeal. Alternatively, you may file a statement of the evidence prepared jointly by both
parties within ten business days of the filing of the Notice of Appeal. The statement of
the evidence must convey a complete and accurate account of the hearing. The Workers’
Compensation Judge must approve the statement before the record is submitted to the
Appeals Board. If the Appeals Board is called upon to review testimony or other proof
concerning factual matters, the absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence can be
a significant obstacle to meaningful appellate review.
4. If you wish to file a position statement, you must file it with the court clerk within ten
business days after the deadline to file a transcript or statement of the evidence. The
party opposing the appeal may file a response with the court clerk within ten business
days after you file your position statement. All position statements should include: (1) a
statement summarizing the facts of the case from the evidence admitted during the
expedited hearing; (2) a statement summarizing the disposition of the case as a result of
the expedited hearing; (3) a statement of the issue(s) presented for review; and (4) an
argument, citing appropriate statutes, case law, or other authority.
For self-represented litigants: Help from an Ombudsman is available at 800-332-2667.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
www.tn.gov/workforce/injuries-at-work/
wc.courtclerk@tn.gov | 1-800-332-2667
Docket No.: ________________________
State File No.: ______________________
Date of Injury: _____________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Employee
v.
___________________________________________________________________________
Employer
Notice is given that ____________________________________________________________________
[List name(s) of all appealing party(ies). Use separate sheet if necessary.]
appeals the following order(s) of the Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims to the
Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (check one or more applicable boxes and include the date file-
stamped on the first page of the order(s) being appealed):
□ Expedited Hearing Order filed on _______________ □ Motion Order filed on ___________________
□ Compensation Order filed on__________________ □ Other Order filed on_____________________
issued by Judge _________________________________________________________________________.
Statement of the Issues on Appeal
Provide a short and plain statement of the issues on appeal or basis for relief on appeal:
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
Parties
Appellant(s) (Requesting Party): _________________________________________ ☐Employer ☐Employee
Address: ________________________________________________________ Phone: ___________________
Email: __________________________________________________________
Attorney’s Name: ______________________________________________ BPR#: _______________________
Attorney’s Email: ______________________________________________ Phone: _______________________
Attorney’s Address: _________________________________________________________________________
* Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellant *
LB-1099 rev. 01/20 Page 1 of 2 RDA 11082
Employee Name: _______________________________________ Docket No.: _____________________ Date of Inj.: _______________
Appellee(s) (Opposing Party): ___________________________________________ ☐Employer ☐Employee
Appellee’s Address: ______________________________________________ Phone: ____________________
Email: _________________________________________________________
Attorney’s Name: _____________________________________________ BPR#: ________________________
Attorney’s Email: _____________________________________________ Phone: _______________________
Attorney’s Address: _________________________________________________________________________
* Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellee *
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, _____________________________________________________________, certify that I have forwarded a
true and exact copy of this Notice of Appeal by First Class mail, postage prepaid, or in any manner as described
in Tennessee Compilation Rules & Regulations, Chapter 0800-02-21, to all parties and/or their attorneys in this
case on this the __________ day of ___________________________________, 20 ____.
______________________________________________
[Signature of appellant or attorney for appellant]
LB-1099 rev. 01/20 Page 2 of 2 RDA 11082