Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102

Section 50-6-102(12)(D) requires a physician’s opinion to prove that an injury is work-related.

Holt, Jeremy v. Professional Touch Cleaning of the Tri-Cities · filed 2024-07-22(12)(D)

An opinion from a physician is required to prove the work-relatedness of an injury. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(D). He offered none.

Section 50-6-102(13) requires an injured worker to prove that the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

East, Sean v. Heritage Hosiery · filed 2014-11-24(13)

Under Tennessee law, the injured worker must prove his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13). ... On the basis of the above-described evidence, the Court finds Employee injured his neck, left shoulder, and left arm in the course and scope ofhis employment.

An injury is compensable only if it arises primarily out of and occurs in the course of employment.

Cullum, Paulette v. K-Mac Holding Corp d/b/a Taco Bell · filed 2014-12-23(13)

To be compensable under the workers' compensation statutes, an injury must arise primarily out of and occur in the course of the employment.

Section 50-6-102(13) requires an employee to show that an injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Lamb, Kenneth v. Certified Painting, Inc. · filed 2015-02-02(13)

The employee must show the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13).

Section 50-6-102(13) requires proof that an injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment to qualify as compensable.

Cooper, Jimmy v. Federal Express Corporation · filed 2014-12-08(13)

Applying these principles to this case, it is the finding of the Court that Employee does have low back pain, but there is insufficient proof that it arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Section 50-6-102(12) requires an employee to establish that the claimed condition arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Caskey, Shawn v. Powers Pizza, LLC · filed 2015-09-11(12)

In order to prevail, he must establish that he has scabies, and that it "arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50- 6-102(12) (2014). The undersigned finds that Mr. Caskey is unlikely to succeed on this issue at a trial on the merits based on the evidence submitted at this time.

Section 50-6-102(13) requires an injury to arise primarily out of employment to qualify as a compensable injury.

Rodgers, Clark v. Armstrong Transfer & Storage · filed 2015-09-15(13)

Having so found, Mr. Rodgers must still prove the injury to his left hand arose primarily out of his employment. See Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-102(13) (2014).

An assault injury arises primarily out of employment when it bears a rational, causal connection to the employee’s work, including an employer-directed task.

Wood, Michael v. Mac Constructors, LLC · filed 2015-09-23(13)

Mr. Wood's injuries from the assault bear a rational, causal connection to his work with Mac because he sustained them while securing a necessary repair on the truck, upon Mac's direction, so that he could return to his principal duties of driving the truck.

For injuries on or after July 1, 2014, an employee must show that the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Scott, Jr., Raymond W. v. Snyder Services Plumbing Company · filed 2015-10-01(13)

For injuries on or after July 1, 2014, an employee must show that his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Section 50-6-102(13) requires a compensable injury to arise primarily out of and occur in the course and scope of employment and to be caused by an incident or specific set of incidents.

Ballew, Richard v. Shomaker Lumber Co., Inc. · filed 2015-11-06(13)

To be compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law, an injury must arise primarily out of and occur in the course and scope of the employment and be caused by an incident or specific set of incidents. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13) (2014). Medical evidence is generally required in order to establish a causal relationship, "[e]xcept in the most obvious, simple and routine cases." Cloyd v. Hartco Flooring Co., 274 S.W.3d 638, 643 (Tenn. 2008) (quoting Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 803 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tenn. 1991)). The Court considers this an obvious case; the spinning log turner amputated Mr. Ballew's fingers.

An injury is compensable under subsection (14) when it arises primarily out of and occurs in the course and scope of employment, results from a specific incident or incidents, and is identifiable by time and place.

Scales, Elijah v. Sherlock · filed 2016-01-27(14)

To be compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law, an injury must arise primarily out of and occur in the course and scope of the employment, be caused by an incident or specific set of incidents, and be identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2015). ... Therefore, Mr. Scales presented sufficient evidence from which this Court concludes he is likely to prevail in proving compensable injuries to his neck and left wrist primarily arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment with Mr. Sherlock.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires a compensable injury to arise primarily out of and occur in the course and scope of employment.

Anderson, Barry v. Aramark · filed 2016-04-06(14)

To be compensable under the workers' compensation statutes, Mr. Anderson's injury must arise primarily out of and occur in the course and scope of the employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2015).

Section 50-6-102(14) requires an injured worker to establish that the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Johnson, Doris v. Western Express · filed 2016-03-31(14)

The Workers' Compensation law requires that an injured worker establish her injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2015).

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) treats an injury as accidental when it arises from an identifiable incident or set of incidents primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Pierce, Artie v. Metro Industrial · filed 2016-05-05(14)(A)

For an injury to be accidental, it must be “caused by a specific incident, or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 102(14)(A) (2015). ... The Court therefore finds Mr. Pierce met his burden of proving he suffered a left hand, left upper arm, and bilateral low back injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment with Metro.

An injury is compensable under subsection (14) when it arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, is caused by an incident or specific set of incidents, and is identifiable by time and place.

Scales, Elijah v. Sherlock · filed 2016-06-07(14)

To be compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law, an injury must arise primarily out of and occur in the course and scope of the employment; be caused by an incident or specific set of incidents; and be identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

An injury is compensable only if it arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, is caused by an incident or specific set of incidents, and is identifiable by time and place.

Lee, Thomas v. Federal Express Corporation · filed 2016-08-26(14)

To be compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law, an injury must arise primarily out of and occur in the course and scope of the employment; be caused by an incident or specific set of incidents; and be identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 102(14) (2015).

An injury is compensable under subsection (14) when it arises primarily out of and occurs in the course and scope of employment, is caused by an incident or specific set of incidents, and is identifiable by time and place.

Gray, Diana v. Daffy Duck Learning Akademy · filed 2016-09-20(14)

To be compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law, an injury must arise primarily out of and occur in the course and scope of the employment; be caused by an incident or specific set of incidents; and be identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2015). ... Applying the above legal principles, the Court holds that Ms. Gray has come forward with sufficient evidence showing she is likely to prevail on the issue of compensability at a hearing on the merits.

An injury is compensable under section 50-6-102(14) only if it arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Brumit, Patsy v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center · filed 2016-10-04(14)

To be compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law, an injury must arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of the employment.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) requires an injury to result from an incident or specific set of incidents identifiable by time and place; a witnessed door strike satisfied that requirement.

Noel, Darlene v. Ean Holdings, LLC · filed 2016-11-29(14)(A)

Accordingly, Ms. Noel established the specific incident criteria of the statutory definition of injury.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires proof that an identifiable work incident caused the claimed injury; a worker who is unlikely to prove work-related causation is unlikely to establish a compensable injury.

Pindell, Russell v. Upchurch Industrial · filed 2016-10-12(14)

To prove a compensable injury under the workers' compensation statutes, Mr. Pindell must show his injury was caused by an incident, or specific set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A) (2015). ... Based on the contradiction of Mr. Pindell's testimony by Mr. Grissom, Mr. Jones, and Mr. May, Mr. Pindell's signature on the timesheet agreeing he sustained no work injury, and the lack of corroborative expert medical testimony, the Court holds he is unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits on the issue of causation.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires an injury to arise primarily out of and occur in the course and scope of employment; the claimant must present sufficient medical evidence of work causation to obtain benefits.

Holyfield, Eve v. Senior Helpers · filed 2016-11-30(14)

To be compensable under the workers' compensation statutes, Ms. Holyfield's condition must arise primarily out of and occur in the course and scope of the employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-1 02( 14) (20 15). ... Based on a comparison of the two conflicting medical reports, the Court holds Ms. Holyfield is unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits on the issue of causation.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires proof that an injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment to establish a compensable injury.

Smith, Sean v. Yates Services, LLC · filed 2016-12-22(14)

In order to do so, he must show that his alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2016). ... Absent a contrary medical opinion, Mr. Smith cannot establish that his alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment.

An employee must prove that an injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment to establish a compensable injury.

Panzarella, Samuel v. Amazon.com, Inc. · filed 2017-01-31(14)

For his injury to be compensable, Mr. Panzarella must show his injury arose "primarily" out of and in the course and scope of his employment at Amazon. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2016). ... Accordingly, after careful consideration of the evidence as a whole, this Court concludes Mr. Panzarella failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, his left knee condition arose primarily out of and in the course or scope of his employment with Amazon.

Section 50-6-102(14) covers a knee injury from falling in a hole at a construction site during work as an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Funez, Victor v. Brothers Concrete Company · filed 2017-02-02(14)

Based on this evidence, which is unrefuted, the Court finds Mr. Funez will likely succeed at a hearing on the merits in proving he suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment for Brothers.

An injury from a workplace altercation arises out of employment under § 50-6-102(14) only when the altercation has an inherent connection to the work.

Cole, Shaun v. M & D Coatings · filed 2017-04-24(14)

Instead, as discussed above, the test is the “inherent connection,” if any, between the work and the injury caused by the altercation. The Court holds as a matter of law that Mr. Cole did not come forward with sufficient evidence to show he would likely prevail at a hearing on the merits in proving his injury arose out of his employment at M and D.

An injury must be caused by a specific incident or set of incidents arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment and identifiable by time and place.

Pardy, Stephen v. Memphis Cycles, Inc. d/b/a Honda-Yamaha of Memphis · filed 2017-02-07(14)(A)

This first requires proof that the injury was “caused by a specific incident, or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A) (2016). ... Mr. Pardy has not demonstrated sufficient facts to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the occurrence of a specific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires a compensable injury to arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, with an accidental injury identifiable by time and place.

Suisse, Randy v. Bevco Parking Services, InC. · filed 2017-02-08(14)

The Court holds Mr. Suisse is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that he sustained a thoracic sprain/strain injury arising primarily out of and in the course of his employment but not likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that he sustained a T-11 compression fracture or an aggravation of his pre- existing condition.

An employee must show an injury caused by a specific incident or set of incidents arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

Woods, Monty v. Up Dish Services, LLC · filed 2017-02-28(14)(A)

Mr. Woods must show he suffered an injury caused by a specific incident or set of incidents arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A) (2016). ... The Court finds Mr. Atkinson's testimony more persuasive and holds Mr. Woods did not come forward with sufficient evidence for it to determine he is likely to succeed at a hearing on the merits.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires evidence of an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Gibson, William v. Pleasant Hill Market · filed 2017-03-20(14)

Although Mr. Gibson asserted, without contradiction, he stumbled over a raised area in Pleasant Hill’s parking lot, he failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove he suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment as a result of his stumble. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2016).

An injury can arise primarily out of employment when a work hazard, such as driving the employer's truck, causes or worsens it even if the event preceding the injury is unexplained.

Butler, Larry v. AAA Cooper Transportation · filed 2017-06-07(14)

This means the employment must have contributed more than fifty percent to his injury or need for treatment, when considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2016). ... This Court finds the same regarding Mr. Butler's injuries; namely, even though what caused him to "slump over" is unknown, the Court finds the cause of his injury arose primarily from a hazard incident to employment, namely the operation of AAA's truck within the course and scope of his employment.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires evidence linking an injury and the need for treatment to employment to establish that the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Brown, Benjamin v. Solideal USA, Inc. · filed 2017-08-02(14)

Without a medical opinion linking the injury and need for treatment to the employment, Mr. Brown failed to demonstrate he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment.

An employee claiming a work-related aggravation of a preexisting injury must prove to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the work incident contributed more than fifty percent to the injury, disablement, or need for treatment.

Clayton, Carolyn v. Speedway, LLC · filed 2017-08-11(14)(C)

Ms. Clayton must also prove "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [the injury] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the death, disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C) (2016). ... The Court finds that Dr. Garside's testimony establishes that Ms. Clayton is likely to prevail in proving causation if she proves the accident occurred as described to Dr. Garside.

An injury arises primarily out of employment only when a preponderance of the evidence shows that employment contributed more than fifty percent to causing it, considering all causes.

Burleson, Gary v. Doyle's Tire Service, Inc. · filed 2017-08-28(14)(B)

To be compensable, an injury must arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2016). This requirement is satisfied “only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(B).

Section 50-6-102(14) requires an injury arising from an incident identifiable by time and place and proof that employment contributed more than fifty percent to its cause.

Sanders, Johnnie v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. · filed 2017-09-21(14)

The Court likewise concludes that Mr. Sanders failed to demonstrate that his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. An injury arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment if it is caused by a specific incident, or set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). Further, this must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury, considering all causes. Jd. Although Mr. Sanders received treatment from his personal physician and Dr. Maguire, he did not introduce the office notes from Dr. Maguire’s treatment or any opinion relating his injury and need for treatment to the employment. Without a medical opinion linking the injury and need for treatment to work, Mr. Sanders failed to demonstrate he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. Therefore, as a matter of law, this Court holds that Mr. Sanders failed to satisfy his burden of proof and denies his request for benefits at this time.

An injury must arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment to qualify under § 50-6-102(14).

McWherter, Jacquet v. Centurion Stone Products · filed 2017-07-28(14)

In this Court’s opinion, the facts show that Mr. McWherter did not suffer an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires a compensable injury to arise primarily from work, with medical causation shown as more likely than not and contributing more than fifty percent to the disability or need for treatment.

Morris, Jimmy v. Spec Personnel, LLC · filed 2017-09-21(14)

Further, he must show, “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that it contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” “Shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” means that, in the opinion of the treating physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes as opposed to speculation or possibility. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

An injury arises primarily out of employment when employment contributes more than fifty percent to its cause, considering all causes.

Rule, Debbie v. naviHealth · filed 2017-11-14(14)

An “injury” means one by accident arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. The employee must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury, considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

Section 50-6-102(14)(A)’s requirement that employment contribute more than fifty percent in causing an injury may be established with circumstantial evidence.

LaGuardia, Kathleen Delores v. Total Holdings USA, Inc. d/b/a Hutchinson Sealing Systems · filed 2017-11-29(14)(A)

Nothing in the workers’ compensation law dictates the type of proof an employee must present to establish that an accident arose primarily out of employment. While direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, can satisfy this burden, an employee can also meet this burden with circumstantial evidence.

An injury is compensable only if it arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment; a personal errand at the time of the accident can defeat that requirement.

Webb, Jackie v. Enrema, Inc. · filed 2017-12-18(13)

To be compensable, an injury must arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of the employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13) (2017). ... Finally, the Court holds that even if Mr. Webb did plan to work that Saturday, he deviated on a personal errand at the time of the accident.

A compensable injury under § 50-6-102(14) requires medical evidence that employment contributed more than fifty percent to the need for treatment, considering all causes.

David v. Mayfield Dairy Farms, LLC · filed 2018-02-12(14)

To prove a compensable injury, Mr. Leatherwood must show that his work injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. To do so, he must show, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the need for medical treatment, considering all causes. Shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty means that, in the opinion of the treating physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes as opposed to speculation or possibility. See generally Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

A compensable injury must arise primarily out of employment, be tied to an incident identifiable by time and place, and contribute more than fifty percent to the need for medical treatment to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Austin, Ricky v. RR RD Trucking, Inc. · filed 2018-04-05(14)(A)-(D)

To prevail, Mr. Austin must show his alleged left shoulder injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment and was caused by an incident, or set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Further, he must show to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the injury contributed more than fifty percent to his need for medical treatment. ... This testimony fails to establish a greater than fifty percent connection between his employment and his need for left shoulder treatment, and the Court holds he likely would not prevail at a hearing on the merits.

A compensable injury requires a specific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

Miles, Kristina v. Food Giant · filed 2018-04-17(14)(A)

A “specific incident” identifiable by time and place of occurrence is the first element of the definition for a compensable injury. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 102(14)(A).

A claimed injury is compensable only if the employee proves by a preponderance of the evidence that it arose primarily from the work accident.

Jackson, Michael v. Transwood · filed 2018-05-02(14)

Therefore, at the compensation hearing, Employee had the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, his alleged neck, left shoulder, and leg injuries arose primarily out of the September 10, 2015 work accident.

A compensable injury must be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty to have arisen primarily from work and contributed more than 50% to the disablement or need for treatment, considering all causes.

Mackie, James v. Nationwide Logistics, LLC · filed 2018-05-11(14)

Absent any such opinion, the Court cannot find he is likely to prove “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that his work “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.”

An injury arises primarily out of employment only when work contributes more than fifty percent to its cause, considering all causes, as shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Maaitah, Cynthia L. v. Raymond James Financial · filed 2018-01-29(14)(B) and (C)

An injury "arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment" only if it contributes more than fifty percent in causing the injury, considering all causes, as shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(B) and (C). ... Thus, the Court holds Ms. Maaitah failed to satisfy her burden of proving she sustained spider bites that arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment and denies her request for medical and temporary disability benefits.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires an injury to arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, with employment contributing more than fifty percent to its cause.

Pierce, Kaitlin v. White Sables, LLC · filed 2018-08-08(14)

An injury “arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment” only if the “employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). ... The Court holds she suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A)'s requirement that an injury arise out of employment can be met when a worker's job places her in an awkward position that creates a peculiar or additional hazard.

Touchette, Velvet v. Speedway, LLC · filed 2018-09-20(14)(A)

Thus, the Court holds that Ms. Touchette's December 2 injury arose out of a "peculiar or additional hazard" of her employment and was not idiopathic.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires proof that employment contributed more than fifty percent to the injury, considering all causes, for an injury to arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Fonseca, Edward v. Rimax Contractors, Inc. · filed 2018-11-02(14)

“An injury arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). ... The Court, therefore, holds Mr. Fonseca would likely prevail at a hearing on the merits in proving he suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment for Rimax.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) requires an accidental injury caused by a specific incident or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, and identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

Bottoms, Hope v. Roy Midgett d/b/a Midgett Farm Country Restaurant · filed 2018-05-29(14)(A)

In order to prevail on causation, Ms. Bottoms must establish she suffered an accidental injury that was “caused by a specific incident, or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A). The Court finds she is likely to prove such, and that she duly notified Mr. Midgett of her injury.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires a treating physician’s opinion that work causation is more likely than not after considering all causes, rather than speculation or possibility.

Hunter, Dale v. Doug's Automotive · filed 2018-07-03(14)

“Shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” means that, in the opinion of the treating physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes as opposed to speculation or possibility.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires employment to contribute more than fifty percent to the cause of an injury for it to be compensable.

Jefferson, Willie v. Solae, LLC · filed 2018-07-17(14)

Arising primarily from employment means the employment must contribute more than fifty percent in causing the injury, considering all causes.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires medical proof to a reasonable degree of certainty that work contributed more than fifty percent to the disablement or need for treatment, considering all causes.

Vrancich, Michael v. All Around Industrial, Inc. · filed 2018-10-12(14)

Absent any medical opinion to the contrary, Mr. Vrancich cannot prove “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that his work “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.”

Section 50-6-102(14) requires an identifiable work incident or incidents and medical proof that work contributed more than 50% to the disability or need for treatment.

Blakney, James v. YRC. Inc. · filed 2018-11-28(14)

Mr. Blakney’s burden includes proving that his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of the employment. To meet this burden, he must show his injury was “caused by a specific incident, or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence.” Further, he must show, “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [the work injury] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

An injury arises primarily out of employment when the employment contributes more than fifty percent to its cause, considering all causes.

Hurd, James v. Kellogg Company · filed 2018-12-26(14)(B)

An injury arises primarily out of the employment if it contributes more than fifty percent in causing the injury, considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(B).

Section 50-6-102(12) treats an injury caused by an employer’s failure to provide reasonable medical assistance as arising out of and in the course of employment when a helpless employee needs aid to prevent further injury, the employer knows this, and it can provide that aid.

Chaney v. Team Technologies, Inc. · filed 2019-01-31(12)

We hold that an injury that is caused by an employer’s failure to provide reasonable medical assistance arises out of and in the course of employment when an employee becomes helpless at work because of illness or other cause unrelated to her employment, the employee needs medical assistance to prevent further injury, the employer knows of the employee’s helplessness, and the employer can provide reasonable medical assistance but does not do so.

An injury arises primarily out of employment only if work contributed more than fifty percent to its cause, supported by a physician’s opinion that work causation is more likely than not considering all causes.

Chamberlain, Jeanie v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. · filed 2019-02-14(14)(D)

Arising primarily out of the employment means the employment must contribute more than fifty percent in causing the injury, considering all causes. That contribution must be “shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty,” meaning a physician believes the injury is work-related “more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or possibility.”

An injury arises primarily out of employment only when a preponderance of the evidence shows that employment contributed more than 50% to its cause, considering all causes.

Larry, De'Breshia v. Cash America Int'l · filed 2019-04-18(14)(B)

The Court further holds that Ms. Larry is likely to succeed at a hearing on the merits in proving her condition arose primarily out of her employment. An injury “arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment” only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed “more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes.”

Section 50-6-102(14) defines a compensable injury to include a set of workplace incidents that primarily causes a need for medical treatment, with employment contributing more than 50% of the cause.

DZIADOSZ, JASON v. WHITESTONE INVESTMENTS, INC. · filed 2019-04-26(14)

“An injury arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes[.]” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). ... Thus, the Court holds Mr. Dziadosz would likely prevail in proving he suffered an incident or set of incidents arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment that caused the need for treatment.

Section 50-6-102(14) treats an injury as arising primarily out of employment when the work contributed more than fifty percent to causing it, considering all causes, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Hogan, Martean v. Health Connect America · filed 2019-06-03(14)(A)-(D)

An injury arises primarily out of the employment only if it has been shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the work contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury when considering all causes. ... Here, Dr. Schroerlucke directly testified that the September 14, 2017 accident was the primary cause of Ms. Hogan's need for surgery. ... Based on the totality of the evidence, the Court holds Ms. Hogan would likely prevail at a hearing on the merits.

An injury arises primarily out of employment only if employment contributed more than 50 percent to causing it, considering all causes.

Jones, Tauris v. Greenheck Fan Corp. · filed 2019-01-16(13)(B)

An injury “arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment” only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment ... contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes.”

Section 50-6-102(14) requires a compensable injury to arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Welsh, Philip v. Kevin Bowling, d/b/a Tri-Star Home Solutions, LLC, · filed 2019-01-25(14)

The Court holds Mr. Welsh demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment.

Section 50-6-102(14) covers an accidental injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Hardin, Gregory v. W.A. Kendall & Co., Inc. · filed 2019-02-13(14)

The Court holds by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment.

An injury is compensable under § 50-6-102(14) when it arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Hardin, Gregory v. W.A. Kendall & Co., Inc. · filed 2019-02-14(14)

The Court holds by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered an iJ\iury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope ofhis employment.

Section 50-6-102(14) covers an accidental injury caused by a specific work incident arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Bermudez, Bladimir v. Rick Messina, d/b/a Messina Masonry & Construction, LLC · filed 2019-03-11(14)

Accordingly, the Court holds Mr. Bermudez is likely to prove he sustained an accidental injury caused by a specific incident arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment, and Mr. Messina must provide continuing reasonable and necessary medical treatment related to this injury.

An aggravation is a compensable injury only if medical evidence shows to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that it arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Hill, Lori v. Cox Oil Company · filed 2019-06-06(14)(A)

Moreover, a compensable injury does not include an aggravation "unless it can be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 102(14)(A).

Section 50-6-102(14) requires an injury to arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment to be compensable.

Diaz, Ruben v. Create and Construct, LLC · filed 2019-07-05(14)

Specifically, he must establish that his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment with Create and Construct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

An employee seeking medical benefits must show an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Reazkallah, Maikel v. Imperial Guard & Detective Service, Inc. · filed 2019-11-12(14)

To receive medical benefits, Mr. Reazkallah must show that he suffered a right-leg injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). ... The Court finds his testimony insufficient to succeed at a hearing on the merits in proving a right-leg injury in light of the dearth of evidence supporting this assertion in the medical records and lack of testimony alleging this injury at the previous expedited hearing.

An injury from a specific event identifiable by time and place is compensable when it primarily arises out of and in the course of employment.

Newman, Jr., Leon v. Earth Solutions, Inc. · filed 2019-11-21(14)(A)

In order to establish compensability, Mr. Newman must prove that he sustained an injury from a specific event that primarily arose out of and in the course of employment identifiable by time and place. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A). ... Thus, the Court holds that Mr. Newman is likely to prove that he sustained an injury that primarily arose out of and in the course and scope of employment on May 1, 2017, and that the fusions at C5-7 were reasonable and necessary treatment for that injury.

An accidental injury must arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment and be identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

Bottoms, Hope v. Roy Midgett d/b/a Midgett Farm Country Restaurant · filed 2019-11-26(14)(A)

To prevail on causation, Ms. Bottoms must establish she suffered an accidental injury “caused by a specific incident, or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A). The Court finds she proved this through lay and medical testimony, and that she duly notified Mr. Midgett of her injury.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires an injury to arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment; uncontroverted evidence of that connection can establish likely success at an expedited hearing.

Mays, Timothy v. Matthew Pearson, d/b/a Handyman Construction · filed 2019-07-08(14)

Mr. Mays’s affidavit was uncontroverted that his alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment, as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 50- 6-102(14) (2018). The Court holds he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in proving his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment.

An injury arises primarily out of employment only when the employment contributed more than 50% to its cause, considering all causes.

Gonzales, Elman v. Smoky Mountain Resort Services · filed 2019-10-07(14)(B)

Generally, an injury “arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment” only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(B). ... The medical records admitted into evidence contain no expert opinion that either Mr. Gonzalez’s umbilical or inguinal hernias arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

An injury arises primarily out of employment when the employee proves by a preponderance of the evidence that employment contributed more than fifty percent to its cause, considering all causes.

Clay, Sharee v. Signature Healthcare · filed 2019-10-21(14)(B)

In order to establish that an injury arises primarily out of the employment, the employee must show “by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes.”

An injury arises primarily out of employment when work contributed more than fifty percent to causing the injury or need for treatment, established to a reasonable degree of medical certainty by the treating physician.

Coble, Quinctius v. Pictsweet Co. · filed 2019-12-10(14)(A)-(D)

One essential element of Mr. Coble’s claim is that he must show his injury arose primarily out of his employment at Pictsweet. To prove this, he must establish to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that his work contributed more than fifty percent in causing his injury or need for medical treatment when considering all causes. “Shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” means that, “in the opinion of the treating physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes as opposed to speculation or possibility.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A)-(D).

An employee must prove that employment contributed more than fifty percent to causing the claimed condition, considering all causes, for it to arise primarily out of employment.

Wright, Willie v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water · filed 2020-02-10(14)(B)

To prevail, Mr. Wright must establish that his arthritic condition arose primarily out of his exposure to lead in the course and scope of his employment with MLGW. To do so, Mr. Wright must prove that his employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing his condition considering all causes. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 102(14)(B).

An injury arises primarily out of employment when employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing it.

Blankenship, Roma v. Ballad Health · filed 2020-03-05(14)(B)

Dr. Anders used an incorrect standard. The correct standard is whether the employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury.

An opinion that an injury is merely related to work does not establish that work primarily caused it under section 50-6-102(14)(A).

Lemons, Tina v. Elwood Staffing Services, Inc. · filed 2020-05-28(14)(A)

However, Dr. Parsley did not affirmatively state that Ms. Lemons suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(A). Rather, he said her injury was merely “related.” This single statement is insufficient to overcome the presumption given to Dr. Berry’s opinion and does not reach the standard of “primarily caused” by a work injury that the Workers’ Compensation Statute requires.

Section 50-6-102(14)(a) requires proof that an injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Morris, Jerry v. MIdwest LP and Innovative Pane · filed 2020-08-06(14)(a)

This includes proof that he suffered an injury that arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(a).

Section 50-6-102(14)(B) requires proof that employment contributed more than fifty percent to an injury when all causes are considered.

McCaig, Ronnie v. LENNOX HEARTH PRODUCTS, INC. · filed 2020-09-17(14)(B)

To establish this, Mr. McCaig must show by a preponderance of the evidence that his employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing his hearing loss when considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(B). ... For these reasons, the Court holds that Mr. McCaig established by a preponderance of the evidence that his hearing loss arose primarily out of his employment at Lennox.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) requires proof that an injury arose primarily out of employment; inconsistent accident accounts without witnesses or physical evidence may fail to establish likely success on that element at an expedited hearing.

Harris, David v. Provide Staffing Services, LLC · filed 2020-09-25(14)(A)

Because of the inconsistency in Mr. Harris’s descriptions of his accident and without witnesses and physical evidence supporting his claim, the Court cannot find at this time that he is likely to prevail on proving his injury arose primarily out of his employment.

An injury arises primarily out of employment only if employment contributed more than 50% to causing it, considering all causes.

Gibbs, Doris v. EXPRESS SERVICES, INC., aka ) EXPRESS EMPLOYMENT ) PROFESSIONALS · filed 2020-10-20(14)(A)-(B)

The essential elements of Ms. Gibbs's claim require evidence showing that her injury arose primarily out of her employment. An injury arises primarily out of the employment only if it contributed more than 50% in causing the injury, considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A)-(B). Through Dr. Seaworth's affidavit, the Court holds that ESI and SIP negated an essential element of Ms. Gibbs's claim and demonstrated that her evidence is insufficient to establish the causal relationship between her injury and her employment.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) requires proof that an injury or aggravation of a pre-existing condition arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Hurd, Charles v. Aerus, LLC · filed 2020-10-28(14)(A)

Regardless, he must submit proof that his injury or aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his work. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50- 6-102(14)(A). However, Mr. Hurd did not present any medical opinion showing that he suffered an injury or an aggravation of a pre-existing condition that primarily arose from his work.

An injury must arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment; a medical opinion that it was merely related to work does not establish primary causation.

Lemons, Tina v. Elwood Staffing Services, Inc. · filed 2020-11-24(14)(A)

However, Dr. Parsley did not affirmatively state that Ms. Lemons suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(A). Rather, he stated on two separate occasions that her injury was merely “related.” These statements are insufficient to overcome the presumption given to Dr. Berry’s opinion and do not reach the standard of “primarily caused” by a work injury that the Workers’ Compensation Law requires.

An injury arises primarily out of employment only when medical evidence establishes that employment contributed more than fifty percent to its cause.

Washington, John v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc. · filed 2020-12-01(14)(A)-(D)

An injury arises primarily out of the employment only if the employee shows to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that his employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing it.

An injury arises primarily out of employment only when the evidence shows that work contributed more than 50 percent to its cause, considering all causes; uncertain medical causation does not establish that requirement.

Tate, Meshia v. Daryl Doney d/b/a Middle Tennessee Respiratory · filed 2021-02-23(14)(B)

Furthermore, “[a]n injury ‘arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment’ only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(B). ... His testimony is insufficient to establish Employee will likely prevail at trial in showing the posterior horn tear arose primarily out of the employment.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) requires medical proof that the work incident contributed more than 50% to the disability or need for treatment, considering all causes.

Lee, Courtney v. Federal Express Corp. · filed 2021-02-23(14)(C)

Ms. Lee must prove that her current condition arose primarily from work. Specifically, this means she must show “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the [incident] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the .. . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C).

An injury arises primarily out of employment when employment contributes more than fifty percent to causing it, considering all causes.

Payne, Michael v. Road Scholar Staffing, Inc. · filed 2021-03-01(14)(B)

Turning to the “arising out of’ requirement, an injury arises primarily from employment when “the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(B). Various details and statements from Mr. Payne’s affidavit, accident report, and medical records combine to portray acute trauma, particularly to his body’s left side. Emergency responders brought Mr. Payne to the hospital directly from the deadly accident. The tractor trailer he was in overturned on its left side. Immediately and consistently, he has complained of left-sided pain, especially shoulder pain. The Court finds Mr. Payne is likely to prevail in proving his injuries arose primarily out of his employment.

An injury can arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment under subsection (14) when an employee is injured during a smoke break while reviewing work emails and a calendar.

McGauvran, James v. ATOS Syntel, Inc. · filed 2021-03-05(14)

To prove a compensable injury, Mr. McGauvran must show that it arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). ... The Court finds his employment as a sufficient connection. He is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that he suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, which was not idiopathic in nature.

An injury arises primarily out of employment when work conditions causally connect to the injury and the injury results from a hazard peculiar to the work or a risk inherent in its nature.

Harris, Patricia v. Nashville Center for Rehabilitation and Healing · filed 2021-03-15(14)

In other words, rather than applying a specific risk doctrine, in order for the injury to arise primarily out of employment, the totality of the circumstances must show both (1) a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury and (2) that the injury resulted from a danger or hazard peculiar to the work or was caused by a risk inherent in the nature of the work.

An injury arises primarily out of employment when medical proof shows that employment contributed more than fifty percent to causing it.

Fritts, Charles v. Ronnie Waldrop dba Peerless Painting · filed 2021-03-25(14)(A)-(D)

To recover workers’ compensation benefits, Mr. Fritts must show his injuries were caused by a specific incident arising primarily out of his employment. His injuries arise primarily out of his employment only if he shows to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that his employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing them. “Shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” means that, in the opinion of the physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A)-(D).

An injury arises primarily out of employment only if a work incident contributed more than fifty percent to causing it, as shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Cole, Giles v. YRC, Inc. · filed 2021-04-28(14)(A)-(D)

The injuries arise primarily out of the employment only if Mr. Cole shows, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the incident contributed more than fifty percent in causing them. “Shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” means that, in the opinion of the physicians, the injuries were more likely than not caused by the incident when considering all causes.

Section 50-6-102(14) covers an injury suffered during an authorized smoke break when the employee was performing work duties and the employment had a sufficient causal connection to the accident.

McGauvran, James v. ATOS Syntel, Inc. · filed 2021-09-10(14)

Applying that rationale, the Court’s focus should be on the causal link between Mr. McGauvran’s work as a manager and the accident he suffered while reading emails and reviewing his calendar. The Court finds his employment as a sufficient connection. He is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that he suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, which was not idiopathic in nature.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A)-(B) requires an injury to arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, with employment contributing more than fifty percent to its cause considering all causes.

Barnes, Christopher v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center · filed 2021-09-21(14)(A)-(B)

To prevail at a final hearing, Mr. Barnes must prove he suffered an injury caused by a specific incident or set of incidents arising “primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment,” which means the employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury, considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A)-(B).

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) requires an employee to show that an injury was caused by a specific incident arising primarily out of employment.

Millinder, Charles v. Maplewood Health Care · filed 2021-11-01(14)(A)

Under law, Mr. Millinder must show that his injury was caused by a specific incident arising primarily out of his employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A) (Emphasis added). Based on the undisputed facts, Maplewood negated the essential element of the injury arising primarily out of the employment through Dr. Parsioon’s declaration.

Section 50-6-102(13) requires a compensable injury to arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment; a possible diagnosis without definitive proof of work causation does not satisfy that definition.

Manuel, Darrell v. A-1 Workforce, Inc. · filed 2015-10-28(13)

Dr. AI Balbissi did not make a definitive causation statement. He only stated that Mr. Manuel possibly suffered angina. This does not meet the statutory definition of an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

An injury during a voluntary pre-employment physical does not arise primarily out of employment when the worker is off duty, unpaid, and performing no job duties for either employer.

Hamilton, Kathy v. Kenco Logistics Services, LLC and Genco Distribution System · filed 2015-12-16(13)(A)

The injury did not result from a danger or hazard peculiar to her work or caused by a risk inherent in the nature of her work. This Court finds that Ms. Hamilton's injury did not primarily arise out of her employment with Kenco or Genco.

An injury does not arise primarily out of employment without proof connecting the injury to workplace activity.

Sullins, Brandon v. Total HVAC · filed 2015-10-26(13)(B)

Without information concerning the type of chemical used on the floor, Mr. Sullins cannot carry his burden of proving causation because there is no proof linking the chemical burns to his workplace activities.

Under subsection (14)(C), medical testimony that a condition is related to or exacerbated by work does not establish that work primarily caused the disablement or need for treatment.

Wiliams, David v. Nissan North America, Inc. · filed 2016-07-15(14)(C)

The essential problem with Dr. Vaughan’s opinion is that it only establishes Mr. Williams’ right arm and shoulder conditions are related to his work, not that the work primarily caused them.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires an injury to arise primarily out of and occur in the course and scope of employment; without medical evidence linking the claimed back condition to work, it does not meet the definition of injury.

Kelley, Daniel v. Biggies Restaurant · filed 2016-09-20(14)

To be compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law, an injury must arise primarily out of and occur in the course and scope of the employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (20 15). ... Because Mr. Kelley failed to provide a causation statement from a physician linking his back issues with his job at Biggies, the Court finds he has failed to meet the definition of "injury" according to the law.

An injury must arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment; a claimant whose evidence does not credibly establish a work-related injury is unlikely to qualify for benefits.

McWherter, Jacquet v. Centurion Products, Inc. · filed 2017-03-31(14)

Workers’ Compensation Law defines an “injury” as an “injury by accident . . . arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). ... In consideration of his lack of credible testimony, the credible testimony of his supervisors and the lack of any objective findings of injury, the Court holds Mr. McWherter is unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in proving he suffered a work-related injury.

An injury incurred while simply walking on level ground does not arise primarily out of employment under the statutory definition of injury.

Foriest, James v. UPS · filed 2017-06-07(14)

For purposes of this expedited hearing, the above facts are crucial because an injury incurred while simply walking on level ground is not compensable.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires proof that employment primarily caused the need for treatment; a nonobvious injury cannot meet that standard without expert medical proof of causation.

Delaney, Aaron v, TPI Corporation · filed 2017-09-14(14)(A)-(D)

Without expert medical proof, the Court can only speculate as to whether Mr. Delaney’s injury arose primarily from his employment. Therefore, the Court holds Mr. Delaney is not likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in establishing that his injury arose primarily from a hazard incident to his employment with TPI.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires proof that employment contributed more than fifty percent to an injury, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty; a heart attack without sufficient proof that it arose from employment does not qualify for death benefits.

Mitchell, Michael v. Bunge North America · filed 2018-12-14(14)

An injury “arises primarily out of employment” only if “it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). This contribution must be established to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, meaning, in the opinion of the treating physician, it is more likely than not, considering all causes. Id. at (14)(D). ... Based on the foregoing, the Court holds that Mrs. Mitchell did not come forward with sufficient evidence to prove the heart attack arose out of Mr. Mitchell’s employment.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires evidence that an employee’s injury arose primarily out of employment; a personal-comfort theory cannot establish that element without proof of the purpose for leaving work.

Cunningham, Donriel v. Southern Steel Supply Co. · filed 2019-02-21(14)

The Court cannot simply assume Mr. Cunningham left the building for a reason that meets the personal comfort exception – it requires proof to make that finding. In the absence of actual evidence, Estate’s conjecture is insufficient to establish that Mr. Cunningham’s death outside Southern Steel’s premises arose primarily out of his employment.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires evidence that an injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment; conjecture about a connection to a workplace fall does not establish that element.

Myers, Althea v. Tyson Foods, Inc. · filed 2019-05-23(14)

The essential element at issue in this case is that Ms. Myers must demonstrate that she suffered “an injury by accident . . . arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, that causes death, disablement or the need for medical treatment of the employee.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). ... In the absence of actual evidence, Ms. Myers’s conjecture is insufficient to establish that her condition arose primarily out of her employment.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires proof that an injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment; a medical opinion that work possibly caused the injury does not establish causation.

Egeh, Ifrah v. Tyson Foods, Inc. · filed 2019-09-18(14)

However, establishing the possibility that an employee’s work caused their injury is not the legal standard for determining compensability. Rather, as noted above, the current statute requires proof that the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. Thus, Dr. Beavers’s opinion that Ms. Egeh’s work possibly caused her loss of consciousness is insufficient, without more, to establish causation.

An opinion that an injury is "likely secondary" to years of hard manual labor does not establish that the injury arose primarily out of employment under § 50-6-102(14).

Harden, Jeffrey v. Advance MFG CO., Inc. · filed 2020-02-13(14)(A)-(D)

Here, Dr. Magro stated that Mr. Harden's injury was "likely secondary to 30+ years of hard manual labor"; the same type of opinion found inadequate in Gamble. Therefore, the Court holds the medical evidence before the Court is insufficient to establish that Mr. Harden's injury arose primarily out of his employment.

Section 50-6-102(12) requires proof that an injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment; symptoms appearing during a work trip alone do not establish that connection.

Harper, Randall v. USF Holland Trucking Co. · filed 2015-11-05(12)

Furthermore, even if there were enough proof to link Mr. Harper's cellulitis with an insect bite, the Court finds there is insufficient evidence to establish that the "bite" "primarily arose out of and in the course and scope of employment" with USF Holland.

An injury is compensable under subsection (12) only if the employee proves it primarily arose out of and in the course and scope of employment; symptoms first noticed during a work trip do not establish when or where an alleged insect bite occurred.

Harper, Randall v. USF Holland Trucking Co. · filed 2016-04-22(12)

Accordingly, the Court finds Mr. Harper failed to prove he sustained an injury that primarily arose out of and in the course and scope of his employment with USF Holland. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12) (2014).

An injury is compensable when it arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment; an employee injured while traveling after an on-call assignment can meet that standard when the employer reimburses the travel and the work exposes the employee to the travel hazard.

Flippen, CHristopher v. Murpht-Hoffman Company · filed 2016-04-29(14)

To prove a compensable injury, Mr. Flippen must show that his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2015). ... Mr. Flippen has established that his injury arose primarily from a hazard to which he was exposed as a direct result of his employment.

An assault during a required rest break can arise primarily out of employment when the conflict stems from the employee’s need for sleep to perform his job safely.

Sikora, Kirk v. Cassens Transport, Co. · filed 2016-06-06(14)(A)

As a result, the Court finds Mr. Sikora provided sufficient evidence to establish he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits with regard to whether his injuries primarily arose out of and in the course of his employment with Cassens, thus rendering his injuries compensable. Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(A) (2015).

Section 50-6-102(14) requires a compensable injury to arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment; an injury during an ordinary commute does not satisfy that requirement.

Dugger, Paula v. Home Health Care of Middle TN · filed 2016-06-15(14)

One of those elements is the requirement that Ms. Dugger must demonstrate her injury arose primarily out of and occur in the course and scope of the employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2015).

Section 50-6-102(14) covers an on-call tow driver’s injury while stepping from the employer’s truck after completing an assigned call as an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Willis, Earl D. v. Express Towing · filed 2016-08-09(14)

The Workers’ Compensation Law defines an “injury” as “an injury by accident . . . arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, that causes . . . the need for medical treatment.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2015). ... The Court finds Mr. Willis’ testimony and the medical records sufficient to demonstrate he would likely succeed at a hearing on the merits in proving he suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment for Express Towing.

Section 50-6-102(14) covers an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment when it occurs while the employee performs ordinary duties on the employer’s premises during work hours.

Lepes, Michael v. TA Operating, LLC d/b/a/ Travel Centers oF America · filed 2018-04-05(14)

Here, the proof shows Mr. LePés suffered an injury that arose primarily out of and in the course and scope his employment when a tire he attempted to inflate exploded. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). His actions constituted duties he normally performed for TA Operating, and the incident occurred on TA Operating’s property while Mr. LePés was on the clock.

Under § 50-6-102(12)(A), an injury generally arises out of employment when it occurs while an employee travels to or from authorized medical treatment for an earlier compensable injury.

Wade v. State of Tennessee · filed 2025-07-30(12)(A)

But the Commission overlooked existing Tennessee case law holding that a subsequent injury generally arises out of employment—and is therefore compensable—if it occurs while the employee is traveling to or from authorized medical treatment for the original compensable injury.

Section 50-6-102(a)(4) covers a travel injury when the employee needs to carry tools to the jobsite and the employer reimburses travel expenses.

Pool v. Metric Constructors, Inc. · filed 1984-12-10(a)(4)

In the case at bar, the need of the employee to carry tools to the jobsite coupled with the provision by the employer of reimbursement of travel expenses, is sufficient to place the accident within the course of and in the scope of employment. T.C.A. § 50-6-102(a)(4).

Section 50-6-102(a)(4) generally covers injuries during lunch breaks on the employer’s premises, even when the employee is engaged in permissible personal activity.

Holder v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co. · filed 1987-01-05(a)(4)

Although some circumstances could remove the employee from coverage, such as engaging in prohibited conduct or being at a place not authorized for employees, such on premises lunch break injuries are generally compensable. ... The requirements of T.C.A. §§ 50-6-102(a)(4) and 50-6-103 are met on the facts of this case.

Section 50-6-102(14)(B)-(D) requires expert medical proof to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that employment contributed more than fifty percent to the cause of an injury.

Lindsay, Tre'Bion v. State Industries, Inc. · filed 2022-10-18(14)(B)-(D)

Medical causation is an essential element of Mr. Lindsay’s claim, and proving medical causation requires an expert’s opinion to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty that the employment contributed more than fifty percent” to the injury’s cause.

Work causation must be established through expert medical opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, meaning more likely than not after considering all causes.

Williams, Patrick v. Yates Services · filed 2022-09-07(14)(C)

Reasonable degree of medical certainty means “it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or uncertainty.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C). Given that the standard requires “medical certainty,” causation must be shown through expert medical opinion. Id.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires proof to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a work incident contributed more than fifty percent to the disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.

ABDELSHAHAED, REAZKALLAH v.Taylor Farms · filed 2021-12-15(14)

The first element that Mr. Abdelshahaed must prove is that his alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. This includes the requirement that he show, “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [the incident] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” “Shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” means that, in the opinion of the treating physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes as opposed to speculation or possibility. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50- 6-102(14).

A compensable injury must arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, with expert medical proof that work activities contributed more than fifty percent to the injury considering all causes.

Asberry, Whitney Rae v. Cummins Filtration · filed 2022-01-14(14)

To prove a compensable injury, Ms. Asberry must show that she sustained an injury that arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment, and she must prove this element by expert medical opinion. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). She must show to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that her work activities contributed more than fifty percent in causing her left arm symptoms, considering all causes.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires proof that employment contributed more than 50% to the disability or need for medical treatment, supported by a treating physician’s opinion that causation is more likely than not considering all causes.

Scruggs, Carla v. AMAZON · filed 2022-04-07(14)

She must show, “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that it contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” “Shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” means that, in the opinion of the treating physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes as opposed to speculation or possibility. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50- 6-102(14).

Section 50-6-102(14) requires proof that the work incident contributed more than fifty percent to the need for treatment, and reasonable medical certainty means the treating physician considers that causal link more likely than not in light of all causes.

Grissom, Benjamin v. AT&T Services, Inc. · filed 2022-06-01(14)

To prove that his suprascapular neuropathy is a compensable injury, Mr. Grissom must show that it arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. This includes the requirement that he must show, “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [the incident] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” “Shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” means that, in the opinion of the treating physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes as opposed to speculation or possibility. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

A work injury, including aggravation of a preexisting condition, must arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, with employment contributing more than fifty percent to its cause to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Aliyy, Rakin v. LG Electronics · filed 2021-12-08(14)(A)-(C)

A work injury is defined in the statute as one “arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment” that causes the need for medical treatment. This includes the aggravation of a preexisting condition if it can be shown “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.” It must be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury, considering all causes.

Section 50-6-102(13) requires employment to contribute more than fifty percent to causing an injury for the injury to arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Davis, Steven v. RW Tree Service and Stump Removal · filed 2014-10-24(13)

The undersigned finds that these events are a direct and natural consequence of Employee’s work duties and those duties contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing Employee’s injury.

Section 50-6-102(13)(B) requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence that employment contributed more than 50% to the injury, considering all causes.

Chatman, Amanda v. Topre America · filed 2014-11-12(13)(B)

An injury "arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment" only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes.

Section 50-6-102(13)(B) requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence that employment contributed more than fifty percent to the injury, considering all causes.

Cullum, Paulette v. K-Mac Holding Corp d/b/a Taco Bell Docketing · filed 2014-11-26(13)(B)

An injury "arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment" only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(B)(2014). ... The Court holds that the evidence is too speculative on the issue of causation to support a finding that the injury arose primarily out of the employment.

Section 50-6-102(13)(B) requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence that employment contributed more than fifty percent to the injury, considering all causes.

Massengill, Charles v. McKendree Concrete · filed 2015-01-06(13)(B)

However, Employee has failed to show "by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes."

An injury is compensable under § 50-6-102(13) when it arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, with employment contributing more than 50% to its cause.

McCord, Patricia v. Advantage Human Resourcing · filed 2015-02-27(13)

Under Tennessee Workers' Compensation law, an "injury" or "personal injury" by accident is compensable whenever ''the injury is caused by a specific incident, or set of incident, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13) (2014). "An injury arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes[.]" Jd. (internal quotations omitted). ... The Court finds that Ms. McCord carried her burden of establishing that she suffered an injury primarily arising out of and in the course and scope of her employment with Advantage.

An injury arises primarily out of employment only if employment contributed more than fifty percent to causing it, considering all causes.

Howard, Yolanda v. Unum · filed 2015-03-12(13)(B)

Under current law, "[a]n injury 'arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment' only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann. §50-6-102(13)(8)(2014). ... In view of Dr. Jemison's response, and there being no other causation opinion admitted into evidence, the Court finds that Ms. Howard did not establish by expert medical opinion that her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

An employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that employment contributed more than 50% to the injury, considering all causes, to show that the injury arose primarily out of employment.

Howard, Yolanda v. Unum · filed 2015-04-08(13)(B)

As discussed by the trial court, the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law, as amended on July 1, 2014, requires an employee to establish that his or her condition arose "primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13) (2014). In order to satisfy this standard, the employee must show "by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(B) (2014). In the present case, the only evidence regarding medical causation was offered by Employer, who provided an opinion from the treating physician, Dr. Jemison, that Employee's condition was "not primarily related" to her work activities (emphasis added). In the absence of any evidence from Employee addressing medical causation, we find that the record supports the trial court's determination on this issue.

An injury arises primarily out of employment only when the employee proves that work contributed more than 50% to causing the injury, considering all causes.

Cardaciotto, David v. FEDEX Office · filed 2015-05-06(13)(B)

“An injury “arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment” only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(B) (2014). The definition of this phrase directly impacts the employee’s burden under section 50-6-212(a)(1) by requiring the injured employee to prove that the employee’s workplace activities contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the “…injury resulting in the hernia or rupture.”

An injury arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment only when the employee proves that employment contributed more than 50% to causing it, considering all causes.

Blasingim, Eric v. Rite Hite Holding Corporation · filed 2015-05-27(13)(B)

An injury "arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment" only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes.

An injury arises primarily out of employment only when employment contributed more than 50% to causing it, considering all causes.

Newport, Carolyn Sue v. BSH Home Appliance Corp. · filed 2015-07-16(13)(B)

An injury "arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment" only if it has been shown "by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes .... " Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(8) (2014). ... Although not eloquent, Dr. McElligott's opinion is sufficiently clear to indicate that Ms. Newport's injury did not arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment.

Section 50-6-102(13)(B) requires employment to contribute more than fifty percent to an injury, considering all causes; confined working space that forces awkward movement can constitute a work hazard satisfying that requirement.

Willis, Joseph Kolby v. All staff · filed 2015-08-25(13)(B)

Based on his testimony, the Court finds that the work environment constituted a special employment hazard. His duty to complete the job as assigned and in the space provided gave rise to the special hazard and constituted a causal connection between work and the injury. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the work conditions contributed more than fifty percent in causing his injury considering all causes.

Section 50-6-102(13)(B) requires proof that employment contributed more than fifty percent to causing an injury; medical causation is needed to establish that an injury arose primarily out of employment.

Hardin, Chris v. Dewayne’s Quality Metals · filed 2015-10-02(13)(B)

Dewayne's correctly asserts that Mr. Hardin has not shown his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment by the medical records in evidence. The missing element is medical causation because the medical providers failed to provide a favorable causation opinion.

An injury arises primarily out of employment only when the employee proves that employment contributed more than fifty percent to its cause, considering all causes.

Harris, Charles v. General Motors · filed 2015-11-06(13)(B)

“An injury ‘arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment’ only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(B) (2014). ... Mr. Harris bears the burden of proving causation and, the Court finds he failed to carry it.

Section 50-6-102(13)(B) requires proof that employment contributed more than fifty percent to the injury, considering all causes; testimony that work could have contributed does not meet that standard.

Willis, Joseph v. All Staff · filed 2015-11-09(13)(B)

Although there is no dispute that Employee suffered a dislocation of his patella and a tear of the patellofemoral ligament in his knee, Dr. Moore testified repeatedly Employee’s work activities on July 30, 2014 “could have” contributed to the injury or were a “possible” cause of the injury, “in theory.” While such testimony may have been sufficient at one time to carry the day for an injured worker, it is not sufficient today. As noted above, an injured worker is entitled to benefits “only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(B) (2014). Dr. Moore’s testimony falls short of meeting this standard.

An injury arises primarily out of employment only if work contributed more than fifty percent to its cause; an unexplained fall without proof of a work hazard does not meet that standard.

Portilla, Gaynell v. Tyson Foods, Inc. · filed 2015-11-13(13)(B)

“An injury ‘arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment’ only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(B) (2014). ... The Court finds nothing in the evidence, other than Ms. Portilla’s testimony that she felt something slippery on her shoes, showing that a hazard caused her to fall. ... Upon consideration of the evidence, the Court finds that Ms. Portilla failed to carry her burden of proving she suffered a compensable injury and denies her request for relief.

Section 50-6-102(14)(B) requires proof that employment contributed more than fifty percent to causing an injury, considering all causes, for the injury to arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Shannon, Jared v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2015-12-03(14)(B)

At the expedited hearing, Employee had the burden to come forward with sufficient evidence from which the trial court could conclude that Employee is likely to prove his medical condition, identified as "right shoulder os acromiale," arose primarily from the work accident of July 31, 2014. The expert medical opinion included in the record is contrary to Employee's position on this issue. Thus, the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's determination that Employee is not likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits based on the evidence submitted.

Section 50-6-102(13)(C) requires medical proof that an injury arose primarily from employment, with employment contributing more than 50 percent considering all causes.

Gonzalez, Jose v. The Troxel Co. · filed 2015-12-09(13)(C)

"Arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment" requires a showing, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the injury causing disablement or the need for medical treatment contributed more than 50 percent considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(C) (2014). ... Moreover, no physician has opined that the injuries arose primarily out of employment.

Employment must contribute more than fifty percent to an injury, considering all causes, for the injury to arise primarily out of employment.

Pickens, Michael v. United Parcel Service · filed 2015-12-22(13)(C)

The issue in this case is whether Mr. Pickens' back condition arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment, or stated another way, that Mr. Pickens' employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing his back condition, considering all causes. ... The Court finds that Mr. Pickens has established, through the opinions of Drs. Boruff and Koenig, that he is likely to proceed at a hearing on the merits that his back condition arose primarily from his UPS employment.

Section 50-6-102(13) defines a compensable injury through an identifiable work incident and requires employment to contribute more than 50% to the injury and resulting need for medical treatment.

Mull, Benjamin v. Henkels & McCoy · filed 2016-02-18(13)(A)-(C)

Additionally, Dr. Eck specifically opined that the lifting incident on January 24, 2015, more likely than not contributed more than fifty percent in causing the right L5-S 1 disc herniation. He opined that the right L5-S 1 disc herniation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment with Henkels & McCoy. Dr. Eck also opined Mr. Mull's lifting incident on January 24, 2015, necessitated the medical treatment he provided. Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. Mull satisfied the statutory requirements for a compensable injury as set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 50-6-102(13)(A) and 50-6-102(13)(B)- (13)(C) (2015).

Section 50-6-102(13)(C) requires proof to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the work injury contributed more than 50 percent to the disability or need for medical treatment, considering all causes; a causation opinion resting on an inaccurate medical history may fail to establish that requirement.

Oswald, Jason v. LMI Tennessee, Inc. · filed 2016-02-03(13)(C)

Specifically, because Tennessee law requires Mr. Oswald to establish his injury arose primarily out of his employment, he must show to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the injury of April 20, 2015, contributed more than fifty percent to his disablement or need for medical treatment when considering all causes. ... Accordingly, the Court agrees with LMI that the causation opinion of Dr. Schwarz is flawed because Mr. Oswald was not pain-free for two years prior to April20, 2015.

A claimed work injury must contribute more than fifty percent to the disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Davila, Evodio v. iIversified Builders, Inc. · filed 2016-05-10(14)(C)

He must show, "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [his alleged work injury] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the ... disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C) (2015).

Section 50-6-102(14)(B) requires evidence that employment contributed more than fifty percent to an injury, considering all causes, to establish that the injury arose primarily out of employment.

Fannon, Jerry v. Ron's Millwright Service, Inc. · filed 2016-05-17(14)(B)

He provided no evidence to establish his work activity “contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury, considering all causes,” as the above-referenced statute requires.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) requires proof to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the injury causing disablement or the need for medical treatment contributed more than 50% considering all causes.

Johnson, Essie v. First United Methodist Church · filed 2016-08-05(14)(C)

One of those elements is the requirement that Ms. Johnson must demonstrate her injury arose primarily out of and occur in the course and scope of the employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2015). "Arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment" requires a showing, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the injury causing disablement or the need for medical treatment contributed more than 50% considering all causes.

Section 50-6-102(14)(B) requires evidence that employment contributed more than fifty percent to causing an injury, considering all causes, to establish work-related causation.

Spencer, Gerald v. National State Park Concession d/b/a Cades Cove Riding Stables · filed 2016-07-06(14)(B)

However, he did not introduce a medical opinion to refute Dr. Harrison's opinion that the work injury did not contribute more than fifty percent to his right knee problem. Therefore, as a matter of law, Mr. Spencer has not come forward with sufficient evidence from which this Court concludes that he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits with regard to his alleged right knee injury.