“In the absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence, we must conclusively presume that every fact admissible under the pleadings was found or should have been found favorably to the appellee.”
How later courts described this case
- “In the absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence, we must conclusively presume that every fact admissible under the pleadings was found or should have been found favorably to the appellee.”
- an abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision causes an injustice by applying an incorrect legal standard, reaching an illogical conclusion, or by resolving the case based on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FILED
Mar 25, 2024
10:26 AM(CT)
TENNESSEE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
APPEALS BOARD
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
Maikel Reazkallah ) Docket No. 2022-05-0554
)
v. ) State File No. 2854-2022
)
Amazon.com Services, LLC, et al. )
)
)
Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )
Compensation Claims )
Dale A. Tipps, Judge )
Affirmed and Certified as Final
This is an appeal of a compensation order denying workers’ compensation benefits. The
employee alleged he suffered an injury to his right leg resulting in a need for medical
treatment. The employer provided a panel, and the selected physician opined the
employee’s complaints were not primarily due to a work injury. Following a
compensation hearing, the trial court found the employee failed to prove his alleged
injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment and denied
benefits, and the employee has appealed. Upon careful consideration of the record, we
affirm the order and certify it as final.
Judge Meredith B. Weaver delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which
Presiding Judge Timothy W. Conner and Judge Pele I. Godkin joined.
Maikel Reazkallah, Smyrna, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se
Stephen B. Morton, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, Amazon.com
Services, LLC
Factual and Procedural Background
Maikel Reazkallah (“Employee”) alleged he suffered a work-related injury on
December 18, 2021, while working for Amazon.com Services, LLC (“Employer”).
Employee, who began working for Employer on December 12, 2021, initially reported a
strain to his right thigh area following work on the production line. However, he later
indicated it was an injury to his low back causing symptoms in his right leg. Upon
1
receiving his report of an injury, Employer provided a panel, and Employee selected Dr.
Harold V. Nevels as his authorized treating physician.
Dr. Nevels saw Employee on December 30, 2021. At that time, Employee
reported numbness and a “cold sensation” to his right thigh after six days as a “sorter”
with Employer. Dr. Nevels stated, “I can not [sic] call this a work comp injury,” and
released Employee to follow up with a primary care provider regarding a possible
electrolyte imbalance or “deconditioning” for work. Following that visit, Employer
denied the claim, and Employee filed a petition for benefit determination. Once a dispute
certification notice was issued, Employee filed a request for expedited hearing. After
numerous discovery disputes, Employee did not attend the expedited hearing, and as
such, the court set a compensation hearing. 1
At the December 7, 2023 compensation hearing, Employee testified on his own
behalf, and Employer offered into evidence a Form C-32 Final Medical Report (“C-32”)
from Dr. Nevels. The C-32 reflected the prior statements of Dr. Nevels indicating there
was no work injury, no disablement preventing Employee from working, and no
permanent impairment. Employee provided a C-32 from Dr. John Burleson, an
unauthorized physician he saw on his own, but it was not admitted into evidence as it did
not satisfy the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-235(c)(1). With
no medical proof establishing that Employee’s alleged injury arose primarily out of and
in the course and scope of his employment, the trial court determined Employee had not
met his burden of proof and entered a compensation order denying benefits. Employee
has appealed.
Standard of Review
The standard we apply in reviewing a 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). When the trial judge has had the
opportunity to observe a witness’s demeanor and to hear in-court testimony, we give
considerable deference to factual findings made by the trial court. Madden v. Holland
Grp. of Tenn., Inc., 277 S.W.3d 896, 898 (Tenn. 2009). However, “[n]o similar
deference need be afforded the trial court’s findings based upon documentary evidence.”
Goodman v. Schwarz Paper Co., No. W2016-02594-SC-R3-WC, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 8, at
*6 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel Jan. 18, 2018). Similarly, 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). We are
1
Employee did file an appeal of the order dismissing his request for expedited hearing but failed to pay
the filing fee or file an Affidavit of Indigency even after our issuance of a show cause order. As such, we
dismissed that appeal on July 18, 2023, without reaching the merits and remanded the case.
2
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 identifies three issues: (1) the court’s exclusion
of Dr. Burleson’s C-32 from evidence; (2) “taking the doctor[’s] report for [Employer]
even though I told him that the signature [is] not [mine]; and (3) “hiding the [notice] of
receipt by the other party [to] bring witnesses and vidio [sic] camera.” For its part,
Employer submits the appeal is frivolous and seeks an award of its expenses.
On appeal, Employee did not file a brief, nor did he file a transcript of the hearing.
Employee did send an email to the Clerk of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board,
which appears to reiterate his request to have Dr. Burleson’s C-32 admitted and to have
the company present certain witnesses and evidence he alleges are consistent with
subpoenas he mailed to Employer’s attorney. 2
In the absence of a transcript, “the totality of the evidence introduced in the trial
court is unknown, and we decline to speculate as to the nature and extent of the proof
presented to the trial court.” Meier v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., No. 2015-02-0179,
2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 30, at *3 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. July
27, 2016). Consistent with established Tennessee law, we must presume that the trial
court’s rulings were supported by sufficient evidence. See, e.g., Estate of Cockrill, No.
M2010-00663-COA-R3-CV, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 754, at *11-12 (Tenn. Ct. App.
Dec. 2, 2010) (“[W]here no transcript or statement of the evidence is filed, the appellate
court is required to presume that the record, had it been properly preserved, would have
supported the action of the trial court.”); Leek v. Powell, 884 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tenn. Ct.
App. 1994) (“In the absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence, we must
conclusively presume that every fact admissible under the pleadings was found or should
have been found favorably to the appellee.”).
Further, our ability to discern the factual or legal issues for review is limited. 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.
2
The issues Employee attempts to raise regarding the issuance of subpoenas for witnesses and video
footage of the accident were addressed by the trial court in a May 25, 2023 order. The technical record
contains various subpoenas addressed to Employer, generally, and later to Employer’s counsel, requesting
the appearance of the supervisor and a safety official allegedly present at the time of the accident, as well
as video of the accident. In the May 25 order, the trial court explained the subpoena procedure under the
Bureau’s Rules and denied Employee’s motion to compel the appearance of those witnesses. That order
was not appealed.
3
Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility 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 would be acting as his counsel, which the law clearly prohibits. Webb
v. Sherrell, No. E2013-02724-COA-R3-CV, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645, at *5 (Tenn.
Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2015).
The only issue contained in the trial court’s order which Employee has raised on
appeal is the exclusion of Dr. Burleson’s C-32. Although Employee attempted to file Dr.
Burleson’s C-32 and his records, the C-32 did not contain a statement of Dr. Burleson’s
qualifications as required by the applicable statute. Counsel for Employer properly
objected to its admissibility. 3 A trial court’s decision regarding the admission or
exclusion of evidence is entrusted to the court’s discretion and will not be disturbed on
appeal unless the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90, 116
(Tenn. 2008). We can find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s exclusion of Dr.
Burleson’s C-32. See Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328, 335 (Tenn. 2010) (an
abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision causes an injustice by applying
an incorrect legal standard, reaching an illogical conclusion, or by resolving the case
based on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence). As such, we agree with the
trial court that Employee provided no medical proof to rebut the presumption afforded
Dr. Nevels under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(12)(E), and we find no
error in the trial court’s denial of benefits.
Finally, we conclude Employee’s appeal is frivolous. As we have noted
previously, a frivolous appeal is one that is devoid of merit or brought solely for delay.
Yarbrough v. Protective Servs. Co., Inc., No. 2015-08-0574, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App.
Bd. LEXIS 3, at *11 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Jan. 25, 2016); see also Burnette
v. WestRock, No. 2016-01-0670, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 66, at *15
(Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Oct. 31, 2017) (“Stated another way, a frivolous appeal
is one that . . . had no reasonable chance of succeeding.” (internal citation and quotation
marks omitted)). Litigants “should not be required to endure the hassle and expense of
baseless litigation. Nor should appellate courts be required to waste time and resources
on appeals that have no realistic chance of success.” Yarbrough, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp.
App. Bd. LEXIS 3, at *10-11 (internal citations omitted). However, under these
circumstances, we exercise our discretion and decline to award expenses as requested by
Employer.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the court’s order and certify it as final. Costs
on appeal have been waived.
3
We also find no indication in the record than Employee gave notice of his intent to use the C-32 at least
twenty days prior to the date of intended use. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-235(c)(2) (2023).
4
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
Maikel Reazkallah ) Docket No. 2022-05-0554
)
v. ) State File No. 2854-2022
)
Amazon.com Services, LLC, et al. )
)
)
Appeal from the Court of Workers’ )
Compensation Claims )
Dale A. Tipps, 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 25th day
of March, 2024.
Name Certified First Class Via Via Sent to:
Mail Mail Fax Email
Maikel Reazkallah X X X maikel.reazkallah@yahoo.com
100 Bungalow Ct., Smyrna, TN, 37167
Stephen B. Morton X stephen.morton@mgclaw.com
Dale A. Tipps, 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