By Courtney S. Paterson


Sarah Love v. Delta Faucet Company, et al.                                   

Docket No. 2015-07-0195

State File No. 55816-2015

Filed September 19, 2016


This recent Appeals Board case involves an authorized treating physician who reversed his decision on causation. However, the Appeals Court still found favor of the employee based in part on the employee’s own testimony at the expedited hearing.


This is a case before the Appeals Board on interlocutory appeal filed by the employer, and the dispute was whether the employer should be required to provide medical and temporary disability benefits.

The employee alleged a right shoulder injury when she lifted a tray of parts while working on the employer’s assembly line. The employer, after initially accepting the claim, denied further benefits, asserting she had prior problems with her shoulder and that her current complaints were not related to her employment. Her authorized treating physician, Dr. Wolf, initially opined that the employee’s complaints arose “100%” out of her employment.

After the employer provided Dr. Wolf with a detailed recitation of the Employee’s medical history related to her right shoulder and asserted the employee had provided an inaccurate history to Dr. Wolf, he opined that he could not say with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Employee’s complaints were primarily related to her employment. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court determined the employee presented sufficient proof to establish she would likely prevail at a hearing on the merits and awarded medical and temporary disability benefits. The employer appealed.

The appeals board affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s decision.


An associate with Spicer Rudstrom since 2009, Courtney focuses her practice on automobile liability, insurance coverage litigation, insurance defense litigation, insurance subrogation, premises liability, products liability and workers’ compensation. She is admitted to practice in all trial and appellate state courts in Tennessee, as well as the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.


Related Articles

Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Summary: Carrie K. Lightfoot v. Xerox Business Services, et al.

Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Summary: Thomas Gilbert v. United Parcel Service

Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Summary: Giovanna Meier v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., et al.