Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102

An employee can satisfy the accidental-injury definition with evidence of a specific work incident, or set of incidents, identifiable by time and place.

Babb, Willis Ray v. House Hasson Hardware Co., Inc. · filed 2016-12-22(14)(A)

This Court finds Mr. Babb came forward with sufficient evidence from which this Court can determine that he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits on establishing a specific incident, or set of incidents, identifiable by time and place.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) requires proof of an injury caused by a specific incident or set of incidents identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

Bethune, Brandon v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2016-10-10(14)(A)

First, the Court looks to whether Mr. Bethune has proven the occurrence of a specific incident or set of incidents identifiable by time and place of occurrence. In this regard, the Court finds the date of alleged injury is too questionable to accept its very occurrence.

Repetitive work can satisfy the definition of an injury caused by a specific incident or set of incidents identifiable by time and place when the worker develops sudden pain while performing that work.

Rohrenbach, Terry v. Yates Services · filed 2016-11-01(14)(A)

Applying these principles to the facts of this case, the Court finds Mr. Rohrenbach met his burden of establishing a specific incident or set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence. He testified, without contradiction, that he performed a highly repetitive job and, while reaching out and up in the course of that job, he suffered a sudden onset of pain in his shoulder.

Section 50-6-102(14) permits a work injury to be established through a specific set of incidents identifiable by time and place, without a single acute event.

Glass, Sidney v. Ford Construction Co. · filed 2017-05-19(14)

Thus, the Court holds Mr. Glass came forward with sufficient evidence from which this Court concludes he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in establishing an injury caused by a specific set of incidents on September 4, 2015.

A gradual injury can be compensable under subsection (14) when cumulative work activity is the major contributing factor causing the injury and resulting disability or need for treatment.

Foriest, James v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2018-03-15(14)

The Court finds Mr. Foriest suffered a gradual injury during the seven years he worked for UPS after his total knee replacement. ... Dr. Shell testified this work activity was “the major contributing factor” that caused the knee replacement to fail, resulting in Mr. Foriest’s inability to work and need for additional treatment. ... The Court therefore holds that Mr. Foriest suffered a gradual, compensable injury to his knee on October 11, 2016.

A gradually occurring injury must result from a specific set of work incidents identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

JUMPER, GWENDOLYN V. ROSSVILLE CONV FDS MAN FF 0378, d/b/a/ KELLOGG COMPANY · filed 2020-08-03(14)(A)

Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(A) provides that 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.” Because Ms. Jumper alleged a gradually occurring injury and not one specific incident, she must prove her injury was caused by a specific set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence. The Court finds she did not meet her burden.

A worker can prove an injury through cumulative overuse from repeated work duties, even without earlier identifying a specific event, when employment contributed more than half its cause.

Gupton, Matthew v. Jackson-Hon Gallatin, LLC d/b/a Gallatin Honda · filed 2021-08-10(14)(A)-(B)

Under Workers’ Compensation Law, Mr. Gupton must prove he suffered an injury caused by a specific incident or set of incidents arising “primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment,” which means the employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury, considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A)-(B). ... Here, the Court finds that Mr. Gupton’s testimony about the overuse of his arms while detailing cars over several years was sufficient to carry his burden of proof. Although he did not detail a specific event until the day of the trial, the Court finds that his testimony about the waxing, cleaning, and washing cars resulted in cumulative injury that became disabling while he worked for Honda.

Section 50-6-102(12)(A) permits repetitive work trauma over an identifiable period to qualify as a compensable set of incidents without a single sudden event.

Melton, Charles v. LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, INC. · filed 2023-12-14(12)(A)

Proof of a “single, sudden event” is not necessary so long as the employee can prove a “compensable set of incidents over an identifiable period of time.” Id. Thus, the Court holds that Dr. Knight’s testimony sufficiently establishes causation under section 50-6-102.

An aggravation of a pre-existing condition is compensable when employment contributed more than 50% to causing it, shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Edwards, Jo Carol v. Peoplease · filed 2021-12-22(14)(A)-(D)

However, an aggravation of a pre-existing condition is compensable if it arises primarily out of the employment, meaning the employment contributed more than 50% in causing the aggravation. Shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty means that the employment more likely than not caused the aggravation when considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(A)-(D).

An aggravation of a preexisting condition is a work injury only if medical proof establishes to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that employment was its primary cause.

Beard, Kimberly v. Noshville Delicatessen, LLC · filed 2021-12-22(14)(A)

A work injury includes the aggravation of a preexisting condition if shown “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A).

An injury arises primarily out of employment when the work contributed more than 50% to its cause, considering all causes; an aggravation of a preexisting condition can satisfy that requirement.

Macumber, Desiree v. USXpress · filed 2014-11-07(13)(B)

Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-1 02(13)(B) 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. ... Under Tennessee law, a work-related injury which aggravates a pre-existing condition to the extent the condition is advanced in severity or results in a new, distinct condition is compensable. Trosper v. Armstrong Wood Products, Inc., 273 S. W. 3d 598 (Tenn. 2008). Accordingly, the Court finds Employee suffered an injury by accident which arose primarily in the course and scope of her employment on July 15, 2014.

An employee’s negligence can break the causal chain between a compensable work injury and a subsequent injury, relieving the employer of liability for the subsequent injury.

Anderson v. Westfield Group · filed 2008-08-12(13)

Instead, we find, as we did in Jones, that negligence is the appropriate standard for determining whether an independent intervening cause reheves an employer of liability for a subsequent injury purportedly flowing from a prior work-related injury.

An aggravation of a pre-existing condition that causes only increased pain, without advancing the condition, is not a compensable injury.

Foreman v. Automatic Systems, Inc. · filed 2008-12-31(12)

This Court has made clear that an aggravation of a pre-existing condition that results only in increased pain, without an actual advancement in the severity of the condition, is not a compensable injury.

An injury must arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment; an incident at work may satisfy that requirement even if it aggravates a pre-existing condition.

Campbell, Laura v. Mid-South Waffles, Inc. dba Waffle House · filed 2015-05-11(13)

The employee must show the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13) (2014). ... Although, Ms. Mackens provided an affidavit stating that Ms. Campbell complained of knee pain on August 2, 2014, Ms. Campbell denied making those statements and, even if she did complain of knee pain, her complaints of pain would not render her claim noncompensable, as the August 2, 2014 incident could have aggravated a pre-existing condition. In any event, the Court finds that Ms. Campbell has shown a likelihood of success on the merits at a compensation hearing and has, therefore, carried her burden of proof in these proceedings.

An employee with a preexisting condition must prove by medical expert opinion that employment contributed more than fifty percent to the injury, considering all causes.

Payne, Tracy v. D and D Electric · filed 2015-03-10(13)(B)

Because Mr. Payne had left-foot conditions that pre-dated the alleged August 1, 2014, date of injury, he must prove by medical expert opinion that his work injury "contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury considering all causes" (emphasis added) in order to recover.

Section 50-6-102(13) requires proof to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a workplace incident caused a new injury or aggravated a preexisting injury arising out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Bradshaw, Willis v. Jewell Mechanical · filed 2015-05-06(13)

Further, Dr. Garside does not provide an opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the August 11, 2014 work incident caused a "new" injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of the employment, or, in the alternative, that the August 11, 2014 work incident caused an aggravation arising out of and in the course and scope of employment.

An employee claiming a new injury or aggravation must provide expert medical evidence that the work incident caused the condition or advanced its severity.

Bradshaw, Willis L. v. Jewell Mechanical, LLC · filed 2015-06-04(13)

It is Employee's burden to prove through appropriate expert medical opinions that these conditions were caused by the alleged work injury or that the alleged work injury advanced the severity of these conditions. To date, Employee has not met this burden.

Section 50-6-102(13)(A) requires proof that aggravation of a preexisting condition arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Mace, Mario v. Express Services · filed 2015-06-19(13)(A)

In addition to the requirements set forth in Trosper, the statute now requires proof that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

A later injury that is the direct and natural consequence of a compensable work injury is compensable as an injury arising out of employment.

MacDonald, Michael v. Greene County Sheriff's Department · filed 2015-08-03(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). ... The Court finds that, by virtue of Dr. Christensen's opinion, Mr. MacDonald has satisfied his obligation of establishing that his right-ankle injury of February 26, 2015, is a direct and natural consequence of the underlying October 3, 2014 work-related injury.

An aggravation or exacerbation of a pre-existing condition need not be permanent to qualify the worker for medical treatment reasonably necessitated by it.

Miller, John v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. · filed 2015-10-21(13)(A)

Finally, an aggravation or exacerbation need not be permanent for an injured worker to quality for medical treatment reasonably necessitated by the aggravation.

Aggravation of a pre-existing disease or condition is compensable if it arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Smith, Kathy v. Mountain Empire Oil · filed 2015-11-12(13)(A)

Aggravation of a pre- existing disease or condition is compensable, if the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-102(13)(A).

Section 50-6-102(14)(B)-(C) requires proof to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the work accident contributed more than fifty percent to an aggravation of a preexisting condition, considering all causes.

Collier, Jim v. Walden Security · filed 2016-02-05(14)(B)-(C)

Based upon the foregoing, it appears unlikely that Mr. Collier "would likely establish, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the work accident [on April 13, 2015] contributed more than fifty percent in causing the aggravation, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(B)-(C) (2015).

An aggravation of a pre-existing condition may be compensable if medical proof shows it arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Murphy, Ned Eugene v. ADM Trucking, Inc. · filed 2016-05-17(14)(A)

Dr. Darden's opinion that degenerative disc disease is rarely, if ever, work-related, because it is a pre-existing condition is based upon a faulty premise. If an injured worker offers evidence medical proof within a reasonable of medical certainty "that the aggravation [of a pre-existing condition] arose primarily out of and in the course and cope of employment," the injury may be compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A) (2015).

An aggravation of a pre-existing condition is compensable only when medical evidence shows it arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Ottanio, Donna v. Quality of Life Home Care, LLC · filed 2016-06-10(14)(A)

Likewise, an aggravation of a pre-existing condition is compensable only if "it can be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A) (2015). ... She has not demonstrated she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits to establish she sustained either an acute injury or an aggravation of her pre-existing right-knee condition due to the December 11, 2014 incident.

An aggravation of a pre-existing condition is compensable under § 50-6-102(14)(A) only if it is shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Johnson, Joshua v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. · filed 2016-08-01(14)(A)

Likewise, an aggravation of a pre-existing condition is compensable only if "it can be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A) (2015). ... Upon consideration of the evidence presented, this Court finds Mr. Johnson has not demonstrated he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits to establish he sustained an aggravation of his pre-existing PTSD condition due to the January 14, 2015 incident.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) treats an aggravation of a preexisting condition as a compensable injury when it arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Lopez, Alexandra v. Team Health · filed 2016-05-18(14)(A)

An aggravation of a preexisting condition is a compensable injury when "it can be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A) (2015).

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) allows a gradually occurring aggravation of a preexisting condition to qualify as a compensable injury when employment primarily caused the aggravation.

Gilbert, Thomas v. United Parsel Service, Inc. · filed 2016-07-15(14)(A)

Generally, to be compensable, an injury must arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment and must cause death, disablement, or the need for medical treatment of the employee. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50- 6-102(14) (2015). The Workers' Compensation Law and case law provide for the compensability of gradually-occurring aggravations of preexisting conditions.

A work incident can constitute a compensable aggravation of a pre-existing condition when it primarily causes the worsening and need for treatment, even without a measurable anatomical change.

White, Ransy v. Boles Trucking · filed 2016-09-26(14)(A)

Therefore, despite the fact that Mr. White suffered from pre-existing spondylolisthesis with no indication of an anatomical change on a subsequent MRI, Dr. Shibayama opined the incident on February 11 increased the instability of Mr. White's spine. ... Therefore, after balancing all of the evidence, the Court holds Mr. White has established he is likely to prevail at trial as to the issue of whether he sustained a fall at work that was the primary cause of the aggravation of his spondylolisthesis.

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

Goodson, Theresa v. Dollar General Corp. · filed 2016-10-19(14)(A)

Ms. Goodson offered no medical proof indicating that the need for medical treatment arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. Thus, the Court holds Ms. Goodson has not demonstrated she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits establishing either an acute injury or an aggravation of her pre-existing back condition due to her fall on August 25, 2015. Although Ms. Goodson has not met the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(A) (2015) to qualify for medical benefits, Dollar General is liable for any outstanding medical bills associated with authorized medical treatment prior to its denial of Ms. Goodson's claim.

An employee alleging aggravation of a pre-existing condition must prove that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

White, Randy v. Boles Trucking · filed 2016-11-14(14)(A)

When an employee alleges an aggravation of a pre-existing condition, the employee has the burden of proving that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) asks whether the event aggravating a preexisting condition arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, rather than whether the underlying condition did.

Stallion, Samuel v. Trugreen, L.P. · filed 2016-12-13(14)(A)

The above-quoted terms of Section 50-6-102(14)(A) direct the Court's causation inquiry in aggravation of preexisting condition claims to whether the aggravating event, and not the underlying preexisting physical condition that was aggravated, arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) makes the work-relatedness of the aggravation itself, rather than the underlying preexisting condition, the focus when determining whether an aggravation is a covered injury.

Gamble, Ceasar v. Miller Indyustries · filed 2016-12-20(14)(A)

In deciding the above issue, the Court notes that Section 50-6-102(14)(A) focuses on the work-relatedness of the aggravation itself, and not the underlying condition, in defining what constitutes a covered injury in the context of an aggravation of a preexisting condition.

An aggravation of a preexisting condition can qualify as an accidental injury when it arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Woodruff, ZETA V> Walmart Associatesm Inc. · filed 2017-01-23(14)(A)

According to the definition of “injury” under the Workers’ Compensation Law, an “accidental” injury generally does not include the aggravation of a pre-existing condition “unless it can be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A). ... Applying these principles, the Court holds Ms. Woodruff came forward with sufficient evidence from which this Court can conclude she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits regarding whether she suffered an aggravation of her preexisting condition.

Section 50-6-102(14)(B)-(C) treats an aggravation of a preexisting condition as compensable when medical proof shows that the work accident contributed more than 50% to the aggravation and was its cause more likely than not considering all causes.

Adams, Byron v. Savage Construction Co. · filed 2017-02-17(14)(B)-(C)

Mr. Adams can satisfy the burden of proving a compensable aggravation if: 1) there is expert medical proof that the work accident “contributed more than fifty percent (50%)” in causing the aggravation, and 2) the work accident was the cause of the aggravation “more likely than not considering all causes.” Jd. at *15, citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 102(14)(B)-(C) (2016).

An aggravation of a preexisting condition qualifies as an injury only if it arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Jackson, Eldon B. v. Express Services, Inc · filed 2017-03-31(14)

An “accident” is the equivalent of “injury,” and does not include aggravation of a preexisting condition unless, “the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

An aggravation of a pre-existing condition is compensable under section 50-6-102(14) when, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, it arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Davis, Betty J. v. Life Line Screening of America, Ltd. · filed 2017-02-07(14)

Likewise, an aggravation of a pre-existing condition is compensable only if "it can be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment." ... In conclusion, the Court holds Ms. Davis is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in proving that she sustained an aggravation of her pre-existing right-knee condition that arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment with Life Line.

An aggravation of a pre-existing condition is compensable when it arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Lane, Thomas v. Utilites · filed 2017-03-27(14)(A)

Subsection (A) to section 50-6-102(14) specifically addresses the compensability of injuries that aggravate pre-existing conditions, providing that such injuries are not compensable “unless it can be shown that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.” ... Taking the above factors into account, the Court holds the evidence introduced at the Expedited Hearing established Mr. Lane is likely to prevail at trial in establishing his need for lumbar spinal treatment since the occurrence of the 2015 work injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment at Cleveland Utilities.

An aggravation of a pre-existing condition is compensable only if it arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Scoot, Karol v. The Lord's Table, Inc. · filed 2017-03-27(14)(A)

An aggravation of a pre-existing condition is only compensable to the extent that the aggravation "arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment."

An aggravation of a pre-existing condition can be a compensable injury when the work accident primarily causes the aggravation, even if it did not primarily cause the underlying condition.

Vercek, Eugene v. Yellow Road Corp. · filed 2017-04-27(14)(A)

In sum, the Court concludes that Mr. Vercek sufficiently demonstrated he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that he suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing condition arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment and resulting in the need for medical treatment.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) treats aggravation of a preexisting condition as an injury when medical evidence shows the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, even if the underlying condition did not.

Vercek, Eugene v. YRC, Inc. · filed 2017-06-06(14)(A)

Thus, the medical proof established an “aggravation of a preexisting disease, condition, or ailment” that constitutes an “injury” as defined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(A).

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) defines a compensable aggravation as one that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Caldwell, Patty v. Campbell St, Church of Christ · filed 2017-12-01(14)(A)

Namely, a compensable aggravation is one that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

An aggravation of a pre-existing condition qualifies as a compensable injury only when medical evidence establishes to a reasonable degree of certainty that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Mongar, Darrell v. Campbell County Government · filed 2017-12-19(14)(A)

To be compensable, an injury must arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of the employment that causes the need for medical treatment. An injury shall not include the aggravation of a pre-existing condition 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. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A).

An aggravation of a pre-existing condition is compensable when medical proof shows it arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment; the work incident must contribute more than 50% to the need for treatment, considering all causes.

Owens, Sheila vs. Sitters, Etc. · filed 2018-03-12(14)

To grant her request, Ms. Owens must show, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the work incident "contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). Likewise, an aggravation of a pre-existing condition is compensable only if "it can be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment." !d.

An aggravation of a preexisting condition arises out of employment when it more likely than not contributes over fifty percent to the need for medical treatment or disablement.

Smith, Kenneth vs. Archer Daniels Midland Co. · filed 2018-03-23(14)(C)-(D)

“Shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” means that the aggravation “is more likely than not” the cause of the injury. Jd. at (14)(D). Thus, when Dr. Brophy said to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the July 2016 incident injury was “more likely than not” the cause of the aggravation, Mr. Smith established a greater than fifty percent contribution to his disablement and need for medical treatment.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires an employee claiming aggravation of a preexisting condition to show that the aggravation arose primarily from employment and that employment contributed more than fifty percent to the need for treatment, considering all causes.

James, Connie v. HP Cambridge House · filed 2018-05-14(14)

Considering her pre-existing arthritis, she must show that the aggravation to her arthritic knee arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. Further, she must prove to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the need for medical treatment, considering all causes. See generally Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

An employee claiming a compensable aggravation of a pre-existing condition must prove that work contributed more than fifty percent to the aggravation, considering all causes; proof that the condition worsened after the work incident or was related to it is insufficient.

Owens, Sheila v. Sitters, Etc. · filed 2018-05-29(14)(A)-(D)

While it is not necessary for a physician to use particular words or phrases to address causation, see Panzarella v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2015-01-0383, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 30, at *14 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp App. Bd. May 15, 2017), proof that an injured worker’s condition following a work incident is worse than it was on a given date prior to the alleged work accident, or that the injured workers’ condition is “related to” a work accident, does not meet the requirements of section 50-6-102(14)(A)-(D).

An aggravation of a pre-existing condition is compensable when medical proof establishes that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Person, Michael v. Guardian Industries Corp. · filed 2018-10-10(14)(A)

An aggravation of a pre-existing condition is a compensable injury when “it can be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A).

Section 50-6-102(14) requires proof that employment contributed more than 50% to an aggravation or the need for treatment; evidence that a condition was merely related to work does not establish that contribution.

Joiner, Roger v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2018-09-14(14)

Proof that a condition is “related to” an event, “stems from” an event, or is “secondary to” an event, while being material and relevant evidence, does not offer a measure of the “contribution” that the employment provided to the injury or to the need for medical treatment, and it does not indicate whether such contribution was “more than fifty percent (50%).”

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) requires proof to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that an aggravation of a preexisting condition arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Gautreaux, Kelly v. Hermitage Hall · filed 2018-12-10(14)(A)

However, an aggravation of a preexisting condition is not actionable “unless it can be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A) (2018). ... For these reasons, the Court holds Ms. Gautreaux is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in proving causation and entitlement to additional medical treatment.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) treats an aggravation of a preexisting condition as compensable when work is the primary cause of the resulting need for medical treatment.

Hamer, Renita v. United Technologies Corp. · filed 2018-12-27(14)(A)

Because Dr. Thompson’s aggravation opinion is unrebutted, the Court holds that Ms. Hamer is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that her work at UTC was the primary cause of her need for treatment. Thus, under section 50-6-102(14)(A), she is likely to prove a compensable aggravation of her preexisting condition.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C)-(D) requires expert medical evidence that work contributed more than fifty percent to the need for treatment of a preexisting condition, considering other potential causes.

Keith v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. · filed 2019-04-01(14)(C)-(D)

To establish this connection, Mr. Quarles must present expert medical evidence that the work incident “contributed more than fifty percent” in causing his need for medical treatment of the preexisting condition, meaning the work accident was more likely than not the cause, when considering all other potential causes.

For an alleged aggravation of a pre-existing condition, the injury inquiry asks whether the work incident caused the aggravation and whether the aggravation arose primarily out of employment.

Blevins, Charity v. Southern Champion Tray, LP · filed 2019-07-11(14)(A)

However, the relevant questions are whether the incident at work caused an aggravation of Employee’s pre-existing condition and whether that aggravation arose primarily out of her employment. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A).

Section 50-6-102(14) treats an aggravation of a pre-existing condition as compensable when the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Hudgins, Natacha v. Global Personnel Solutions, Inc. · filed 2019-12-19(14)

Injuries that aggravate pre-existing conditions are compensable if the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

Section 50-6-102(14) treats an aggravation of a pre-existing condition as compensable when it arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Jones, Jeffrey v. Columbus McKinnon Corp. · filed 2020-01-31(14)

Injuries that aggravate pre- existing conditions are compensable if the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

An aggravation of a preexisting condition qualifies as an injury if it arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Nigmatyanov, Rashelle v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. · filed 2019-08-09(14)

An injury includes an aggravation of a preexisting condition if the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

A medically supported work-related aggravation of a pre-existing condition can qualify as an injury for which treatment is owed.

Thomas, Kenneth v. Thompson Industrial Services · filed 2020-05-26(14)(A)

Further, an aggravation of a pre-existing condition shall not be considered an injury unless “it can be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A). ... Based on Dr. Saenz’s testimony, the Court holds that Mr. Thomas would likely prevail at a hearing on the merits regarding entitlement to the distal clavicle revision.

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) excludes recovery for an aggravation of a preexisting condition unless medical proof establishes with reasonable certainty that the aggravation arose primarily from employment.

Jenkins-Queen III, Charles v. Medical Necessities & Services, LLC · filed 2020-08-27(14)(A)

The Workers’ Compensation Law excludes recovery for an aggravation of a preexisting condition “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.” Jd. at § 50-6-102(14)(A). Although Dr. Mackey used the word “aggravated” in his deposition, he failed to identify how the work accident aggravated, worsened, or changed Mr. Jenkins-Queen’s preexisting condition.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) requires an employee seeking medical treatment for an aggravated preexisting condition to show that the work injury contributed more than fifty percent to the need for treatment, considering all causes.

Grimes, Kimberly v. YRC, Inc. · filed 2021-02-16(14)(C)

In addition, when the dispute centers on a request for medical treatment, the burden at an expedited hearing is on the employee to show he or she is likely to prevail at trial in proving that the work injury “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C).

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) covers an aggravation of a pre-existing condition arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Carr, Mandy v. Vacasa Tennessee LLC · filed 2021-03-08(14)(A)

Based on the uncontroverted proof, the Court finds Ms. Carr sustained an aggravation of her pre-existing back condition arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment on July 4. 2017.

A work injury that merely reveals a preexisting condition or triggers symptoms does not satisfy the requirement that it contribute more than fifty percent to an aggravation.

Leimer, Fred H. v. Global AG Solutions ISC/Hutson, Inc. · filed 2021-03-10(14)

That the work injury initiated the condition’s discovery or instigated symptoms is not equivalent to contributing more than fifty percent in causing an aggravation.

An aggravation of a pre-existing condition is a compensable injury when employment contributes more than fifty percent to the aggravation or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.

Bragg, Robert v. Premium Services, LLC · filed 2023-03-14(12)(B)

As a threshold, Mr. Bragg must show the aggravation of his pre-existing condition arose primarily out of his employment at Premium, meaning the work contributed more than fifty percent in causing the aggravation or his need for medical treatment when considering all causes.

Section 50-6-102(12)(A) permits proof of a compensable aggravation through medical opinions supported by the record as a whole even when the opinions do not recite the statute’s exact language.

Carden, Sean v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. · filed 2023-04-20(12)(A)

Even though Dr. Austin’s opinions do not quote the exact language in section 50-6-102(12)(A), the Court finds that her opinions and the evidence in the record as a whole support her opinion over that of Dr. Duncan.

A work-related injury that aggravates a preexisting condition may be compensable if it primarily causes disability or a need for treatment.

Eady, Karen v. Mars, Inc. · filed 2023-10-10(12)(A)

The fact that Ms. Eady’s neck condition preexisted her work injury does not, standing alone, prevent her from receiving benefits. An employee can receive benefits if a work- related injury aggravates a preexisting condition to primarily cause a disability or need for treatment. Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-102(12)(A).

Section 50-6-102(12) makes aggravation of a preexisting condition compensable when the work injury contributes more than 50% to the resulting disablement or need for surgery, shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Holloway, Christopher v. Natchez Trace Youth Academy · filed 2024-01-29(12)

Section 50-6-102(12) says that an aggravation is compensable if it can be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the injury contributed more than 50% in causing “disablement or the need for surgery.” ... Here, the Court also finds Mr. Holloway’s fall did not primarily cause either the arthritic condition or his current disablement. Thus, the fall did not cause a compensable aggravation.

Section 50-6-102(12)(A) excludes aggravation of a preexisting condition from an accidental injury unless medical evidence establishes that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Heard v. WestRock Company · filed 2022-12-06(12)(A)

Construing the first amended complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs and taking all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, the Court finds that the decedent’s death is not covered by the workers’ compensation law because the law does not include an injury that is the aggravation of a preexisting disease, condition, or ailment.

An employee may receive treatment for a work-related aggravation of a preexisting condition, but must show that the work injury primarily caused the need for treatment sought.

Wade, Courtney v. United Paecel Service, Inc. · filed 2024-04-02(12)(C)

The injury or aggravation must be shown “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that it contributed more than fifty percent” in causing his disablement and need for treatment. Id. at -102(12)(C). ... Here, the Court finds Mr. Wade is not likely to prove that the work accident primarily caused the left hip arthritic condition; thus, his request for hip replacement surgery is denied. However, UPS shall pay for the reasonable and necessary treatment of the exacerbation of his arthritic symptoms.

An aggravation of a preexisting condition is compensable under § 50-6-102(12)(A) only when reliable medical proof establishes that it arose primarily from the employment; a causation opinion based on an inaccurate account of job duties does not suffice.

WHITE, SHALANDA v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. · filed 2025-04-10(12)(A)

A compensable injury does not include the aggravation of a preexisting condition “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(12)(A) (2025). ... The Court finds, based on the testimony of Ms. White and Mr. Kirby, that Ms. White did not provide an accurate history to Dr. Childress. Dr. Childress therefore did not give a valid causation opinion, because he stated his opinion was based on “her description of what she did at work.”

An aggravation of a preexisting mental condition can qualify as a compensable injury when the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Sudzhyan, Anait v. YMCA of Middle Tennessee · filed 2025-09-17(12)(A)

Thus, we agree with the trial court that there is sufficient evidence in this record to support a finding that Employee is likely to prevail at trial in proving she suffered a compensable aggravation of her preexisting mental condition that arose primarily out of the work-related incidents.

Section 50-6-102(12) allows compensation for an aggravation of a preexisting condition without permanent worsening when work caused more than half of the aggravation and the aggravation caused more than half of the death, disability, or need for treatment.

Edwards v. Peoplease, LLC · filed 2025-12-22(12)(A)

Simply put, as used in the 2013 Reform Act, aggravation means an intensification or worsening of a preexisting disease, condition or ailment, permanent or not, that contributes more than fifty percent in causing death, disability or the need for medical treatment.

Section 50-6-102(12)(B) permits compensation for an injury that naturally follows a compensable injury when a preponderance of the evidence shows employment contributed more than fifty percent to the subsequent injury, considering all causes.

Hudgins v. Global Personnel Solutions, Inc. · filed 2024-03-05(12)(B)

This requires a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing an injury subsequent to a compensable injury for it to also be compensable.

A recurrent tear may satisfy the work-related injury causation requirement when the authorized treating physician relates it primarily to the work accident to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Parcher, Bobbi v. Modern Business Associates, Inc. · filed 2026-03-13(12)

We conclude that Employee has come forward with sufficient proof that the additional surgical treatment recommended by Dr. Bowman was “made reasonably necessary” by the work-related accident. In a response to the April 15, 2025 questionnaire, Dr. Bowman stated, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Employee’s recurrent tear arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her fall at work on August 2021 and that the surgery was medically necessary.

A medical causation opinion must rise above speculation or possibility to establish a work-related injury to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Byrd, Michael Harlan v. General Motors · filed 2022-02-07(14)(D)

This measure of proof is insufficient to meet the statutory requirement to provide expert medical testimony that rises above speculation or possibility. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(D).

Section 50-6-102(a)(4) requires a claimed injury to arise out of and in the course of employment; medical problems without that connection do not qualify.

La-Z-Boy Chair Co. v. Reed · filed 1990-06-27(a)(4)

Mr. Reed does have some medical problems. However, they did not arise out of and in the course of his employment at La-Z-Boy as specified by Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 50-6-102(a)(4) and 50-6-301.

Section 50-6-102(13) permits medical proof of work causation to be considered with the employee’s lay testimony; its definition of injury does not displace that principle.

McIntosh, Sarah v. Randstad · filed 2015-07-13(13)

Instead, the medical proof "must be considered in conjunction with the lay testimony of the employee as to how the injury occurred and the employee's subsequent condition." !d. The Court finds nothing in either the current definition of injury or in the fact that the "medical testimony" is found in a stipulated document rather than a formal deposition to supplant this basic principle.

Section 50-6-102(13) requires work to be the primary cause of a compensable injury, but credible lay testimony remains relevant to whether the injury is compensable.

Scott, Susan v. Integrity Staffing Solutions · filed 2015-07-20(13)

The 2013 reforms to the Workers' Compensation Law added the word "primarily" to the definition of a work-related injury and specified the standard under which medical experts are to render causation opinions. However, the legislature did not enact language that diminished the role of credible lay testimony in the determination of whether a claimed injury is compensable.

Section 50-6-102(13) does not require expert medical proof that an injury arose primarily out of employment before an employee may receive an employer-provided physician panel at an expedited hearing.

Smith, Michael v. Sun Products Corporation · filed 2015-08-24(13)

The notice provisions of the statute do not require an employee to present medical proof of an injury before an employer is required to provide medical benefits. Rather, the statute contemplates that an employer will provide medical care upon receipt of notice of the injury, and then, during the course of treatment and examination, the panel doctor will render an opinion on causation. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13) (2014). Otherwise, an employee would be forced to seek medical care on his own to begin a claim, which the statute does not contemplate. Further, it is not required that Mr. Smith prove causation simply to report an injury.

Section 50-6-102(13)(C)-(D) requires medical causation to be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty; without an expert opinion connecting a nonobvious injury to work, the employee is unlikely to establish causation.

Muffat, Cheryl L. v. The Blue Chair, Inc. · filed 2015-10-07(13)(C)-(D)

In that the medical records introduced at the Expedited Hearing do not contain an expert medical opinion that Ms. Muffat's broken right foot is work-related, the Court finds that, at a hearing on the merits, Ms. Muffat is unlikely to prevail in establishing the work-relatedness of her alleged injury.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires expert medical opinion establishing that an alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment to show likely success at an expedited hearing.

Craddock, Deatrice v. Dialysis Clinic, Inc. · filed 2016-02-03(14)

That burden specifically requires that the employee establish causation by expert medical opinion. ... In view of Ms. Craddock's failure to come forward with medical expert opinion establishing that she sustained an injury arising out of and in the course and scope of employment, the Court finds she is not likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in establishing her claim for temporary disability and medical benefits.

A work injury is shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty when the treating physician concludes it is more likely than not related to work, considering all causes.

Miller, Linda v. We Care Services/Comfort Keepers · filed 2016-02-25(14)(D)

"Shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty" means that, in the opinion of the treating physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes as opposed to speculation or possibility. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(D) (2015). Upon careful review of the records, the Court finds no opinion from a treating physician that Ms. Miller's alleged injuries are more likely than not related to her work at Comfort Keepers.

Medical causation requires a reasonable degree of medical certainty, which an opinion that only describes a work-related tear as likely or probable and cannot separate work-related damage from other damage does not establish.

Patterson, Fran v. Wellmount Health System · filed 2016-03-07(13)(D)

However, his opinion failed to satisfy the definition of reasonable degree of medical certainty in that he found Ms. Patterson only likely completed the tear of her biceps and probably suffered rotator cuff tear during the event at work. He then stated it was impossible to tell what tissue Ms. Patterson damaged during the first and second events, and could only attribute fifty percent of the damage to her arm and rotator cuff from the work-related incident.

For a non-obvious injury, medical causation requires expert proof that an identified work incident contributed more than fifty percent to the claimed injury.

Glass, Sidney v. Ford Construction Co. · filed 2016-03-11(14)(C)

The absence of an expert medical opinion that the specific incident contributed more than fifty percent in causing his back injury is fatal to his claim.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives the authorized treating physician's medical opinion a presumption of correctness when evaluating medical causation.

Syph, Deborah v. Choice Food Group, Inc. · filed 2016-04-21(14)(E)

This expert medical opinion, which is entitled to a presumption of correctness in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(E), negated an essential element of Employee's claim for workers' compensation benefits, i.e., medical causation.

A physician’s opinion that causation is greater than 50% likely satisfies the reasonable medical certainty requirement because it expresses that causation is more likely than not.

Welch, Mark v. Frito-Lay, Inc. · filed 2016-03-14(14)(D)

The statute requires physicians to give their opinion based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty. “‘Shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty’ means that, in the opinion of the treating physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes as opposed to speculation or possibility.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(D) (2015). Dr. Ledbetter’s “greater than 50% likelihood” meets this requirement, as it is simply another way of expressing “more likely than not.”

Section 50-6-102(14) requires an employee at a final merits hearing to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that employment contributed more than 50% to the injury, with causation established to a reasonable degree of medical certainty by a physician.

Frye, Annette v. Vincent Printing Co. · filed 2016-08-02(14)(B)-(D)

Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14) makes clear the employee has the burden of proving 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). In addition, such proof must be "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." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C)-(D) (emphasis added). Thus, to the extent the trial judge suggested that Employee need not establish at a final hearing on the merits that her injury is causally related to her employment by expert medical opinion, such a finding was error.

Section 50-6-102(14)(D) requires a medical causation opinion to be rendered to a reasonable degree of medical certainty; an opinion lacking that certainty receives no weight.

Riley, Patrick v. Group Electric · filed 2016-05-09(14)(D)

Moreover, as Group Electric observed, the opinion expressed is not rendered to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(D) (2015). Therefore, the Court places no weight upon it.

Section 50-6-102(13) requires a physician’s opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the condition arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment to establish a compensable injury.

Ephran, Linda v. Trane Commercial Systems · filed 2016-05-20(13)

However, in order to establish she sustained a compensable injury, Ms. Ephran must establish to a "reasonable degree of medical certainty" that in the "opinion of the physician" her condition arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13) (2015).

Section 50-6-102(13) requires a physician's opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that a compensable condition arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Carlton, Christina v. Wood Personnel Services · filed 2016-06-24(13)

However, in order to establish she sustained a compensable injury, Ms. Carlton must establish to a "reasonable degree of medical certainty" that in the "opinion of the physician" her condition arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13) (2015).

Section 50-6-102(13) requires a physician’s opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that an injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment to establish compensability.

Briceno, Tonja v. REsource, MFG · filed 2016-09-16(13)

However, in order to establish she sustained a compensable injury, Ms. Briceno must establish to a "reasonable degree of medical certainty" that in the "opinion of the physician" her condition arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment.

Section 50-6-102(14)(D) requires a physician’s opinion to establish or disprove whether an injury was caused by employment; a nurse practitioner’s causation opinion does not suffice.

Lamm, Terry v. E. Miller Construction, Inc. · filed 2016-09-16(14)(D)

The Court did not factor NP Quilliams’ causation opinion into its decision because Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(D) (2015) requires a physician’s opinion to establish or disprove causation.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) requires expert medical opinion that an injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Hilliard, Chanel v. Amazon.com, Inc. · filed 2016-10-10(14)(C)

The italicized language indicates the statutory requirement that an employee establish not only a factual basis indicating his or her injury happened on the job, but also come forward with expert medical opinion that the claimed injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) requires medical evidence that the work incident contributed more than fifty percent to the injury; a medical record that recounts the employee’s account without a causation opinion does not satisfy that standard.

Lee, Karen v. JRK Property Holdings d/b/a Holiday Inn Express · filed 2016-10-20(14)(C)

Here, the Court holds Ms. Lee failed to produce sufficient medical evidence to find she is likely to prove at trial that the alleged work incident of March 6 contributed more than fifty percent to the prosthesis fracture in her right hip. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50- 6-102(14)(C) (2015). While the medical records do recount Ms. Lee's history, and at least imply the injury is consistent with such an event, they do not contain an opinion regarding causation consistent with the standard required by statute.

A causation opinion under § 50-6-102(14) must come from a physician; a physician assistant’s opinion does not establish the required medical certainty.

Patton, Ashley v. General Motors · filed 2016-12-06(14)(D)

Thus, causation must be established by expert medical testimony, and it must be more than "speculation or possibility" on the part of the doctor. ... Similarly, the Court finds in this matter that P.A. Stansbury's opinion regarding causation is insufficient evidence to establish Ms. Patton is likely to prevail at trial in establishing a causal relationaship between her conditions and her employment with GM.

For a claimed injury that is not obvious, an employee must provide medical proof to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that employment contributed more than fifty percent to the injury.

Walton, Sr, Lee v, Averitt Express · filed 2017-03-06(14)(A)-(D)

He must also produce medical testimony, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that his employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing his injury. To establish a reasonable degree of medical certainty, a physician must provide an opinion that the injury is more likely than not related to the employment when considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or possibility. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A)-(D) (2016). ... However, the Court finds the medical evidence fails to show that the incident contributed fifty percent or more to Mr. Walton’s injuries to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) does not require a medical expert to use the exact phrase “considering all causes” when the evidence does not show that the expert failed to consider other causes.

Parsley, Ricky v. Hutton Construction, Inc. · filed 2017-04-10(14)(C)

Hutton also argued that Dr. Landsberg’s opinion was defective in that he failed to “consider all causes” as required by section 50-6-102(14)(C). This argument is unpersuasive. While it is true that Dr. Landsberg did not use the exact statutory phrase, there is no proof he failed to consider other causes, nor did Hutton offer proof of any other causes.

The compensable injury definition preserves the obvious injury rule when the evidence implicates no cause other than the work accident, so expert medical opinion is unnecessary to establish work causation in that setting.

Kleeburg, Monica v. Profit Line Services, Russell Floersheim/United Resource Group, Environmental Solutions Systems, Emb · filed 2017-05-22(13)(C)

The Court holds the “obvious injury” rule remains viable under the new law, at least in the context where, as here, the evidence fails to establish potential causes other than the work accident to account for the employee’s injury. The Court infers that the phrase “considering all causes” in the definition of a compensable injury indicates the general assembly’s intention to preserve the “obvious injury” rule as stated above in Willis when the evidence does not implicate any other causes except the claimed work injury.

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

Beecher, Carolyn v. McKesson Corporation · filed 2017-06-01(14)

To establish a work-related injury, Ms. Beecher must show to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that her pelvic organ prolapse arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. This requires a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that her employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury, 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(14).

An employee must prove through medical expert opinion that an alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

House, Ameenah v. Amazon.com, Inc. · filed 2017-06-09(14)

Finally, Ms. House must establish the work- relatedness of her claim by "a reasonable degree of medical certainty." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C), (D) (2016). ... Thus, the Court holds that Ms. House did not satisfy her burden of proving the work-relatedness of her back condition by a preponderance of the expert medical opinion.

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

Magadan, Victor v. JS Gardening, LLC · filed 2017-08-21(14)

An injury causes 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 in causing the need for medical treatment, considering all causes. ... Under this standard, both physicians found no current causative link.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires an injury to result from an identifiable work incident or set of incidents, with employment contributing more than half of its cause.

Slezak, Michael v. Amazon · filed 2017-09-13(14)

To establish causation, Mr. Slezak must show he suffered an injury “caused by a specific incident, or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment . . . [that] is identifiable by time and place of occurrence.” An injury “arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment” only if the “employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2017).

An occupational illness is a compensable injury only when it arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Skinner, John Matthew v. Marion Environmental, Inc. · filed 2017-10-16(14)

To be compensable, an injury must arise primarily out of and occur in the course and scope of the employment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). ... Upon careful review of the written materials, the Court concludes Mr. Skinner did not come forward with sufficient evidence that he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that his alleged occupational illness arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment with Marion at this time.

A work-related injury causes a need for medical treatment only when medical proof shows, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that it contributed more than fifty percent to that need.

Cole, Keith v. Smokey Mountain Harley Davidson · filed 2017-06-29(14)(C)

Furthermore, a work-related injury "causes ... 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 ... need for medical treatment." Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-102(14)(C) (2016). '"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(14)(D) (2016). ... Based on the statements of Mr. Elliott and Mr. Liles, coupled with the lack of right knee complaints in the post-September 2016 TOC records and the lack of any medical opinion causally relating Mr. Cole's right knee complaints to either a September 7, 2016 work injury or to his prior April 4, 2016 work injury, the Court holds that Mr. Cole failed to establish that he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that his alleged right knee injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment.

A physician shows causation to a reasonable degree of medical certainty when the work injury is more likely than not a cause considering all causes; an unrefuted medical opinion can establish that causal connection at an expedited hearing.

Sexton, Caitlyn v. Bad Daddy's Burger Bar · filed 2017-09-05(14)(D)

“‘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(14)(D). ... The only medical opinion before the Court is Dr. Patterson’s opinion establishing Ms. Sexton’s PTSD diagnosis and causal connection to the work injury. Bad Daddy’s did not offer any medical opinion to refute Dr. Patterson’s opinion. Therefore, Ms. Sexton is likely to succeed at a trial on the merits that she sustained PTSD as a result of the assault.

An employee must prove that the disabling condition arose primarily out of the work accident.

Baumgardner , William v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2017-10-18(14)(A)

This includes the burden of proving that the disabling condition alleged by the employee arose primarily out of the work accident.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) requires a causation opinion to come from a physician.

Burnette, Sr., DeWayne v. Westrock Company · filed 2017-07-26(14)(E)

In support of the above assessment, the Court notes that the statutory requirement for one giving a causation opinion is that the giver of the opinion be a "physician," a credential possessed by both Drs. Watlington and Bannor, as well as by Dr. Helderman.

Section 50-6-102(14)(D) requires a medical causation opinion to consider all causes, including a potentially relevant incident outside work.

Meier, Giovanna v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. · filed 2017-11-02(14)(D)

However, she has pointed to nothing in the record that would suggest Doctors Duncan and Knox did, in fact, consider the incident in the store in forming their opinions or that they were even aware of the incident when addressing causation.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires the treating physician to find medical causation more likely than not after considering all causes.

Moore, Vik v. Conduent · filed 2017-11-29(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). Applying these principles, the Court cannot find at this time that Mr. Moore is likely to meet his burden of proof.

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

Perry, Latisha R. v. Vatterott Career College · filed 2017-12-15(14)(B)

In order to establish causation, Ms. Perry 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.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(B) (2017).

Section 50-6-102(14) permits an employee to prove medical causation with an expert opinion that the work accident more likely than not caused at least 50% of the injury; the expert need not be free of all doubt.

Lurz, Sally A. v. International Paper Company · filed 2018-02-14(14)(C)-(D)

Moreover, as reflected in section 50-6-102(14), a medical expert’s opinion that the work accident was “more likely than not” at least 50% of the cause of the injury is sufficient to satisfy an employee’s burden of proof. The law does not require absolute certainty on the part of the medical expert and allows for the existence of some doubt, as was reflected in this case.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) requires medical proof that a work-related injury contributed more than 50 percent to the disablement or need for treatment; a medical record that only repeats the employee’s account does not establish causation.

Lee, Jimmy v. Servpro Holding Co., Inc. · filed 2018-02-26(14)(C)

He must also prove "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [the injury] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the death, disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-102(14)(C). Here, Mr. Lee did not introduce any medical opinions establishing that any of his varied symptoms causally related to his alleged work-related injury. The only record that even references the asserted injury is P.A. Pope's, and she merely recounted the history Mr. Lee gave her at that time without providing an opinion. Further, a physician's assistant is not qualified to render a causation opinion, which is the province of medical doctors. See Dorsey v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 13, at *9-10 (May 14, 2015). Given that Mr. Lee did not submit any medical evidence establishing causation, the Court holds that he is unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits regarding his entitlement to temporary disability benefits from September 15, 2016, through August 15, 2017.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires a medical causation opinion to consider all causes; an opinion premised on the absence of prior problems does not meet that requirement.

Watson, Robert v. Catlett Construction · filed 2018-02-26(14)

Insofar as Dr. Henson based her opinion on the lack of any prior problems, her causation conclusions are unreliable and do not meet the statutory requirement of “considering all causes.”

A compensable injury requires expert medical proof that the injury contributed more than fifty percent to the death, disablement, or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.

Johnson, Landon v. Loomis Armored · filed 2018-03-05(14)(B)

To prove a compensable injury, Mr. Johnson 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." See Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-102(14)(B).

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) requires proof that the injury contributed more than fifty percent to the need for medical treatment.

Crisp, Ronda v. Castle Retail Group, LLC · filed 2018-03-16(14)(C)

Further, the Court finds Ms. Crisp failed to show the injury contributed more than fifty percent to the need for medical treatment. Neither Dr. Vanegos’, Dr. Moffatt’s, nor Dr. Harriman’s records establish she sustained an injury identifiable by time and place of occurrence or that it contributed more than fifty percent to the need for treatment.

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

Letner, Aurthur v. Highland Steel Erectors · filed 2017-12-21(14)

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

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) requires an original injury or aggravation of a pre-existing condition to arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment; without a medical opinion connecting the injury to work, the employee is unlikely to establish compensability.

Branam, Gary V. Dunlap Stone, Inc. · filed 2018-04-17(14)(A)

The Workers’ Compensation Law requires that the employee establish an original injury or an aggravation of a pre-existing condition “arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.” ... Dr. Kern concluded in his declaration that he could not give an opinion relating Mr. Branam’s injury to work-related events on June 26, 2016. Hence, based on the proof presently in evidence, the Court holds that Mr. Branam will not likely prevail at a hearing on the merits in proving the work-relatedness of his injury.

Section 50-6-102(14)(D) requires a physician’s opinion to establish medical causation; a psychologist cannot supply the statutory causation opinion.

Creasman, Sherry v. Waves, Inc. · filed 2018-02-14(14)(D)

Waves’ position is inconsistent with the plain language of the statute, which requires causation to be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. The statute defines this as: “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) (emphasis added). The testimony of a psychologist is not legally sufficient to establish causation and permanency of a mental injury. See Gates v. Jackson Appliance Co., No. W1999-00743-SC-WCM-CV, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 522, at *16 (June 27, 2001). Dr. Walker is a psychologist, not a physician, and thus has no statutory authority to give a causation opinion.

Only a physician may render a medical causation opinion; a psychologist lacks statutory authority to do so.

Creasman, Sherry v. Waves, Inc. · filed 2018-04-16(14)(D)

With respect to Dr. Walker’s opinions, the trial court found “Dr. Walker is a psychologist, not a physician, and thus has no statutory authority to give a causation opinion.” We agree. While psychologists may be treating providers in some circumstances, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(h) (2017), only a physician may render a causation opinion, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(D).

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) requires proof to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that work contributed more than fifty percent to causing the injury, considering all causes.

Hoard, III, William H. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. · filed 2018-07-02(14)(C)

Further, aside from Mr. Hoard’s failure to give notice, he also failed to show, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that his work duties “contributed more than fifty “percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 102(14)(C). Therefore, the Court holds that Mr. Hoard is not likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in proving his work caused his injury.

An employee may likely satisfy the injury causation requirement for medical treatment when credited expert proof attributes the need for treatment primarily to the recent work accident despite a competing opinion attributing it to an earlier injury.

White, Paul v. G&R Trucking, Inc. · filed 2018-08-07(14)(C)

Moreover, an employer is responsible for providing medical benefits “only if it has been shown 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(14)(C). ... Consequently, we conclude the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s determination that Employee is likely to prevail at trial with respect to the issue of causation as to the L5-S1 condition.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C)-(D) requires expert medical proof that an injury primarily arose from employment, meaning work contributed more than 50% to the need for treatment to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Huffaker, Jack v. CAC of Knox County · filed 2018-08-23(14)(C)-(D)

To prove a compensable injury, Mr. Huffaker must establish that the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. To establish that the injury arose primarily out of the employment, he must show “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.” 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.” See Tenn. Code Ann. §50-6-102(14)(C)-(D). Thus, causation must be established by expert medical testimony.

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

Burks, Helga v. Fred's, Inc. · filed 2018-09-24(14)(B), (14)(D)

To establish causation, Ms. Burks must prove "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [the injury] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the ... need for medical treatment, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(B). 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(14)(D). Thus, causation must be established by expert medical testimony.

Section 50-6-102(14)(D) requires medical evidence showing that a work injury more likely than not caused the claimed condition, considering all causes.

Newman, Barbara v. The Home Depot · filed 2018-10-23(14)(D)

However, Dr. Barnett did not address causation and failed to establish that Ms. Newman’s heart and lung conditions were more likely than not related to the work injury, considering all causes.

For a preexisting knee condition, proof that work contributed more than 50 percent to disablement or the need for treatment requires a physician’s causation opinion.

Myers, Althea v. Tyson Foods, Inc. · filed 2018-12-04(14)(C)

The Court also agrees with Tyson that no physician provided an opinion on causation. Absent such an opinion, Ms. Myers cannot prove “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that her work “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.”

A compensable injury requires proof of causation to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Brumley, Melissa v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2018-11-26(14)(C)

Causation must be proven to a "reasonable degree of medical certainty" to create a compensable injury. Tenn. Code Ann. 50-6-102(14)(C).

A physician’s opinion can establish a compensable injury under subsection (14) without reciting the statutory definition if the proof sufficiently shows that the injury arose primarily from employment.

Glenn, Terrence v. Sears Outlet Store, LLC · filed 2018-11-27(14)

Although Dr. Fish did not use terminology in the statute, considering Panzarella, the Court holds that his opinion nonetheless suffices as proof that Mr. Glenn is likely to prevail in establishing he suffered an injury as defined within the Workers' Compensation Law.

Section 50-6-102 requires proof that an injury arose primarily out of employment or that work contributed fifty percent or more to the need for medical treatment.

Bryant, Stephanie v. Frito Lay, Inc. · filed 2019-01-09(14)(A), (C)

Under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102, Ms. Bryant must prove her injury arose primarily out of her employment or that her work contributed fifty percent or more to her need for medical treatment.

A physician’s statement that a condition is work-related does not by itself satisfy the proof required for a compensable injury at a compensation hearing, but may support interim benefits when considered with other evidence.

Miller, Carolyn v. Old Folks Mission Center, Inc. · filed 2019-01-09(14)

Generally, to be compensable, an “injury by accident” must arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment and must cause death, disablement, or the need for medical treatment of the employee. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2018). ... Here, however, Dr. Antwine stated he considered Employee’s condition to be a “work-related injury.” While such a statement does not satisfy the standard of proof applicable at a compensation hearing, when considered with other evidence presented at the expedited hearing, it supports the trial court’s determination that Employee is “likely to prevail” on this issue at trial.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C)-(D) requires expert medical testimony showing that employment contributed more than fifty percent to the injury or need for treatment, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Huffaker, Jack v. CAC of Knox County · filed 2019-01-25(14)(C)-(D)

To prove a compensable injury, Mr. Huffaker must establish that the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. To establish that the injury arose primarily out of the employment, he must show “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.” 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.” See Tenn. Code Ann. §50-6-102(14)(C)-(D). Thus, causation must be established by expert medical testimony.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) requires medical proof that employment contributed more than fifty percent to an injury, considering all causes.

Steen, Nicole v. IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. · filed 2019-02-07(14)(C)

The Court further finds the medical records contained no medical evidence that Ms. Steen’s employment contributed more than fifty percent to her injury, considering all causes.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires a medical opinion establishing to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that work contributed more than fifty percent to the injury or need for treatment; proof of a work incident alone does not establish medical causation.

Julie v. Logan's Roadhouse · filed 2019-02-10(14)

The Court cannot find at this time that she is likely to meet this burden. Neither party offered any medical opinions addressing the cause of Ms. Crowe’s condition. Absent this opinion, she cannot prove “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that her work “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.”

Medical causation requires expert testimony that the work injury more likely than not contributed over 50 percent to the condition or need for treatment, considering all causes.

Kassmieh, Michael v. NEIS, Inc. · filed 2019-04-05(14)

To do that, he must establish "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." 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). Thus, causation must be established by expert medical testimony, and it must be by more than "speculation or possibility" on the part of the doctor.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C)-(D) requires expert medical testimony showing that the injury contributed more than fifty percent to the need for treatment, and an opinion dependent on an uncredible injury history does not establish likely causation.

Hunt, Alice v. Kroger · filed 2019-04-15(14)(C)-(D)

To do that, she 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). 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). Thus, causation must be established by expert medical testimony, and it must be more than "speculation or possibility" on the part of the doctor. ... Since Dr. Alvarez's opinion required a credible history, the Court holds Ms. Hunt did not establish she is likely to prevail on the causation issue at trial.

An employee must establish to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the injury arose primarily out of employment; without medical expert opinion, that burden is unmet.

Polk, Ricky v. Delta Faucet · filed 2019-05-10(14)(C)

Here, Mr. Polk did not introduce any medical expert opinion. Thus, he did not establish to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that his injury arose primarily out of his employment, and the Court must deny his claim for further benefits.

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

Clay, Sharee v. Signature Healthcare · filed 2019-05-21(14)(B)

To prove medical causation, Ms. Clay must present sufficient medical proof to show to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that “the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes.”

Section 50-6-102(14)(A) requires expert medical proof linking a condition with a nonobvious cause to work to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Moore, Dianne v. Beacon Transport, LLC · filed 2019-06-27(14)(A)

With the exception of conditions whose cause is open or obvious, the Workers’ Compensation Law applies only to those conditions shown to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty” to have arisen “primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.” Tenn. Code Ann. §50-6-102(14)(A). The cause of Ms. Moore’s condition is neither open nor obvious, so an expert medical opinion linking the symptoms to the workplace accident is indispensable to the success of her claim.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires proof that a claimed injury more likely than not arose primarily from the employment, considering all causes; speculation that exposure could have caused the injury is insufficient.

Neumayr, Theodore v. First Fleey, Inc. · filed 2019-07-20(14)

Mr. Neumayr only offered speculation and conjecture as to the cause of his stroke, which cannot serve as justification for the provision of benefits. Tenn. Code Ann. section 50-6-102(14).

Section 50-6-102(14) requires an employee seeking medical benefits to show, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the work incident contributed more than 50 percent to the need for treatment, considering all causes.

Williams, Devery v. JL Malone & Associates/Fishel Company · filed 2019-08-02(14)

To receive medical benefits, Mr. Williams must show, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the December 18, 2017 incident “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

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.

Burbank, Barry W. v. Cross Constr. & Land Svcs., Inc. · filed 2019-08-07(14)

To receive benefits, Mr. Burbank must show, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the September 12, 2018 incident “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

Section 50-6-102(14)(C)-(D) requires medical causation to be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty; an opinion that symptoms may be related to work is too speculative to satisfy that standard.

Adiole, Vera v. Logan Senior Care, LLC · filed 2019-10-01(14)(C)-(D)

"May be related" conveys speculation or mere possibility and does not satisfy the above statutory definition.

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

Howard, Lillian v. NHC Healthcare/Pulaski, LLC · filed 2019-10-17(14)

The essential element at issue in this case is that Ms. Howard must demonstrate that she suffered “an injury by accident . . . arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, that causes death, disablement or the need for medical treatment of the employee.” This means she must prove, “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [her work] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” “Shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” means that, “in the opinion of the treating physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes as opposed to speculation or possibility.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). The undisputed facts are that Ms. Howard has disclosed no medical opinion addressing the cause of her back problems. Further, she filed no response to the Statement of Undisputed Facts, provided no additional evidence, and made no citations to the record to refute the facts put forward by NHC. Ms. Howard’s evidence is therefore insufficient to establish an essential element of her claim, and the Court must hold that NHC is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

An employee must prove that an injury arose primarily out of employment or that work contributed fifty percent or more to the need for medical treatment.

Bratcher, Deborah v. Yates Services, LLC · filed 2020-03-18(14)(A), (C)

Under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102, Ms. Bratcher must prove her injury arose primarily out of her employment or that her work contributed fifty percent or more to her need for medical treatment.

A compensable injury requires a physician’s opinion that the injury is more likely than not, considering all causes; a speculative causation opinion is insufficient.

Smith, Lindsey v. Dialysis Clinic, Inc. · filed 2020-05-05(14)(D)

The Workers’ Compensation Law provides that a compensable injury is one that “in the opinion of the physician, is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or possibility.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(D). Dr. Sielatycki’s opinions appear speculative.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires proof to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that work contributed more than 50% to the need for treatment; that standard means the treating physician considers work causation more likely than not in light of all causes.

Garcia, Maria v. Ideal Clamp Products, Inc. · filed 2020-05-29(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.

A compensable injury must arise primarily out of employment, and reasonable medical certainty requires the treating physician to find work causation more likely than not after considering all causes.

Carter, Paulette v. Frito-Lay, Inc. · filed 2020-07-16(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).

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) and (D) requires a physician’s opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the work injury contributed more than 50% to the need for medical treatment, considering all causes.

Rodgers, Teretha v. HBC d/b/a Saks Fifth Avenue · filed 2020-09-03(14)(C) and (D)

To meet this burden, Ms. Rodgers needed a physician’s opinion stating “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that the work injury “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing . . . the need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C) and (D).

An employee must prove to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that work contributed more than fifty percent to the disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.

Morgan, Deborah v. Beall Manufacturing, Inc. · filed 2020-11-24(14)(C)-(D)

Ms. Morgan saw a panel-selected provider at McKenzie Medical Center; however, she did not introduce that record or any medical record into evidence addressing causation. Thus, she has not proven “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that her work “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Thus, the Court must deny Ms. Morgan’s request for benefits at this time.

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

Slezak, Michael v. Ryder Integ. Logistics, Inc. · filed 2021-02-03(14)

To prove causation, Mr. Slezak must show to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that his work injury contributed more than fifty percent in causing his continued mid-back pain, 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) (2020).

An employee’s testimony can establish that a work accident occurred, but expert medical proof generally must connect the accident to the medical condition being treated.

Schubert, Kristin v. CuraHealth Boston, LLC · filed 2020-10-06(14)(C), (E)

Although an employee’s lay testimony may be relevant to the issue of causation to the extent such testimony concerns the occurrence of a work-related accident, it is expert medical proof that satisfies the element of causation, connecting the occurrence of a work- related accident to the medical condition being treated.