The opinion
FILED
Feb 12, 2024
12:30 PM(CT)
TENNESSEE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
APPEALS BOARD
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
Willie Rucker, Jr. ) Docket No. 2021-08-0611
)
v. ) State File No. 46819-2020
)
Federal Express Corporation, et al. )
)
)
Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )
Compensation Claims )
Thomas L. Wyatt, Judge )
Affirmed and Certified as Final
The employee reported suffering several injuries, including to his head and neck, while
working for the employer as a package handler. His claim was accepted as compensable
and medical benefits were provided. After the authorized physicians treated and released
the employee, he suffered one or more strokes, which he attributed to the work accident.
After the trial court entered an order denying the employee’s claim for temporary
disability and medical benefits, which we affirmed, the employer filed a motion for
summary judgment, asserting that the employee had come forward with no expert
medical opinion causally relating his strokes and associated medical conditions to the
work accident. The trial court then granted the motion for summary judgment and
dismissed the petition for benefits related to the employee’s strokes while leaving open
his entitlement to future medical benefits related to the work accident. The employee has
appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and
certify the order granting summary judgment as final.
Presiding Judge Timothy W. Conner delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which
Judge Pele I. Godkin and Judge Meredith B. Weaver joined.
Willie Rucker, Jr., Memphis, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se
Stephen P. Miller and Joseph B. Baker, Memphis, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee,
Federal Express Corporation
1
Factual and Procedural Background
Willie Rucker, Jr. (“Employee”), reported an accident on July 18, 2020, while
working at Federal Express Corporation (“Employer”), when a heavy package fell and
struck him on his head and upper body. Following this incident, Employer provided
Employee with panels of orthopedic and neurology specialists, and Employee selected
Dr. Riley Jones and Dr. Alan Nadel, respectively, as his authorized treating physicians.
At his initial appointment with Dr. Jones, an orthopedic surgeon, in August 2020,
Employee complained of pain in his low back and neck. Dr. Jones ordered MRIs of
Employee’s back, neck, and pelvis, as well as EMGs of his extremities and a bone scan.
He also ordered physical therapy. In December 2020, Dr. Jones noted that the EMG
results were normal and opined that Employee’s orthopedic complaints were
degenerative, “non-acute,” and did not meet “the 51% causation rule.”
Employee also treated with Dr. Nadel during this time for his neurologic
complaints. At Employee’s initial appointment on September 3, 2020, Dr. Nadel
diagnosed Employee with a mild post-trauma headache “without any residual neurologic
deficit.” After several additional appointments, Dr. Nadel concluded in January 2021
that Employee’s physical examination was “really unremarkable.” Dr. Nadel completed
a Final Medical Report (Form C30A) on that same date releasing Employee at maximum
medical improvement and assigning no permanent medical impairment.
Approximately two months after both treating physicians had released Employee
from their care, Employee suffered a stroke that he believed was caused by the July 2020
work accident. 1 At an expedited hearing convened to address Employee’s request for
additional medical care and temporary disability benefits, Employee introduced medical
records from March 2021, wherein he was diagnosed with an acute ischemic stroke, but
those records contained no statement addressing the cause of the stroke. Employee
testified he had never had a stroke prior to the work incident in 2020 and believed the
stroke was related to the head injury he had sustained at work. In response, Employer
relied on the medical opinions of both Dr. Jones and Dr. Nadel, as well as medical
records from 2015 indicating Employee had suffered from an “acute cerebrovascular
incident” following a home invasion and burglary.
Following the expedited hearing, the trial court entered an order denying the
requested disability and medical benefits, stating Employee had presented no expert
medical proof to support his contention that his stroke was causally related to the work
incident. It further relied on Dr. Nadel’s medical records indicating there were no
objective neurological findings and releasing Employee from his care. On appeal, we
1
There are indications in the record that Employee may have suffered two strokes: one in March 2021
and a second in November 2021.
2
affirmed the trial court’s order and remanded the case. Thereafter, Employer filed a
motion for summary judgment, arguing that Employee was unable to come forward with
expert medical evidence supporting his contention that the March 2021 stroke or any
subsequent stroke was causally related to the July 2020 work accident.
In response to Employer’s motion for summary judgment, Employee filed a
statement in which he asserted Employer improperly relied on medical records from a
prior incident. He also argued that Dr. Jones and Dr. Nadel had given “false results”
about the work injury. Finally, he claimed he had been seen by a “Dr. Roberson,” who
had “found my injury was work related.” He claimed Employer “stop[ped] me from
seeing [Dr. Roberson].” Employee did not file responses to Employer’s Statement of
Undisputed Facts as required by Rule 56.03 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.
He also did not file or rely on any affidavits, deposition transcripts, answers to
interrogatories, or admissions as contemplated in Rule 56.04, or assert there were any
disputed issues of material fact.
Thereafter, the trial court entered an order granting Employer’s motion and
dismissing Employee’s petition seeking benefits related to his strokes but leaving open
Employee’s entitlement to future medical benefits causally related to the July 2020 work
accident. Employee has appealed.
Standard of Review
The standard we apply in reviewing the 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) (2023). However, 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). The grant
or denial of a motion for summary judgment likewise is a question 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 “make a fresh determination of whether the requirements of Rule 56 of the Tennessee
Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied.” Id. 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 (2023).
Analysis
In his notice of appeal, Employee asserted that he “never recover[ed] from” his
work injury, that he is “still having problems” with pain in his head, and that he suffers
from a bulging disc in his neck, “severe damage” to his right leg, and a “severe shoulder
3
rotator cuff tear.” He also asserted that he “can’t think,” has “vision damage,” and
suffers from impaired balance. In addition to his notice of appeal, Employee also filed
certain handwritten statements that we elected to treat as his brief on appeal. In the first
such statement, Employee asserted he suffers from a “blood clot in my lung on right
side.” He also claims he can no longer work due to the July 2020 accident. In another
statement, Employee argues that Drs. Jones and Nadel “overlooked the damages” caused
by the work accident and that he also suffers from a blood clot in his brain.
However, in none of the statements Employee submitted on appeal did he explain
how he believed the trial court erred in granting summary judgment as to the claims
related to the strokes. Moreover, following the filing of Employer’s motion for summary
judgment, Employee did not file responses to the statements of undisputed facts, and he
offered the trial court no evidence creating any genuine issue as to any material fact.
It is well settled that an appellate court cannot act as a party’s attorney. As
explained 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 Prof’l Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn.
2010). Were we to search the record and raise issues and arguments for Employee, we
would be acting as his 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).
Moreover, although parties who decide to represent themselves are entitled to fair and
equal treatment, see Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d 222, 227 (Tenn. Ct. App.
2000), “courts must not excuse [self-represented] litigants from complying with the same
substantive and procedural rules that represented parties are expected to observe,”
Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901, 903-04 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (citations omitted).
Here, Employee has expressed his belief that his current medical conditions were
caused by the July 2020 work accident. However, this subjective belief, no matter how
sincerely held, is not a sufficient basis to support his claim for workers’ compensation
benefits. Arciga v. AtWork Personnel Servs., No. 2015-02-0217, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp.
App. Bd. LEXIS 6 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Feb. 2, 2016). Instead, after
Employer filed a properly supported motion for summary judgment, Employee was
required to come forward with sufficient evidence to indicate there is a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether his current medical conditions arose primarily from the work
accident. See, e.g., Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 803 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tenn. 1991).
He did not do so. In short, we conclude the trial court did not err in granting Employer’s
motion for summary judgment as to all claims related to Employee’s strokes.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order and certify it as final.
Costs on appeal have been waived.
4
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
Willie Rucker, Jr. ) Docket No. 2021-08-0611
)
v. ) State File No. 46819-2020
)
Federal Express Corporation, et al. )
)
)
Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )
Compensation Claims )
Thomas L. Wyatt, 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 12th day
of February, 2024.
Name Certified First Class Via Via Sent to:
Mail Mail Fax Email
Willie Rucker, Jr. X willruck777@gmail.com
Stephen P. Miller X smiller@mckuhn.com
jbaker@mckuhn.com
mdoherty@mckuhn.com
Thomas L. Wyatt, 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