Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102

An employee must show, 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.

Virgil, Margaret v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA · filed 2016-07-27(14)(C)

Further, 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.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C) (2015). ... However, the Court finds Ms. Virgil has not established that those incidents contributed more than fifty percent in causing her low back condition.

A compensable injury must, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, contribute more than 50% to the disablement or need for medical treatment.

Love, Sarah v. Delta Faucet · filed 2016-08-04(14)(C)

After one visit, Dr. Wolf opined that "100%" of Ms. Love's need for treatment was related to her injury at Delta. (Ex. 1 at 10). This meets the requirement that a compensable injury must, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, contribute greater than 50% to the disablement or need for medical treatment.

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

Fowler, Landon v. Mueller Industries · filed 2016-08-10(14)(C)

Mr. Fowler has produced no medical evidence that his condition is related to an alleged exposure to chroming machine exhaust at Mueller. Such failure is fatal to his claim. The Workers' Compensation Law requires a showing that an injury contributed more than fifty percent in causing the disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C) (2015).

An unrebutted medical opinion that a workplace incident caused more than half of the injury can establish the work-related causation required for a compensable injury.

Warren, Timothy v. Yates Services · filed 2016-09-21(14)(C)

In the absence of any conflicting medical evidence, Dr. Haslam’s unrebutted opinion would be sufficient at a hearing on the merits for Mr. Warren to meet his burden of proving his biceps tendon injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment.

A specific traumatic injury arises primarily out of employment only if work contributed more than fifty percent to causing the injury, considering all causes.

Petty, Thomas v. Convention Production Rigging · filed 2016-12-29(14)(B)

Thus, to be compensable, a specific event of trauma, cumulative trauma, and the aggravation of a pre-existing disease, condition, or ailment must “[arise] primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.” Id. Section 50-6- 102(14)(B) provides that “[a]n 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)(B) (emphasis added). Accordingly, we find no merit in Employee’s insistence that the trial court applied the wrong standard when it stated that Dr. Neely did not consider all causes in arriving at his causation opinion.

An injury arises primarily out of employment only if employment contributed more than fifty percent to its cause, considering all causes; occurring at work alone is insufficient.

Panzarella, Samuel v. Amazon.com, Inc. · filed 2017-05-15(14)(B)

Here, the evidence unquestionably established that Employee’s injury occurred in the course and scope of his employment, but it failed to establish that the employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury, considering all causes, as the statute plainly requires.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C)-(D) requires a treating physician’s opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that employment contributed more than 50% to the disablement or need for medical treatment.

Li, Yongan v. HTI Technology & Industries, LLC · filed 2017-01-20(14)(C)-(D)

“Arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment” requires a showing, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the employment causing disablement or the needs for medical treatment contributed more than 50% considering 3 all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C) (2016). “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. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(D) (2016).

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

Gueye, Kine v. Federal Express Corp. · filed 2017-01-26(14)(C)

In order to establish causation, an employee must 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).

Section 50-6-102(14) requires a compensable injury to arise primarily from employment, result from an identifiable incident or set of incidents, and contribute more than fifty percent to the disablement or need for treatment.

Burleson, Walter v. Grmantown Partners Supercuts · filed 2017-03-09(14)

To be compensable, Mr. Burleson must show his alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment and was caused by an incident, or specific set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Further, 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) (2016).

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

Pounders, Katherine v. Packaging Corporation of America · filed 2017-02-15(14)(A)-(D)

Specifically, there is insufficient medical proof to establish that Ms. Pounders' described injury contributed more than fifty percent in causing her condition considering all causes.

A work-related injury to some unspecified degree does not satisfy the requirement that the work incident cause more than fifty percent of the disability or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.

Edwards, Malcolm S. v. Job Shoppe USA · filed 2017-02-28(14)(C)

The mere fact that Mr. Edwards’ neck strain might be work-related to some unspecified degree is insufficient for the Court to find that his lifting accident constituted more than fifty percent of the cause of his disability or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires a work injury to arise primarily from an incident identifiable by time and place, with medical evidence connecting the incident to more than half of the need for treatment or disability.

Meza, Andres v, Hamilton-Elles · filed 2017-03-09(14)(A), (14)(C)

To be compensable, Mr. Meza must show his alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment and that it was caused by an incident, or specific set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)-(14)(A) (2016). Further, 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) (2016). ... In the absence of adequate evidence of medical causation, the Court must deny Mr. Meza’s request for benefits.

An employee must establish through expert medical testimony that the injury contributed more than 50% to the need for medical treatment, considering all causes.

Swain, Kenneth M. v. Standard Candy Company · filed 2017-03-27(14)(C)-(D)

As stated in the previous Expedited Hearing Order, in order to establish causation, Mr. Swain must 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 term "reasonable degree of medical certainty" means that, "in the opinion of the physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or possibility." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(D) (2016). Thus, causation must be established by expert medical testimony.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires medical evidence that the work incident contributed more than half to the need for treatment; alleged conditions without an opinion establishing primary causation do not support benefits.

Gordon, Steve v. Jake Marshall, LLC · filed 2017-04-28(14)

Mr. Gordon 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." ... None of the medical providers, including the unauthorized providers, provided an opinion indicating the work injury primarily caused his need for treatment regarding his alleged vision, dental, or mental conditions.

Section 50-6-102(14)(B) requires proof that employment contributed more than fifty percent to causing an injury, considering all causes, including when the claimed injury is an aggravation of a pre-existing condition.

Berdnik, Patrice v. Fairfield Glade Community Club · filed 2017-05-18(14)(B)

However, Employee failed to establish she was likely to prevail at trial in proving that her employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing a compensable aggravation of her pre-existing condition or the need for medical treatment, considering all causes, as section 50-6-102(14)(B) requires.

Subsection (14) requires proof that a work incident primarily caused the injury and contributed more than fifty percent to the resulting disability or need for treatment, considering all causes.

Jackson v. University of the South · filed 2017-05-26(14)

To prove a compensable injury, Ms. Jackson must show that her alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. To do so, she must show her injury was primarily caused by an incident, or specific set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Further, 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) (2016).

Section 50-6-102(14)(D) requires a medical causation opinion to consider all causes; an opinion given without that consideration does not establish primary causation.

Beecher, Carolyn v. McKesson Corporation · filed 2017-07-21(14)(D)

However, there is no indication that he rendered that opinion after considering all causes as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(D).

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

Kelly, Shameeka v. Regency Retirement Villiage · filed 2017-07-27(14)

Ms. Kelly must prove her alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment at Regency. To do so, she must show, “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [her alleged work injury] 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, her injury was more likely than not caused by the incident when considering all causes as opposed to speculation or possibility. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2016).

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

Gentry, Jr., James v. Danny Roberts Const. · filed 2017-08-01(14)(A)

In order to prevail, Mr. Gentry must establish he 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) (2016). ... As a result, the Court holds Mr. Gentry is unlikely to prevail at a compensation hearing in establishing his right shoulder complaints arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of a work-related injury on March 6, 2017.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires a compensable injury to arise primarily from an identifiable work incident and to be more than 50% attributable to work to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Perry, Jr., Lonnie v. Golf Carts Fore Less · filed 2017-08-16(14)

To prove a compensable injury, Mr. Perry must show that his alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. To do so, he must show his injury primarily arose out of a work-related incident, or specific set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence. 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) (2016).

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) requires an incident identifiable by time and place and proof that the injury arose primarily from employment; credible testimony can establish the incident, but medical evidence is needed to establish disputed causation.

McCullar, Michael v. Eagle Wings Transport · filed 2017-09-05(14)(A)

The Court finds Mr. McCullar credible in his testimony regarding the accident and thus holds he came forward with sufficient evidence to establish an incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(A). ... Absent countervailing medical proof, the Court holds Mr. McCullar did not come forward with sufficient medical evidence from which the Court may conclude he is likely to prevail at trial in establishing his injury arose primarily out of his employment.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires medical evidence that employment contributed more than 50% to the disablement or need for treatment to establish that an injury arose primarily out of employment.

Coffey, Daniel v. Nissan North America, Inc. · filed 2017-06-29(14)

Absent any medical opinion regarding the cause of his hearing loss, Mr. Coffey 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 medical proof that employment contributed more than fifty percent to the injury, considering all causes, to establish that the injury arose primarily out of employment.

McGee,Tyrone v. Embassy Suites Nashville · filed 2017-10-17(14)

To establish causation, Mr. McGee must show to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. This requires a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that his employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury, considering all causes.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives the treating physician's causation opinion a presumption of correctness that can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Booth, Kenneth R. v. Allegis Group · filed 2017-12-18(14)(E)

As a result, the presumption of correctness on the issue of causation attaches to Dr. Hutchison. ... Thus, the Court holds that Dr. Bell's opinion rebuts Dr. Hutchison's opinion by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 50-6-102(14) covers an injury arising primarily from employment, including a fall and head injury linked to hot working conditions.

Simpson, Willliam vs. City Auto, LLC · filed 2018-03-22(14)

The Workers' Compensation Law defines "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) (2017). ... Based on this evidence, the Court holds Mr. Simpson came forward with sufficient proof to show he is likely to succeed at proving causation at a hearing on the merits.

A compensable injury must arise primarily from employment, which must contribute more than fifty percent to causing it as shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Moore, Mary v. Real Nurses, LLC · filed 2018-06-20(14)(B)

To prove a compensable injury, Ms. Moore must show her alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50- 6-102(14)(B) (2017). 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).

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

Hancock, Jurine v. Federal Express Corp. · filed 2018-06-25(14)

This contribution must be established to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, which means that, in the opinion of the physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or possibility. !d. Here, Ms. Hancock introduced no medical proof of a work injury. While the Court recognizes the physical demands placed on Ms. Hancock and her co-workers during the holiday season, no physician has determined that these demands caused Ms. Hancock's cardiac event. Thus, the Court holds Ms. Hancock is unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits for entitlement to medical and temporary disability benefits.

Section 50-6-102(14) presumes the authorized treating physician’s causation opinion correct unless the employee rebuts it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Fleming, Jose v. Newly Weds Foods, Inc. · filed 2018-08-29(14)

The opinion of the treating physician, selected by the employee from the employer’s designated panel of physicians, shall be presumed correct on the issue of causation, “but this presumption shall be rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence.” See generally Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) requires proof of an accidental injury caused by a specific work incident or set of incidents and identifiable by time and place; inconsistent testimony and lack of corroborating or timely medical evidence can leave an employee unlikely to establish causation at an expedited hearing.

McBride, Angela v. McMinnville Boarding, Home for the Elderly, Inc. · filed 2018-08-31(14)(A)

To prevail on causation, Ms. McBride 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 "identifiable by time and place of occurrence." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A) (2017). The Court holds that she provided insufficient evidence to establish she is likely to prove causation at trial.

Section 50-6-102(14)(B) requires a physician to establish work-related contribution to an injury to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, meaning more likely than not considering all causes.

Steen, Nicole v. IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. · filed 2018-09-07(14)(B)

This contribution must be established to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, which means that, in the opinion of the physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or possibility.

A physician’s statement that an employee’s condition did not feel more than 50% related to work did not negate causation as a matter of law when the report did not indicate a causation opinion based on a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Watts, Jane v. JTEKT North America · filed 2019-01-30(14)(C), (D)

There is no indication Dr. Sanabria was expressing a causation opinion based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C), (D). ... Having considered the statements in Dr. Sanabria’s report in the context in which they were made, particularly concerning the “new” and unidentified State “guidelines,” we hold the statements are insufficient to negate causation as a matter of law.

An injury arises primarily out of employment when the employment contributed more than fifty percent to causing it; evidence linking a recurrent condition to the original work injury can satisfy that causation standard at an expedited hearing.

Guerra, Miguel v. ABC Tree Service · filed 2019-04-10(13)(B)

Turning to causation, 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). ... Coupled with the fact that ABC failed to identify any other possible cause, the Court holds Mr. Guerra came forward with sufficient proof to show he is likely to succeed at establishing the recommended surgery is medically necessary as a result of the work injury.

An employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that employment contributed more than fifty percent to the injury, considering all causes.

Wright, Keith v. Cummins Engine Company, Inc. · filed 2019-04-24(14)(B)

Mr. Wright’s burden requires proof “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). ... Accordingly, the Court holds that Mr. Wright failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a compensable work injury on November 20, 2015.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires proof that symptoms arose primarily from the work injury; a medical opinion that headaches are merely “likely related” does not meet that standard.

Kassmieh, Michael v. NEIS, Inc. · filed 2019-05-23(14)

In this case, Dr. Derwenskus’s opinion that the headaches are “likely related” does not meet the requirement that the symptoms arose primarily out of the work injury.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires a treating physician’s opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that work contributed more than fifty percent to the injury or need for treatment when all causes are considered.

Geasley, Alex v. Rutherford Farmers Coop · filed 2019-03-07(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. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). ... Absent any other medical opinion, Mr. Geasley cannot prove “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that his work contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury or the need for the treatment recommended by Dr. Poole.

Employment primarily causes an injury when it contributes more than fifty percent to causing it; a work-created hazard can support a finding that the employee is likely to prove a compensable injury.

DELANEY, AARON v. TPI Corporation · filed 2019-05-14(14)(B)

An employee has the burden to prove he suffered an injury that arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment that causes disablement or the need for medical treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2018). This burden is met if he shows that the employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(B). ... Considering all the evidence, the Court holds Mr. Delaney's work caused a hazard that led to his injury, and he is likely to succeed in proving he suffered a work injury that caused disablement and the need for medical treatment.

An injury arises primarily out of employment only when a preponderance of the evidence shows that employment contributed more than fifty percent to the injury or the need for treatment of a pre-existing condition, considering all causes.

Dennis, Christopher v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water · filed 2019-10-08(14)(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 or his need for medical treatment of the pre-existing condition, when considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(B). ... The Court finds Mr. Dennis did not present sufficient medical proof that his need for treatment is causally related to his work accident.

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

Blankenship, Roma v. Ballad Health · filed 2019-10-24(14)(B)

The correct standard is whether the employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury.

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 need for medical treatment, considering all causes.

Noblitt, Vickie v. Green Acres Produce · filed 2020-02-24(14)

To receive benefits, Ms. Noblitt must show, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the May 8, 2019 incident contributed more than fifty percent in causing the need for medical treatment, considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

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

Craig, Ronnie v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water · filed 2019-11-20(14)(B)

To do so, he must show his employment “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(B). ... Dr. Wolf testified that the incident at MLG&W contributed only 40% in causing Mr. Craig’s injury. ... Therefore, the Court holds Mr. Craig did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his injury arose primarily out of his employment and dismisses the case.

An injury arises primarily out of employment when, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, employment contributed more than fifty percent to the need for medical treatment, considering all causes.

Washingto, William v. IB-TECH · filed 2019-12-13(14)

Mr. Washington must show he is likely to prove that his low-back and left-leg pain arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment with IB-Tech. To do that, he must establish to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that his employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the need for medical treatment, considering all causes. Reasonable degree of medical certainty means “it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or uncertainty.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

Section 50-6-102(12) requires medical proof that a work injury primarily caused an aggravation and contributed more than fifty percent to the need for treatment; medical consequences flowing from the injury can satisfy that standard.

Lucia, Jr., Carlton v. DSV Solutions, Inc. · filed 2023-06-01(12)

To establish causation, Mr. Lucia must show to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty that the aggravation arose primarily” out of his work-related injury. ... The Court holds that the direct and natural consequences rule applies in this case, and Mr. Lucia is likely to prove that the carpal tunnel syndrome for which he requires treatment is primarily due to his work-related injury from June 2021.

An employee must show that employment contributed more than 50% to the injury and need for treatment, considering all causes, through a physician’s opinion that causation is more likely than not.

FERGUSON, DOREEN v. WEST QUALITY FOOD SERVICES, INC. · filed 2025-07-18(12)

To prevail in a workers’ compensation claim, an employee must show to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that an injury and need for treatment arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of the employment. Here, this requires a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Ferguson’s employment contributed more than 50% in causing the knee injury and need for knee-replacement surgery, considering all causes. 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, as opposed to speculation or possibility. Tenn. Code Ann. §50-6- 102(12).

Section 50-6-102(12)(D) requires medical proof that a work incident contributed more than fifty percent in causing a disability or need for treatment, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Shalabi, Mina v. Amazon.Com Services, LLC · filed 2023-09-26(12)(D)

Mr. Shalabi must also prove that the incident caused him to be disabled or need treatment. To do so, Mr. Shalabi’s testimony must be supported by medical proof. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(D). He must show to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the incident contributed more than fifty percent in causing a disability or need for treatment. Reasonable degree of medical certainty means “it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or uncertainty.” Id. Upon review of the available medical proof, the Court holds that Mr. Shalabi has not met this burden on either point – disability or need for treatment.

Section 50-6-102(12) requires proof to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a work incident contributed more than fifty percent to the need for medical treatment and that the injury arose primarily out of employment.

Garlock, Autumn v. O’Reilly Wooten 2000, LLC, d/b/a O’Reilly Auto Parts, · filed 2023-09-27(12)(A)-(C)

To prevail at trial, Ms. Garlock must show that her alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. She must show to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a work incident contributed more than fifty percent in causing her need for medical treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(A)-(C). ... The Court holds that Ms. Garlock satisfied her burden and is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that her injury arose primarily out of her employment at O’Reilly.

Section 50-6-102(12) requires proof to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a work incident contributed more than fifty percent to the need for medical treatment, considering all causes.

Hussein, Abdullah v. Taylor Farms TN, Inc., d/b/a Taylor Fresh Foods, Inc · filed 2023-10-09(12)(A)-(D)

He must show to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a work incident contributed more than fifty percent in causing his need for medical treatment, meaning that in the physician’s opinion, it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or possibility. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50- 6-102(12)(A)-(D) (2023).

An employee must prove to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a work incident contributed more than 50% to the need for medical treatment.

Howard, Benjamin v. Centurion · filed 2024-12-17(12)(A)-(D)

He must show to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a work incident contributed more than 50% in causing his need for medical treatment, meaning that in the physician’s opinion, it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or possibility. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(A)-(D) (2024).

A compensable injury requires proof that the work accident contributed more than 50% to the need for medical treatment, considering all causes, and the panel physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

EVANS, PATRICIA v. KROGER COMPANY · filed 2025-08-12(12)

To prove a compensable injury, an employee must show “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [the work accident] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Further, the panel physician’s opinion is presumed correct on causation but is rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(A)-(E).

Section 50-6-102(12) requires medical proof that a work accident contributed more than 50% to the disablement or need for treatment, and presumes the paneled physician’s causation opinion correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

McGuire, Macey v. TC Restaurant Group, LLC · filed 2025-08-13(12)(A)-(E)

To prove a compensable injury, an employee must show “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [the work accident] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Further, the paneled physician’s opinion is presumed correct on causation but is rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(A)-(E) (2025).

Section 50-6-102(12)(C) requires medical proof that a work accident contributed more than 50% to the employee’s disablement or need for treatment, considering all causes.

Hall, Michael v. TWC Holdings, Inc. · filed 2025-10-30(12)(C)

To prove a compensable injury, an employee must show “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [the work accident] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(C) (2024).

Section 50-6-102(12)(A)-(E) requires expert medical proof that employment caused more than half of the condition and need for treatment, and gives a rebuttable presumption to a panel-selected treating physician’s causation opinion.

Dyer, Destiny v. Petsmart, Inc. · filed 2023-12-04(12)(A)-(E)

To receive benefits, an employee must show that a condition and need for treatment arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. Proving causation requires expert medical testimony that the employment caused more than fifty percent of the alleged condition and need for treatment, considering all causes. The causation opinion of a treating physician selected from a panel is presumed correct but is rebuttable. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(A)-(E).

An authorized treating physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct, but the presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Pond, Kayla v. DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC. · filed 2024-05-28(12)(E)

Since Dr. Pearce was Ms. Pond’s authorized treating physician, his causation opinion is presumed correct but may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at -102(12)(E). ... Given this evidence, the Court gives more weight to Dr. Lochemes’s testimony and holds that Darden overcame any presumption of correctness afforded to Dr. Pearce’s causation opinion as to the arthritis and the need for a resection.

Section 50-6-102(12) presumes the panel physician’s causation opinion correct, subject to rebuttal by a preponderance of the evidence.

KEAN, CARMA v McROCKET, LLC, d/b/a GREAT CLIPS, · filed 2025-08-12(12)(A-E)

Further, the panel physician’s opinion, Dr. Douglas’s, is presumed correct on causation but is rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(A-E) (2025).

Section 50-6-102(13)(A) defines an injury as an accident arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment; a claimant must present sufficient evidence of a physical injury at work to obtain expedited benefits.

James, Bobby v. Landair Transport, Inc. · filed 2015-07-27(13)(A)

The Workers' Compensation Law defines "injury" and "personal injury" to mean an injury by accident "arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment[.]" Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(A) (2014). ... Mr. James has not presented sufficient evidence to prove he suffered a physical injury at work.

At an expedited hearing, section 50-6-102(13)(B) does not yet require proof by a preponderance of the evidence that employment contributed more than 50% to the injury.

Boyd, Michael v. Revel Logging, LLC · filed 2015-08-18(13)(B)

Such being the case, the Court notes the requirement of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(13)(B)- that an employee must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than 50% to the injury- has yet to attach to this interlocutory stage of the proceedings. For now, Mr. Boyd is not required to show by a preponderance of the evidence a 50% or more contribution to the injury by the employment.

Section 50-6-102(14)(B) requires proof that employment contributed more than fifty percent to an injury, considering all causes; absent medical evidence of that causal share, an employee cannot show likely success on compensability at an expedited hearing.

Reese, Ronald v. Waste Connections, Inc. · filed 2016-02-02(14)(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 in causing the injury, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(B) (2015). The medical records admitted into evidence do not contain an opinion from any physician stating Mr. Reese's employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing his back injury.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires employment to cause more than half of the injury and the injury to cause more than half of the need for treatment; at an expedited hearing, credible accident testimony and an unrebutted medical opinion can establish likely success on causation.

Miner, Katherine Echardt v, Vaco Holding, LLC · filed 2016-09-29(14)(B)-(C)

The Workers' Compensation Law provides that 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) (2015). Further, "[a]n injury causes death, disablement or the need for medical treatment only if it has been shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that it 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) (2015). ... Moreover, at the expedited hearing stage, per McCord, supra, Ms. Eckardt need not demonstrate causation by a preponderance of the evidence but only that she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. On this record, the Court holds she satisfied that burden.

An injury arises primarily out of employment only if work contributed more than 50 percent to causing it, considering all causes; equivocal medical evidence suggesting a preexisting condition as another cause does not show a claimant is likely to meet that standard at an expedited hearing.

Marshall, Cleaster v. Gate Precast Compnay · filed 2017-04-04(14)(B)

In addition, 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." ... The Court cannot find at this time that Mr. Marshall satisfied even this lower burden, given that the medical records are equivocal at best regarding his history, and they strongly suggest that other causes, such as Mr. Marshall's preexisting arthritis, might be responsible for the onset of pain he experienced at work, rather than his employment activities.

An injury is in the course of employment when it occurs during the employee’s work duties and arises out of employment when a work hazard causes it.

King v. Jones Truck Lines · filed 1991-04-22(a)(4)

The phrase “in the course of” refers to time and place, and “arising out of” to cause or origin; an injury by accident to an employee is “in the course of” employment if it occurred while he was performing a duty he was employed to do; and it is an injury “arising out of” employment if caused by a hazard incident to such employment.

An assault arising from a dispute over work duties has an inherent connection to employment and satisfies the requirement that an injury arise out of employment, even when a racial slur is part of the dispute.

LeeGrand v. Trinity Universal Insurance · filed 2001-08-20(5)

We find that plaintiff's injuries had an "inherent connection" to the employment setting and arose out of employment as contemplated by the Workers' Compensation Act.

An injury from coworkers’ unauthorized access to and disclosure of an employee’s customer prescription records does not arise out of or occur in the course of employment when there is no business reason for the conduct.

Jane Doe and John Doe v. Walgreens Company · filed 2010-11-24(12)

Having determined that there was no business reason for the actions of Ms. Doe’s co-workers and that, consequently, the injurious activities did not arise out of, or in the course of, Ms. Doe’s employment, the causes of action averred do not sound in workers’ compensation.

Section 50-6-102(12) treats an injury from a tornado as arising out of employment when the job exposes the employee to a greater risk than the general public faces.

Dixon v. Travelers Indemnity Co. · filed 2011-03-03(12)

In sum, we conclude that Employee was subjected to a higher risk of injury from the tornado because of his employment than the general public would have had, and accordingly his injury arose out of his employment and is compensable.

An injury arises primarily out of employment under § 50-6-102(13) only when employment contributes more than 50% to causing it; an idiopathic knee dislocation from standing up at work does not qualify.

Willis, Joseph v. All Staff · filed 2014-11-10(13)

While the incident is certainly unfortunate, the undersigned finds that the employment did not contribute at least 50% in causing the injury. Employee could have suffered the same injury if he had squatted anywhere. The fact that the injury occurred while Employee was at work does not convert it into a workers’ compensation injury.

An injury from a fall may arise primarily out of employment despite an unknown or idiopathic cause of the fall when a special hazard of the work causes the injury.

Williams, Preston v. City of Kingsport · filed 2015-02-10(13)

Kingsport has confused the cause of the fall with the cause of the injury. Although Mr. Williams may not know why he fell, his job placed him in an elevated position inside a backhoe on top of a trailer. His elevation on equipment increased the likelihood of injury. This is not a mere fall to the ground while walking. Although the reason for the fall may be idiopathic, Mr. Williams' job presented a special hazard.

An injury does not arise primarily out of employment when it results from a condition personal to the employee and no work-related hazard contributed to it.

Haynes, Emily v. DCI Donor Services · filed 2015-02-19(13)

The employee must show the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. ... Therefore, Employee failed to meet her burden of establishing that her injury arose primarily out of her employment. The Court finds Employee's injury is idiopathic in nature and, as such, she is not entitled to workers' compensation benefits.

A fall while performing assigned work can qualify as an injury under § 50-6-102(13) when it arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Hosford, Jane / Red Rover Preschool · filed 2014-10-02(13)

Applying these principles to this case, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's finding that Employee sustained an injury on July 7, 2014, that arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment with Employer.

A workplace assault arising from an inherently private dispute that employment did not exacerbate does not arise primarily out of employment.

Bates, Pamela v. Command Center, Inc. · filed 2015-02-27(13)(B)

The incident is an "inherently private dispute," not exacerbated by the employment. ... Notwithstanding, this Court finds that Ms. Bates is not entitled to workers' compensation benefits because the injury did not arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment.

Section 50-6-102(13) requires an injury to arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment; a fall while walking without a work-related hazard does not qualify.

Hobaugh-Mendez, Alice v. Sunoco/Tigermarket/Southside Oil · filed 2015-03-04(13)

The employee must show that the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13). ... The Court finds that a special hazard did not contribute to the fall. ... The Court further holds that her claim is not compensable.

An injury arises out of employment when a hazard incident to the employee’s work causes the injury, and occurs in the course of employment when the employee is performing an assigned duty.

Mace, Mario v. Express Services · filed 2015-04-27(13)(A)

He became injured in the course of employment because the accident took place while he was guiding stacks, a duty he was employed to do. The injury arose from his employment because the falling stacks are a hazard incident to his employment.

Subsection (13)(B) requires employment to contribute more than 50% to an injury's cause; a customer assault may arise out of employment when the employee's duties expose her to that public risk.

Johnson, Eden v. Wal-mart Associates, Inc. · filed 2015-05-26(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 ofthe 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). ... Ms. Johnson's injury bears a rational connection to her work because her employment necessarily exposed her to public risks, to include random assaults from third parties.

An injury arises out of employment when a workplace hazard causes it while the employee performs assigned work.

Pierce, Artie v. Metro Industrial · filed 2015-06-04(13)(A)

The injury arose out of his employment because a sign describing how employees are to perform their work accidentally falling on an employee is a hazard incident to employment in the manufacturing setting.

An injury arises out of employment when it is caused by a hazard of the worker’s assigned duties, such as disembarking from a pallet jack used at work.

Anderson, Mernetha v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC · filed 2015-06-08(13)(A)

She sustained the injury in the course of her employment because she was performing a duty she was employed to do: pick cluster. The injury arose out of her employment because it was caused by a hazard incident to Ms. Anderson's employment: disembarking from a pallet jack.

An injury must arise primarily out of employment; a fall while walking requires an employment hazard to establish that connection.

Hobaugh-Mendez, Alice v. Sunoco/Tigermarket/Southside Oil · filed 2015-07-08(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). ... For these reasons, the Court finds that Ms. Mendez cannot prove that her accident arose out of her employment with Tigermarket.

An injury arises out of employment when a hazard encountered in the work causes it; a fall on a sloped, rocky driveway can meet that requirement.

Willingham, Andrice v. Titlemax of Tennessee, Inc. · filed 2015-08-04(13)(A)

For injuries occurring on or after July 1, 2014, an employee must show the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, and it was caused by an incident or specific set of incidents that are identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(A)(2014). ... The slope and rough surface, taken together or separately, constitute a hazard to which Ms. Willingham was exposed because of her employment.

An injury can arise primarily out of employment under § 50-6-102(13)(B) when required travel exposes an employee to a street hazard and the work is the primary cause of the injury.

Minor, John v. Nashville Electric Service · filed 2015-08-19(13)(B)

The Court finds there is a rational connection between Mr. Minor’s injury and the conditions of his work, especially the requirements of travel that led him to the restaurant. The Court further finds that Mr. Minor’s work was the primary cause of his injury.

An injury following an idiopathic episode can arise primarily out of employment when a hazard of the work causes or exacerbates the injury, even if the work did not cause the episode.

McCaffery v. Cardinal Logistics · filed 2015-12-10(13)

As stated above, the employment hazard in this case was Employee's driving the truck in the course of his employment, and this hazard was the immediate cause of Employee's injuries. Again, the focus is on the causal link between the employment and the accident or injury rather than whether there is a causal link between the employment and Employee's sneeze.

An idiopathic injury arises primarily out of employment only when an employment hazard causes or exacerbates it.

Caldwell, Bryan v. Corrections Corp. of America · filed 2015-12-22(13)(A)

Mindful of the foregoing principles, the Court finds the "pop" in Mr. Caldwell's knee was an idiopathic incident because of its unexplained origin or cause. As noted in McCaffery and Phillips, in order for an idiopathic injury to be compensable, there must be an employment hazard that causes or exacerbates the injury.

A coworker assault motivated by anger over an employee’s promotion to permanent employment can qualify as an injury arising primarily out of employment under § 50-6-102(13)(B).

Harris, Terrel v. Bennett Tool & Die, LLC · filed 2016-03-24(13)(B)

The determinative issue becomes whether Mr. Harris' injury arose primarily out of his employment. ... Here, Mr. Harris' assault falls into the first category of assaults. He credibly testified his coworkers' motivation for the assault related to their anger over Mr. Harris' elevation to permanent employment. ... Therefore, as a matter of law, Mr. Harris has come forward with sufficient evidence from which this Court concludes he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits regarding the compensability of his injuries.

An injury caused by an employee’s leg giving way without a work-related hazard does not arise out of employment and is not a compensable accidental injury.

Holder, Tyrone v. Kyowa America Corp. · filed 2016-04-28(14)(A)

In order for an injury to be compensable, it must have been accidental. Under the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law, an injury is accidental “only if the injury is 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). ... In short, all the evidence showed that Mr. Holder’s right leg simply gave way, without foreign stimulus or employment hazard. Accordingly, the Court finds Mr. Holder’s injury was idiopathic in nature and, therefore, not compensable.

An injury from a coworker assault does not arise primarily out of employment when the evidence shows only a private dispute or unknown cause and the parties’ shared workplace.

Lawrence, Robert v. Stop N Shop · filed 2017-04-05(14)(A)

However, even assuming his elaboration at the Compensation Hearing to be true, the Court cannot find a relationship between the assault and the work. Mr. Lawrence did not attribute the assault to his confronting David over inappropriate behavior; instead, the preponderance of the evidence remained that the altercation resulted either from a private dispute or from some other unknown cause. As at the Expedited Hearing, the only connection to work appears to be the tangential fact that both men worked at Stop N' Shop.

An accidental work injury satisfies the definition of injury when the evidence identifies the work incident by time and place, even if accounts differ about when symptoms began.

Hannah, Donna v. Senior Citizens Home Assistance Service, Inc. · filed 2022-03-28(14)(A)

We conclude from our review of the record that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s determination that Employee suffered an injury by accident while working on September 30, 2019.

At an expedited hearing, conflicting witness accounts and medical records predating the alleged event can prevent a claimant from showing a likely provable work-related incident under subsection (14)(A).

ABDELSHAHAED, REAZKALLAH v. TAYLOR FRESH FOODS, INC. · filed 2021-11-29(14)(A)

Under these circumstances, the Court cannot find at this time that Mr. Abdelshahaed is likely prove the existence of the “work-related incident” required by section 50-6-102(14)(A).

Section 50-6-102(12) requires an employee seeking benefits to prove an accidental injury that arose out of and occurred in the course of employment.

Woodlawn Memorial Park, Inc. v. Keith · filed 2002-03-01(12)

To recover benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act, an employee must first prove that he or she suffered an “injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12) (1999).

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

Poindexter, Robert v. Estes Express Lines · filed 2014-10-09(13)

However, Employee has failed to sustain the burden of proving that he sustained an injury by accident which arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

An injury by accident must arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

East, Sean v. Heritage Hosiery Mill · filed 2014-12-12(13)

This includes the burden of proving that an alleged "injury by accident" arose "primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13) (2014).

Section 50-6-102(13) treats an injury caused by a specific work incident as compensable when it arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Little, Deborah v. Sweet T's · filed 2015-05-22(13)

Under the 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 incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 102(13) (2014).

Section 50-6-102(13) requires an accidental injury to arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, with employment contributing more than fifty percent to its cause.

Portilla, Gaynell v. Tyson Foods, Inc. · filed 2015-05-26(13)

An “injury” or “personal injury” by accident is compensable whenever “the injury is caused by a specific incident, or set of incidents, 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[.]” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

Section 50-6-102(13)(A) defines an injury by accident as one arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment and identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

McCord, Patricia v. Advantage Human Resourcing · filed 2015-03-27(13)(A)

Tennessee Code Annotated ... section 50-6-102(13), which defines whether an injury is "accidental," specifies that an injury by accident must arise "primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment" and must be "identifiable by time and place of occurrence."

Section 50-6-102(13) requires enough detail about how an injury occurred to make a prima facie showing of an injury by accident; uncertain statements that the worker was lifting do not suffice.

Stanley, Aaron v. Wal-Mart · filed 2015-05-20(13)

The only statements he provided directly—the Associate Incident Report and the Concentra patient intake form—do not present sufficient detail to present a prima facie case for an injury by accident.

An injury from a specific workplace incident identifiable by time and place can support a likely-to-prevail showing at an expedited hearing even when employment causation has not yet been proved by a preponderance of the evidence.

Helgerson, Mitchel v. Packer Sanitation Services, Inc. · filed 2015-08-20(13)(A)

Mr. Helgerson reported the work injury timely to PSSI and described by time and place how the specific incident occurred. ... Therefore, while Mr. Helgerson has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment, he has shown that he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits.

Subsection (13)(A) defines an accidental injury as one caused by a specific work-related incident or incidents identifiable by time and place.

Sanabria, Bessy vs. Santiago Zelaya and Summit Contractors Group, Inc. · filed 2015-06-18(13)(A)

Under the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law, an injury is accidental “…only if the injury is 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(13)(A) (2014). ... Here, the facts related to Ms. Sanabria’s accident are essentially undisputed, as both Ms. Sanabria and Summit have respectively provided an affidavit and a Summit Accident Report stating that she fell from a ladder while working at the Crescent Site on July 31, 2014. ... Accordingly, for the purposes of this Record Review the Court finds that Ms. Sanabria has established that she will likely prevail at a hearing on the merits.

An injury under § 50-6-102(13) must arise from a specific identifiable work incident, and employment must have contributed more than 50% to its cause.

Lallo, Ralph Joseph v. Marion Environmental, Inc. 2015-06-0287 · filed 2015-08-07(13)(A)-(B)

The Workers' Compensation Law defines "injury" and "personal injury" to mean an injury by accident "arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment . . . . " Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(A) (2014). An injury is "accidental" only if the injury is 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[.] !d. 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). ... At this interlocutory stage of the proceedings, Mr. Lallo satisfied his burden of proof regarding the occurrence of an injury on April 2, 2015, and the Court concludes that he would likely prevail on the issue at a hearing on the merits.

An accidental injury must be tied to a specific work incident identifiable by time and place; uncertain evidence about what caused the condition can leave an employee unlikely to prove a compensable injury.

Harris, Zechariah v. Subway 2014-06-0018 · filed 2015-09-09(13)(A)

Under the Workers’ Compensation Law, an injury is accidental “only if the injury is 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.” ... However, he does not know whether a spider in the store bit him, a spider bit him while he pulled weeds, or if something else happened when he pulled weeds. ... Based on the evidence before it at this time, the Court does not find that Mr. Harris is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits.

Section 50-6-102(13) defines an accidental injury as one tied to a specific work incident and requires employment to have contributed more than fifty percent to the injury.

Jones, Cedric v. Crencor Leasing and Sales · filed 2015-10-29(13)(A)-(B)

Under the Workers’ Compensation Law, an injury is accidental “only if the injury is 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(13)(A) (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[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(B) (2014). Here, the proof showed that a ladder fell on Mr. Jones while he worked for Crencor. Dr. Willis diagnosed a shoulder separation and rotator-cuff tear, and causally related these conditions to Mr. Jones’ work. Accordingly, the evidence at this time shows that Mr. Jones suffered a compensable injury and is, therefore, eligible for medical benefits and temporary disability benefits.

An accidental injury must be tied to a specific work incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

Daugherty, Darylin v. Walmart Associates, Inc. · filed 2015-11-06(13)(A)

Under these circumstances, Ms. Daugherty has not identified the requisite specific incident “arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, and . . . identifiable by time and place of occurrence.”

Section 50-6-102(13)(A) requires evidence of a work-related accidental injury; inconclusive medical records and an unsupported claim of a workplace fall do not establish that requirement.

Humphrey, Andy v. Lewisburg Rubber and Gasket · filed 2015-11-17(13)(A)

Accordingly, the only credible evidence before the Court regarding causation comes from the statements attributed to him through the medical records. The Court finds the contents of these statements insufficient to establish that Mr. Humphrey suffered an injury by accident as defined by the Workers’ Compensation Law.

An injury may be identifiable by time and place of occurrence under § 50-6-102(14)(A) even if the employee cannot identify its specific date.

Thomas, Timmy v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. · filed 2016-01-04(14)(A)

While Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(A) (2014) requires the injury be "identifiable by time and place of occurrence," it does not necessarily require the identification of a specific date of injury.

A neck injury caused by a specific workplace incident identifiable by time and place meets the accidental-injury requirement.

Rucker, Tony v. Flexible Staffing Solutions of Tennessee · filed 2016-01-21(14)(A)

The Court concludes that Mr. Rucker established that he sustained an injury to his neck "caused by a specific incident, or set of incidents," and "identifiable by time and place of occurrence."

Section 50-6-102(14) defines a compensable injury as an accident arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment that causes death, disablement, or a need for medical treatment; credible employee testimony can establish that an injury occurred.

Young, David v. Electric · filed 2016-04-13(14)

In order for Mr. Young to be eligible for benefits at all, he must have suffered an injury as defined by the Workers’ Compensation Law. An “injury” means “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) (2015). ... The Court finds Mr. Young’s testimony sufficient to prove he suffered an injury under the Workers’ Compensation Law.

An injury by accident under § 50-6-102(14)(A) may result from a specific set of work incidents without identifying one particular jolt that caused the condition.

Smiley, Shane v. Four Seasons Coach Leasing and Live Soul Touring · filed 2016-05-25(14)(A)

Although Mr. Smiley identified no particular bump in the road, gust of wind, or patch of ice that solely caused his condition, the prolonged exposure to this stimulus coupled with the poor condition of the seat is specific enough under these circumstances to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits at trial concerning the occurrence of an injury by accident.

Chemical exposure can qualify as an injury by accident when the exposure is identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

Revnew, Deborah v. Amazon.Com · filed 2016-08-19(14)(A)

In this Court’s opinion, Ms. Revnew’s testimony that she encountered open containers of chemicals in the hazmat area on January 29, 2016, and immediately began experiencing severe symptoms satisfies her burden of proving the condition arose from an incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

An injury by accident can arise from a specific work incident identifiable by time and place; a knee strain from that incident qualifies when it arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Humphrey, Jr., Eddie v. Security Fire Protection Co, Inc. · filed 2016-12-07(14)(A)

In the present case, Mr. Humphrey credibly testified about a specific incident, identifiable by time and place that occurred while he performed his job duties at Security Fire. ... This Court concludes Mr. Humphrey demonstrated by sufficient evidence that he sustained a left knee strain arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment with Security Fire.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) defines an accidental injury as one caused by a specific work incident identifiable by time and place; evidence of the incident and a supporting medical opinion can establish likely causation.

Tomlinson, William v. Onin Staffing, LLC · filed 2016-08-30(14)(A)

In order to prevail, Mr. Tomlinson must establish he 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) (2015). In support of his claim, Mr. Tomlinson provided undisputed evidence that, while working at Tachi-S for Onin on September 9, 2015, he attempted to catch a seat that suddenly dropped down the assembly line, and the impact caused pain in his right shoulder. (Ex. 3.) In further support, he offered Dr. Jordan's undisputed medical record, which clearly opines that, based on Mr. Tomlinson's history, he sustained a new work-related injury to his right shoulder on September 9, 2015. (Ex. 2 at 5.) Given these facts, the Court holds Mr. Tomlinson has provided sufficient evidence to establish he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits on the issue of causation.

An accidental injury requires a specific work incident identifiable by time and place; conflicting accounts of the precise date do not necessarily defeat that showing.

King, Joshua T. v. Compass Hearing and Air · filed 2016-10-05(14)(A)

In the present case, Mr. King identified a specific incident, identifiable by time and place that occurred while he performed his job duties at Compass.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) requires an employee to identify the time and place of a specific incident or set of incidents causing a work injury; inconsistent dates can fail to establish the time of injury.

Compton, Pamela v. Mo's Investments, Inc d/b/a Sicily Restuarant · filed 2017-08-31(14)(A)

Ms. Compton must show she 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). ... Based on these discrepancies and the record as a whole, the Court finds that Ms. Compton failed to identify the time of her injury.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) requires an injury occurring during treatment for a work injury to arise primarily out of employment and be caused by an incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

Cates, John v. Piggly Wiggly Grocery · filed 2017-10-03(14)(A)

However, under current law, Mr. Cates must not only show any alleged injury that happened in treatment arose primarily out of the employment but also must show that it was caused by an incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)-(14)(A)(Emphasis added).

An accidental injury under § 50-6-102(14) must arise primarily out of employment and be tied to a specific incident or set of incidents identifiable by time and place.

Foust, Jr., David v. Pinnacle Delivery Service · filed 2017-10-03(14)

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.” Jd. ... Based upon the evidence available at this time, the Court must conclude that Mr. Foust failed to demonstrate he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits proving a specific incident, identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

An injury by accident under § 50-6-102(14) must arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment and be traceable to a specific incident identifiable by time and place.

Eaves, Fredia Darlene v. Ametek · filed 2017-12-29(14)

The term "injury" is defined as an injury by accident arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment that causes the need for medical treatment. 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 identifiable by time and place of occurrence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2017). The record is clear when and where the incident occurred. Ms. Eaves' heel caught in a crack in the crosswalk and she fell on her left side, injuring her left knee on January 6, 2016. The Court therefore concludes that Ms. Eaves demonstrated she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in proving a specific incident, identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

An accidental injury under § 50-6-102(14)(A) arises from a specific work-related incident or set of incidents and causes death, disablement, or a need for medical treatment.

Sweeney, Howard v. Jerry Carter, dba Carter Roofing · filed 2018-03-13(14)(A)

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 death, disablement, or the need for medical treatment.” An injury is “accidental” if it is caused by “a specific incident, or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A). Mr. Swenney’s uncontroverted evidence showed that he suffered an injury by accident that arose out of his employment for Mr. Carter.

An accidental injury must be identifiable by time and place; repetitive work without an identifiable incident did not meet that requirement.

Quarles, Keith v. FedEx Ground · filed 2018-05-07(14)(A)

Mr. Quarles did not experience a specific incident at work that he could identify by time and place.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) requires evidence of a specific incident or set of incidents identifiable by time and place; identifying an activity as the injury mechanism alone does not establish that requirement.

Watson, Robert v. Catlett Construction · filed 2018-05-18(14)(A)

Moreover, although Employee is correct that Drs. Stark and Hawkins identified the lifting and moving of windows, respectively, as the mechanism of his shoulder injury, this alone does not establish the occurrence of a specific incident on June 23 or a set of incidents identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

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

Teague, James v. Proimage Wholesale Signs, LLC · filed 2018-07-26(14)

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 identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires a compensable injury to arise primarily from a work-related incident, or specific set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

Watson, Robert v. CATLETT CONSTRUCTION · filed 2018-09-20(14)

To do so, he must show his injury arose primarily out of a work-related incident, or specific set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires a compensable injury to arise primarily out of employment and result from an incident or set of incidents identifiable by time and place.

Priddy, Steven v. Barker Brothers Waste, Inc. · filed 2018-11-30(14)

To be compensable, Mr. Priddy must show his alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment and was caused by an incident, or specific set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence. ... Based on the foregoing and absent any persuasive proof to reconcile the inconsistencies in this case, the Court holds Mr. Priddy did not provide sufficient evidence that he would likely prevail at a hearing on the merits regarding the occurrence of a specific incident to his left knee on October 13, 2017.

An accidental injury must result from a specific incident or set of incidents identifiable by time and place; identifying the work activity that caused an injury does not alone establish that requirement.

Watson, Robert v. Catlett Construction · filed 2018-12-14(14)(A)

Moreover, although Employee is correct that Drs. Stark and Hawkins identified the lifting and moving of windows, respectively, as the mechanism of his shoulder injury, this alone does not establish the occurrence of a specific incident on June 23 or a set of incidents identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

An injury must be identifiable by time and place of occurrence; one later medical notation of an incident may be insufficient when the other records give conflicting dates.

Watson, Robert v. Catlett Construction · filed 2019-03-14(14)

This single notation, weighed against the conflicting information in the other records, is insufficient to identify a specific incident by time and place of occurrence.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) requires a compensable injury to involve a work-related incident, or a specific set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

Howard, Lillian v. NHC Healthcare/Pulaski, LLC · filed 2019-04-18(14)(A)

This includes the requirement that she must establish a work-related incident, or specific set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence. ... Under these circumstances, the Court cannot find at this time that Ms. Howard is likely prove the existence of the “work-related incident” required by section 50-6-102(14)(A).

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) requires an accidental injury to result from an identifiable incident arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Calderon-Fuentes, Leonardo v. CEVA Logistics U.S. Holdings · filed 2019-10-02(14)(A)

Therefore, on this record, Mr. Calderon-Fuentes did not satisfy his burden to show likelihood of a “specific incident, or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment,” as the statute requires.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) requires a work-related incident, or specific set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence for a compensable injury.

Holland, Clifton v. Goodman Global, Inc. · filed 2019-10-17(14)(A)

This includes the requirement that he must establish a work-related incident, or specific set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A). ... Therefore, the Court holds that Mr. Holland demonstrated he is likely to establish a specific incident, identifiable by time and place, at a hearing on the merits.

Section 50-6-102(13)(C) recognizes cumulative trauma or repetitive motion as an accidental injury when the condition arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Ibarra, Grecia M. v. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc., · filed 2019-12-19(13)(C)

However, section 50-6-102(13)(C) recognizes cumulative trauma or repetitive motion conditions as accidental injuries if “such conditions arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.” Amazon presented no proof contradicting Ms. Ibarra’s description of events occurring in September 2018. Instead, Ms. Ibarra’s unrebutted testimony is that she developed worsening back pain in September from repetitively lifting heavy boxes and totes. Therefore, the Court finds that she sustained a gradual injury at Amazon, identifiable by time and place. Thus, the Court holds Amazon’s lack of identifiable injury defense fails.

A compensable injury requires a work-related incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence, which credible testimony can preliminarily establish.

Sutton, J.J. v, AT&T Services, Inc. · filed 2020-03-04(14)(A)

This includes the requirement that he must establish a work-related incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A). ... Therefore, the Court holds Mr. Sutton demonstrated he is likely to establish a specific incident, identifiable by time and place, at a hearing on the merits.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) requires a compensable injury to result from a specific work-related incident, or set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

Bloodsaw, Talisha v. Alexian Brothers Community Services d/b/a Alexian Brothers PACE · filed 2020-06-16(14)(A)

To prove a compensable injury, Ms. Bloodsaw must show that her alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. To do so, she must show that the injury was caused by a specific work-related incident, or set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A). The preliminary question the Court must address is whether Ms. Bloodsaw presented sufficient evidence to establish the occurrence of a specific incident on July 18, 2019. See Burleson v. Germantown Partners Supercuts, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 49, at *9-10 (Aug. 15, 2017). The Court holds she did not.

An employee can identify a specific set of work incidents causing an injury without pinpointing the exact moment the injury occurred.

Taylor, Vincent v. American Tire Distribution · filed 2020-11-02(14)

He timely reported the injury, and although he could not pinpoint the exact moment his injury occurred, he identified a specific set of events at work that immediately preceded and produced his back pain.

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

Bradford, Charisse v. Western Express, Inc. · filed 2021-05-11(14)(A)

Specifically, she must show that her alleged injuries arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment and are identifiable by time and place of occurrence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A). ... Thus, the Court holds Ms. Bradford is likely to prove a specific incident, identifiable by time and place, at a hearing on the merits.

An injury must arise primarily out of employment and be caused by an incident identifiable by time and place; an undisputed fall can establish the specific-incident element at an expedited hearing.

Tempel, Bradley v. DR Roofing, LLC · filed 2021-12-01(14)(A)

To prevail, Mr. Tempel must show his injury arose primarily out of his employment and was caused by an incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A). The parties do not dispute that Mr. Tempel fell from the roof and landed on his feet; thus, the Court finds Mr. Tempel would likely prevail in proving a specific incident.

An accidental injury must be caused by a specific incident or set of incidents identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

Tedford, Daniel v. Energy Savers, LLC · filed 2022-02-22(14)(A)

We also noted in Buchanan that “an injury is accidental only if the injury is caused by a specific incident, or set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence.” Id. at *6-7 (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A)). ... However, to date, Employee has not identified that accident by time and place of occurrence.

Section 50-6-102(12)(A) requires evidence of a specific incident or set of incidents identifiable by time and place of occurrence to show a likelihood of proving a compensable injury at an expedited hearing.

Wilson, Derrick v. Randstad, Inc. · filed 2022-12-19(12)(A)

As such, we conclude Employee has not come forward with sufficient evidence of “a specific incident, or set of incidents, . . . identifiable by time and place of occurrence,” as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(12)(A), to indicate a likelihood of prevailing at trial on this threshold determination.

Section 50-6-102(12)(A) requires proof of a work-related incident or set of incidents identifiable by time and place of occurrence for an injury to arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Bogard, Janice v. Federal Express Corp. · filed 2023-04-03(12)(A)

To do so, she must prove a work-related incident or set of incidents to her right foot and ankle identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

An employee establishes the specific-incident requirement for an injury when uncontroverted testimony shows immediate pain while performing a work task.

BRABOY, BARRY v. US FOODS, INC. · filed 2026-03-17(12)(A)

As a threshold matter, the Court finds Mr. Braboy established a specific incident on March 2, 2023, with his uncontroverted testimony that he experienced immediate back pain moving a pallet. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(A).

An injury by accident may result from a set of work incidents identifiable by time and place, including repeated lifting that produces a hernia.

Long, Anthony v. Hamilton-Ryker · filed 2015-07-31(13)(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(13)(A) (2014). Here, the record is uncontroverted that Employee lifted and stacked hundreds of 46-inch decks that weighed 60 to 70 pounds each while at work on January 2, 2015. Further, the record is uncontroverted that Employee experienced a "funny feeling" in his groin while stacking the decks and noticed a bulge in his groin the next morning. And it is undisputed that Employee was diagnosed with a hernia a few days later. Thus, the record supports the trial court's finding that Employee suffered "an injury resulting in hernia" as required by section 50-6-212( a)( 1).

Under the pre-2014 definition of a compensable repetitive-motion injury, a medical opinion that work “most likely” caused the injury does not alone satisfy the requirement that the injury arise primarily from employment; the medical evidence must be considered with the employee’s lay testimony.

Carr v. Windham Professionals, Inc. · filed 2022-04-14(12)(C)(ii)

Specifically,the court cited Memphis Light Gas & Water v. Evans,No. W2015-01541-SC-WCM-WC,2016 WL 4414646(Tenn. Workers' Comp. Panel Aug. 19, 2016), for the proposition that a physician's opinion that an activity "most likely" caused an injury does not meet the "primarily" bar of Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-102. While that is true as a standalone rule, the Panel in Evans did not discuss lay testimony.

Section 50-6-102(14) includes cumulative trauma and repetitive motion conditions within the definition of injury when the worker proves the condition arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Merritt, Kenneth v. Flextronics, Inc. · filed 2022-09-02(14)

Although we agree with the trial court’s exclusion of Employee’s medical proof at trial, we note that Dr. Fahey’s causation opinion was, to some extent, based on a misunderstanding of Tennessee law regarding the issue of repetitive motion injuries. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (the term “injury” includes “cumulative trauma conditions” and “repetitive motion conditions” if the injured worker proves that such a condition arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of the employment).

Repetitive injuries are compensable when they are shown to arise primarily out of employment.

Merritt, Kenneth v. Flextronics, Inc. · filed 2022-04-04(14)

Dr. Fahey gave his opinion that repetitive injuries are virtually impossible to prove under the current law. That statement is incorrect; repetitive injuries, like all others, are compensable if they are shown to arise primarily out of the employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

Repetitive work activities on a single day can qualify as a set of incidents capable of causing a compensable injury.

Hagan, Kimberly v. Potomac Corp. · filed 2021-11-19(14)(A)

In this case, the Court holds that Ms. Hagan’s work activities on March 24 meet the statutory definition of a “set of incidents” that could give rise to a compensable injury.

Section 50-6-102(13) defines a compensable injury as one caused by a specific incident, or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment; a workplace slip and fall causing a head injury can satisfy that definition.

Little, Deborah v. Sweet T’s · filed 2015-01-13(13)

Under the 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 incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 102(13) (2014). ... The Court finds that Employee has alleged a prima facie case for a compensable workers' compensation injury and is likely to prevail at trial.

For injuries on or after July 1, 2014, cumulative trauma conditions such as carpal tunnel syndrome must result from 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.

Ricketts, David v. Dana Holding Corporation · filed 2015-03-23(13)(A)

For injuries occurring on or after July 1, 2014, the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law requires a showing that an injury, including "cumulative trauma conditions" such as carpal tunnel syndrome, 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 of occurrence ... " Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(A)(2014).

Section 50-6-102(13)(A) requires an injury by accident to arise from a specific work-related incident or set of incidents identifiable by time and place; equivocal evidence of how an injury occurred can fail to establish a likely compensable claim at an expedited hearing.

Stanley, Aaron v. Walmart, Inc. · filed 2015-06-26(13)(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, and shall not include the aggravation of a preexisting disease, condition or ailment 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(13)(A) (2014). ... Having carefully considered the twenty-four exhibits admitted into evidence, we cannot say that the evidence preponderates against the findings and conclusions of the trial court.

The definition of an accidental injury permits the initial onset of symptoms during a work shift to identify a sufficiently specific set of incidents when no other explanation appears.

Dyer, Jimmy v. Tankersley Concrete · filed 2015-07-14(13)(A)

The plain meaning of a “set of incidents” would appear to include an injury that, absent any other explanation, manifests itself while an employee is performing his work duties. In the absence of any authority to the contrary, the Court finds that the initial onset of symptoms during an employee’s work shift is sufficiently specific to meet the current definition of “injury.”

Section 50-6-102(13) covers an injury caused by a specific work incident or set of incidents when employment contributed more than 50% to it.

Asberry , Wendal v. Site Communications · filed 2015-06-05(13)

“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[.]” Id. (internal quotations omitted). ... The Court finds that Mr. Asberry carried his burden of establishing that he suffered an injury primarily arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment with Site.

An accidental injury must arise primarily out of employment from an incident or specific set of incidents identifiable by time and place.

Hilliard, Taquisha v. Federal Express · filed 2015-12-09(13)(A)

For injuries on or after July 1, 2014, an employee must show that she suffered an accidental injury caused by an incident, or specific set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, and identifiable by time and place of occurrence. ... Based on the evidence presented in this case, Ms. Hilliard has not come forward with sufficient evidence from which this Court can conclude she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits.

Section 50-6-102(13)(A) requires evidence of a specific incident or set of incidents identifiable by time and place to establish an accidental injury.

Buchanan, Luther v. Carlex Glass Co. · filed 2015-09-29(13)(A)

To satisfy that burden, an employee must offer evidence of a "specific incident, or set of incidents ... identifiable by time and place of occurrence." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(A).

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) requires evidence of a specific incident or set of incidents identifiable by time and place to establish an accidental injury; contradictory accounts of the alleged occurrence can fail that requirement.

Phillips, Julian V. Carolina Construction Solutions · filed 2016-01-13(14)(A)

In order to meet his burden of proof, Mr. Phillips is required to offer evidence of a "specific incident, or set of incidents ... identifiable by time and place of occurrence." Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-102(14)(A) (2015). However, in the present case, Mr. Phillips contradictory statements regarding the alleged occurrence on November 21, 2014, is insufficient to establish that he is entitled to workers' compensation benefits.

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

Erickson, Douglas v. Wilson and Associated, P.C. · filed 2016-02-19(14)(A)

In order to prevail, Mr. Erickson must establish he 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) (2015).

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) requires an accidental injury to result from a specific incident or set of incidents identifiable by time and place.

King, Michael v. Potter South East, LLC · filed 2016-03-04(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). ... Upon careful consideration of the evidence available, this Court finds that the Mr. King failed to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits on the issue of demonstrating an injury "caused by a specific incident" and "identifiable by time and place of occurrence."

Section 50-6-102(14) includes cumulative trauma conditions within the definition of injury when they arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Maples, Sallie A. v. Federal-Mogul Corporation · filed 2016-02-17(14)

The amended definition of "injury" specifically contemplates cumulative trauma conditions and provides that such conditions may be deemed compensable if they arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of the employment.

An injury must result from an incident or specific set of incidents identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

Foutch, James v. Burkeen Trucking Company · filed 2016-03-10(14)(A)

He must also 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 upon the uncontroverted testimony of Mr. Foutch and the medical records, the Court finds he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits with regard to establishing a specific work-related event, identifiable by time and place of occurrence, wherein he injured his right ankle.

An injury must arise from a specific work incident or set of incidents, and employment must have contributed more than fifty percent to its cause.

Stewart, Glenn v. Cost Plus/World Market · filed 2016-03-24(14)

To constitute a viable claim for workers’ compensation benefits the injury must be “by a specific incident, or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.” Id. “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[.]” Id. (internal quotations omitted). ... Therefore, all testimony showed the specific incidents Mr. Stewart alleged occurred at work. Neither party identified another probable cause for his shoulder and knee injuries. The Court, therefore, finds Mr. Stewart would likely succeed at a hearing on the merits in proving he suffered these injuries.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) permits an injury by accident to arise from a set of incidents over an identifiable period of time; a single sudden event with immediate symptoms is unnecessary.

Smiley, Shane v. Four Seasons Coach Leasing, Inc., et al. · filed 2016-07-15(14)(A)

Thus, to establish a compensable injury by accident, an employee need not prove a single, sudden event accompanied by the immediate onset of pain or other symptoms, but can meet his or her burden at an expedited hearing by presenting evidence from which the trial court can determine he or she is likely to prove a compensable set of incidents over an identifiable period of time.