Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102

Medical proof satisfies the causation standard when it shows the work accident was more likely than not the cause of the injury, considering all causes.

McBride, Carlettas v. Peoplease Corp · filed 2021-03-08(14)(D)

The Court finds Dr. Chung’s testimony was sufficient to prove he believed Mr. McBride’s accident was more likely than not the cause of his cervical injury, considering all causes.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires a medical opinion that work primarily caused the injury; an opinion that the condition was more likely than not work related does not establish primary causation.

ABDELSHAHAED, REAZKALLAH v. Taylor Farms · filed 2021-03-22(14)

His statement, “Trigger finger is most likely work related. (51% more likely),” establishes only that Mr. Abdelshahaed’s condition is more likely than not “work related.” It does not address whether the injury was primarily caused by the work or merely related to it.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires a medical opinion that work more likely than not caused over half of the disability or need for treatment, considering all causes.

Jett, Kimsue v. CBC Group, Inc., Cgristian Brands, Inc. · filed 2021-04-07(14)

Without a medical opinion on this issue, the Court cannot find at this time that she is likely to 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.”

Section 50-6-102(14) requires medical proof sufficient to show that employment primarily caused the injury or need for treatment; medical records that do not establish that causal link fail its threshold requirements.

Harrison, Elizabeth v. Chattanooga Staffing · filed 2021-04-26(14)

Because we conclude the evidence provided in Dr. Arnold’s medical records regarding Employee’s left shoulder do not meet the threshold requirements of section 50- 6-102(14), we agree there is insufficient evidence at this stage of the case to conclude Employee is likely to prevail at trial.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires evidence that the condition for which compensation is sought arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment; a physician’s acknowledgment of a reported work injury without an opinion linking the condition to it does not establish medical causation.

Sadeekah, Khaled v. Zaher Abdelaziz d/b/a Home Furniture and More · filed 2021-06-22(14)

This statute requires evidence that the medical condition for which compensation is sought arose “primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2020). ... However, he did not offer an opinion that any of Employee’s medical conditions arose primarily out of the reported work injury, or any words to that effect. Hence, the records of Dr. Haslam and Dr. Strickland, even if admissible, do not create a genuine issue of material fact as to the issue of medical causation.

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.

Gibbs, Doris v. Express Services, Inc., aka Express Employment Professionals · filed 2021-09-14(14)

The injury must arise primarily out of employment and cause the need for medical treatment. Specifically, it must be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the injury contributed more than fifty percent in causing the need for medical treatment. “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. See generally Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

Section 50-6-102(12)(C) requires medical proof, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that work contributed more than 50 percent to the disablement or need for treatment.

Abdelshahaed, Reazkallah v. Taylor Fresh Foods, Inc. · filed 2022-11-21(12)(C)

Without a doctor’s causation opinion, he cannot prove “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that his work “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes,” as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(12)(C).

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

Burwick, William v. Amazon.com, Inc. · filed 2022-12-12(12)

He must show, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the June 14, 2021 incident contributed more than fifty percent in causing the need for medical treatment, considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12).

Subsection (12)(C) requires an expert medical opinion that work primarily caused the injury.

Garland, Jeffrey v. City of Savannah · filed 2023-02-23(12)(C)

Finally, Mr. Garland did not present any medical opinions stating that the fall primarily caused his elbow injury and need for surgery as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(12)(C).

Medical causation under § 50-6-102(12)(B)-(D) requires proof to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the injury contributed more than fifty percent to the need for treatment or disability, considering all causes.

Copeland, Jr., Gayle v. Genuine Parts Co. · filed 2023-03-29(12)(B)-(D)

Turning first to medical benefits, Mr. Copeland must show, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the injury “contributed more than fifty percent in causing the disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.”

Section 50-6-102(12)(C) requires expert testimony to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that employment contributed more than 50% to the need for medical treatment, considering all causes.

Sosa Martinez, Marcos v. Halloran Investment Properties, LLC · filed 2023-04-27(12)(C)

Specifically, Dr. Cappello’s affidavit affirms that Mr. Sosa Martinez cannot prove medical causation, which requires an expert’s testimony to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty” that the employment “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(C). According to her affidavit, he needed medical treatment for an infection unrelated to work.

Section 50-6-102(12)(C) requires expert testimony to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that employment contributed more than 50 percent to the need for medical treatment.

Glenn, Terrance v. Conns, Inc. · filed 2023-05-09(12)(C)

Proving medical causation requires an expert’s testimony to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty” that the employment “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50- 6-102(12)(C).

Section 50-6-102(12) requires expert medical opinion establishing to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a work accident contributed more than fifty percent to the need for treatment.

JAMES LEE STEELE, Conservator for Christopher L. Mason v. SUMMIT CONSTRUCTORS, INC. · filed 2023-08-29(12)(A), (C), (D)

To prove causation, Mr. Mason must show to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that his dementia arose primarily out of his accident in that it “contributed more than fifty percent” in causing his need for treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(A), (C). “Reasonable degree of medical certainty” means “it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or possibility.” Id. at -102(12)(D). Proving all this requires expert medical opinion. Id. ... The Court gives more weight to Dr. Prasad’s opinion and holds that Mr. Mason did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his dementia was primarily caused by his car accident.

Section 50-6-102(12)(C) requires expert testimony to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that employment contributed more than 50% to the need for medical treatment, considering all causes.

Meeks, Bryant v. Nyrstar Clarksville, Inc. · filed 2023-09-20(12)(C)

Proving medical causation requires an expert’s testimony to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty” that the employment “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(C).

Section 50-6-102(12) requires medical proof to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that employment contributed more than fifty percent to the claimed injury, considering all causes.

Rucker, Willie v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION · filed 2023-11-09(12)(A)-(D)

To prove the work-relatedness, or causation, of his stroke, he must show that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing it, considering all causes. He must prove causation “within a reasonable degree of medical certainty,” meaning “that in the opinion of the physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or possibility.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(A)-(D) (2023).

Section 50-6-102(14) requires proof that a claimed injury arose primarily from a specific work incident, with causation established through expert medical opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

CLAYBROOKS, SONDRA L. v. INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC · filed 2023-11-14(14)(A), (14)(D)

To prove her claim, Ms. Claybrooks must show that her orthopedic complaints were caused by a “specific incident or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment” with Insight, specifically her fall on May 19, 2019. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(A) (2019). Further, she must prove causation “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty,” through expert medical opinion. Id. at -102(14)(D).

Section 50-6-102(12)(C) requires expert testimony to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that employment contributed more than 50% to the need for medical treatment, considering all causes.

Harris, Shunekari v. American International Group, Inc., d/b/a American Home Assurance · filed 2024-03-13(12)(C)

Ms. Harris must prove medical causation to prevail at a final hearing, which requires an expert’s testimony to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty” that the employment “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(C). She did not do so.

Section 50-6-102(12) requires expert proof that a work incident, considered with all causes, more likely than not contributed over 50% to a worker’s disablement or need for medical treatment.

Dawson, Beandy v. Optum services, Inc. · filed 2024-03-27(12)

An injury is work-related if it “arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment,” resulting in “disablement or the need for medical treatment.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12). An employee 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.” This requires expert opinion that it is more likely than not, considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or possibility. Id. at -102(12)(A)-(D).

Section 50-6-102(12) requires a physician to find, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that work contributed more than 50% to the current need for medical treatment, considering all causes.

HICKS, CLIFFORD MONTRELL v. FULLEN DOCK AND WAREHOUSE · filed 2024-08-28(12)

To meet this burden, he must show that a physician has found to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that his fall at work contributed more than 50 % in causing his current need for medical treatment, considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12).

Section 50-6-102(12)(C)-(D) requires medical proof that work contributed more than 50% to the need for treatment, considering all causes.

Tate, Lando v. VITERRA COTTON · filed 2025-04-17(12)(C)-(D)

To meet this burden, he must show that a physician found to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that his work injury contributed more than 50% in causing his current need for medical treatment, considering all causes. § 50-6-102(12)(C)-(D). He has not done so.

Section 50-6-102(12) requires medical proof that employment caused more than half of an injury or need for treatment, considering all causes; an opinion that the condition was merely causally related to work does not suffice.

Graves, Chad v. Southall Adventures, LLC · filed 2025-08-25(12)

Here, we conclude Dr. Bowman’s causation statement did not meet the statutory requirements and does not support a finding that Employee is likely to prove medical causation at trial. In response to a medical questionnaire sent to him, Dr. Bowman merely agreed Employee’s left knee condition was “causally related” to the work incident. Nothing in that opinion suggests Employee is likely to prove at trial that the work accident was the primary cause of the knee condition, “considering all causes,” especially in view of evidence of a prior left knee injury, a “non-acute” tear, and pre-existing tendinitis in the left knee.

Section 50-6-102(12)(D) requires medical causation to be established by a physician’s opinion that the work injury was more likely than not the cause considering all causes, rather than merely a possible cause.

Gandy, Terry v. Marten Transport, Limited · filed 2026-03-05(12)(D)

Furthermore, establishing causation to a reasonable degree of medical certainty requires that a physician opine “it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or possibility,” not that it “could be” the cause.

Section 50-6-102(12) requires a physician to find, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and considering all causes, that the work injury contributed more than 50% to the need for medical treatment.

DUCKETT, TIMOTHY v. MEMPHIS LIGHT GAS AND WATER DIVISION · filed 2026-05-26(12)

To recover medical benefits, Mr. Duckett must show a physician, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, found that his work injury contributed more than 50% in causing his current need for medical treatment, considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12). ... Mr. Duckett has not offered any medical opinion showing to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that his work injury contributed more than 50% in causing his current need for medical treatment, considering all causes. Therefore, he is not entitled to medical benefits.

Section 50-6-102(12)(D) requires medical causation to be shown with more than speculative possibility; an opinion that a work accident “could be responsible” does not meet that standard.

Lackey, Jennifer v. Gaylord Opryland Hotel/Marriott International · filed 2022-12-06(12)(D)

His statement that the work accident “could be responsible” suggests a degree of speculation that does not conform with the level of certainty that the statute requires.

A physician must find it more likely than not, considering all causes, that work caused the injury; an opinion framed as a possibility does not establish medical causation.

Carlson, Jennifer v. First Call Temporary Services · filed 2023-10-02(12)(D)

In addition, and importantly, subdivision (D) clarifies, “'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.” Id. at -102(12)(D) (Emphasis added). The Court finds that Dr. Jones’s use of the language “possibly directly related to her work injury” conveys impermissible speculation and possibility.

An employee must prove causation and impairment to a reasonable degree of medical certainty through an expert medical opinion.

Fowler, Alayna v. CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC. · filed 2024-03-05(12)(C)

To prevail on her claim for benefits beyond those agreed to by Cracker Barrel, Ms. Fowler must prove causation and impairment to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty,” which requires an expert medical opinion. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(C) (2023).

Section 50-6-102(12)(C) requires an expert medical opinion establishing causation to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Jenkins, Dennis v. TYSON FOODS, INC. · filed 2024-11-25(12)(C)

Further, causation must be proven to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty,” which requires an expert medical opinion. Id. at -102(12)(C).

Section 50-6-102(13)(D) requires the court to discount a physician’s causation opinion stated only as a possibility rather than to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

East, Sean v. Heritage Hosiery · filed 2015-10-16(13)(D)

The Court interprets section 50-6-102(13)(D) to require that the Court discount a causation opinion stated in terms of the "possibility" that a work injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.

Section 50-6-102(14)(D) requires a physician’s causation opinion to be more likely than not, considering all causes; an opinion that work possibly caused the injury is insufficient.

Napier, Tammy v. Volunteer Knit Apparel, Inc. · filed 2016-02-26(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.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C)-(D) requires expert medical proof of causation to a reasonable degree of medical certainty; lay testimony and speculation alone do not establish it.

Wade, Lloyd v. AAA Cooper Transportation · filed 2016-04-27(14)(C)-(D)

Thus, causation must be established by expert medical testimony, and an employee's lay testimony, without corroborative expert testimony, does not constitute adequate evidence ofmedical causation. ... But the records do not state that, and this Court cannot award benefits on the basis of possibility or speculation alone.

Section 50-6-102(14)(D) does not permit medical opinions based on speculation or possibility to establish causation.

Johnson, Stephanie v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. · filed 2016-07-27(14)(D)

However, under the Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 2013, reliance upon medical opinions based on "speculation or possibility" are no longer permissible. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(D).

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) and (D) require expert medical testimony establishing causation to a reasonable degree of medical certainty; a physician’s speculation or possibility is insufficient.

Miller, Christopher v. TRW Automotive U.S., LLC · filed 2016-10-25(14)(C), (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.

A mere possibility that a condition resulted from a work injury does not establish medical causation to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Coolidge, Susan v. City Nashville Winery, LLC · filed 2016-09-23(14)(D)

In short, and assuming Employee experiences breathing difficulties despite evidence to the contrary, the mere possibility that those breathing difficulties are a result of the work injury is an insufficient basis upon which to order Employer to provide a panel of medical specialists from which Employee can select a doctor to evaluate the effectiveness of corrective surgery.

Section 50-6-102(14)(D) requires medical causation to rest on a physician’s opinion that the injury is more likely than not attributable to employment after considering all causes, rather than speculation or possibility.

Foster, Randy v. Gold Street Automotive, LLC · filed 2016-09-28(14)(D)

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) (2015). Thus, causation must be established by expert medical testimony, and it must be more than "speculation or possibility" on the part of the doctor.

Section 50-6-102(14)(D) requires a physician's opinion that causation is more likely than not considering all causes; speculative lay testimony does not establish medical causation.

Pardy, Stephen v. Memphis Cycles, Inc. d/b/a Honda-Yamaha of Memphis · filed 2016-10-04(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).

Under § 50-6-102(14)(D), a medical causation opinion is not stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty if it only says the accident could have caused the injury and fails to consider other possible causes.

Petty, Thomas v. Convention Production Rigging · filed 2016-11-18(14)(D)

The Workers’ Compensation Law defines the phrase “shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” to mean 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) (2015). The Court finds Dr. Neely’s opinion failed to satisfy this standard for two reasons: (1) the opinion is speculative in that provides the accident “could have” produced the labrum tears; and, (2) Dr. Neely admitted he considered only the accident as the possible cause and, therefore, did not consider “all causes.”

Section 50-6-102(14)(D) requires medical proof that a work incident more likely than not caused the injury considering all causes, rather than speculation or possibility.

THYSAVATHDY, SISOUPHAHN · filed 2017-02-21(14)(D)

After considering Dr. Vaughan's deposition testimony as whole, the Court concludes that his opinion does not satisfy the requirement that the tire-pulling incident "more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or possibility" caused Mr. Thysavathdy's left shoulder condition.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) requires medical causation to be established to a reasonable degree of medical certainty; a physician’s statement that an injury is only possible does not satisfy that standard.

Wright, Jason v. R & D Enterprises of TN d/b/a Mr. Transmission · filed 2017-02-27(14)(C)

Furthermore, Dr. Ngo, a neurologist who was well aware of Mr. Wright's asserted history, could only state that his history was "suggestive of possible closed head injury with brief post-concussive syndrome." This falls well short ofthe "reasonable degree of medical certainty" required of physicians to establish causation.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires proof that work caused more than 50% of the disability or need for medical treatment, considering all causes; an opinion that a condition is merely likely work-related does not meet that standard.

Vandiver, Kellise v. Unilever · filed 2017-06-07(14)

While Dr. Sweo indicated Ms. Vandiver's shoulder condition was "likely work-related," this does not address the current legal standard for causation. The mere fact that Ms. Vandiver's shoulder condition might be work-related to some unspecified degree is insufficient for the Court to find Ms. Vandiver's injuries constituted more than fifty-percent of the cause of her disability or need for medical treatment considering all causes.

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

Vrancich, Michael v. All Around Industrial, Inc. · filed 2017-07-20(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.

An injury arises primarily out of employment only when physician proof shows that work contributed more than 50% to the disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes; evidence that work may have triggered symptoms to an unspecified degree is insufficient.

Steinzor, Justin v. Kroger Limited Partnership · filed 2017-08-25(14)(D)

The fact that Mr. Steinzor’s hand condition might be triggered by his work to some unspecified degree is insufficient for the Court to find Mr. Steinzor’s work exposure constituted more than fifty-percent of the cause of his disability or need for medical treatment considering all causes.

Section 50-6-102(14)(D) requires expert medical testimony establishing causation beyond speculation or possibility.

Gueye, Kine v.Federal Express Corp. · filed 2017-09-07(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.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires a treating physician’s opinion that the work injury more likely than not caused the need for treatment, considering all causes rather than mere speculation or possibility.

Taylor, Angela v. Knox County Board of Education and Knox County Givernment · filed 2017-12-18(14)

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

Section 50-6-102(14)(D) requires expert medical testimony establishing causation to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, beyond speculation or possibility.

Hunt, Alice v. Kroger · filed 2018-05-03(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.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires medical proof that a work injury contributed more than 50% to the need for treatment, considering all causes; a physician’s speculation or possibility is insufficient.

Abston, Carol v. Hillsman Modular Molding, Inc. · filed 2018-07-31(14)(C), (14)(D)

To establish causation, Ms. Abston 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) (emphasis added). 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.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) requires medical opinion evidence that work contributed more than 50% to the need for treatment when establishing a compensable injury.

Coffey, Daniel v. Nissan North America, Inc · filed 2016-09-30(14)(C)

Neither party submitted any medical opinions addressing the cause of Mr. Coffey’s condition. Absent such an opinion, Mr. Coffey cannot prove “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that his work “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.”

Section 50-6-102(20) defines utilization review as an evaluation of the necessity, appropriateness, efficiency, and quality of medical care services; it does not include deciding whether treatment is causally related to a work accident.

Venable, Tim v. Superior Essex, Inc. · filed 2016-11-02(20)

“Utilization review” has been defined to mean “the evaluation of the necessity, appropriateness, efficiency and quality of medical care services.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50- 6-102(20) (2015). This definition does not include an assessment of whether the prescribed treatment is causally related to the work accident.

An injury causes a need for medical treatment only if it contributed more than 50% to that need, considering all causes.

Beene, Marshall v. Metro Services, Inc. · filed 2016-11-18(14)(C)

While Mr. Beene's position is inventive, the definitions in the Workers' Compensation Law specifically rebut it. Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 102(C)(14) (2015) provides that, "[a]n 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, considering all causes." (Emphasis added.)

An unquantified medical opinion that a condition is work related does not establish that work contributed more than fifty percent to the disablement or need for treatment, considering all causes.

Dupree, Andrew v. Tepro, Inc. · filed 2017-02-17(14)(C)

At best, Dr. Haidak’s statement that Mr. Dupree’s problems “are work related injuries secondary to repetitive motion” could only serve to establish some unquantified relationship between his work and his condition. It is wholly inadequate to meet Mr. Dupree’s burden of proving his work “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.”

Section 50-6-102(14)(C)-(D) requires medical causation to be established by a physician’s opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the injury contributed more than 50% to the disability or need for treatment.

Peek, Margie E. (Beth) v. Carl Barber and David Barber, d/b/a Speedy B's · filed 2017-02-23(14)(C)-(D)

In order to establish causation, an employee must prove "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [the injury] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the death, disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-102(14)(C) (2016). The term "reasonable degree of medical certainty" means that, "in the opinion of the physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or possibility." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(D) (2016). Thus, causation must be established by expert medical testimony, and it must be more than "speculation or possibility" on the part of the doctor.

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

Berdnik, Patrice v. Fairfield Glade Comm. Club · filed 2017-03-31(14)(C)

Ms. Berdnik 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) (20 16). ... For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes Ms. Berdnik failed to provide sufficient evidence from which the Court can determine she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits regarding causation.

An employee must show, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that employment contributed more than fifty percent to the need for medical treatment.

Nowman, Brenda v. Gap, Inc. · filed 2017-04-04(14)(B)-(C)

Applying these standards, the Court concludes Ms. Nowman failed to demonstrate at this time that the employment is more than fifty percent responsible for her need for treatment, given her previous back problems, and that, other than noting the history she gave, the providers she saw after May 25, 2016, did not relate her condition to work.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C)-(D) requires medical proof, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that an injury contributed more than 50% to the need for treatment; this means more likely than not considering all causes, rather than speculation or possibility.

Woods, Natalie v. Dollar General · filed 2017-04-13(14)(C)-(D)

To prevail, Ms. Woods 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).

Section 50-6-102(14)(C)-(D) requires a work injury to have contributed more than fifty percent to the need for treatment, supported by a physician opinion that this is more likely than not after considering all possible causes.

Saitim, Mauro v. Advent Electric, Inc. · filed 2017-04-13(14)(C)-(D)

A work- related injury causes a need for medical treatment if, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, it contributed more than fifty percent to the need for treatment. To meet the "reasonable degree of medical certainty" standard requires a physician opinion that it is more likely than not, considering all possible causes, as opposed to speculation.

When medical treatment is disputed, § 50-6-102(14)(C) and (D) require proof to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that work contributed more than 50 percent to the need for treatment, considering all causes.

Brown, Rickie A. v. Goodman Global · filed 2017-04-18(14)(C), (D)

However, because the DCN identified medical treatment as one of the disputed issues, Mr. Brown must show “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [his work] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” The phrase “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” means 2 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)(C) and (D). ... None of the records submitted by Mr. Brown contains any medical opinion as to whether the need for any future medical treatment is causally related to the work injury. Absent any such opinion, Mr. Brown has not demonstrated he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits on the issue of the cause of his current medical needs.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) requires an employee seeking post-settlement medical treatment to show a causal connection of more than fifty percent between the original injury and the need for treatment; certainty of 100 percent is unnecessary.

Bufford, Joe v. Northwest Human Resource Agency · filed 2017-05-24(14)(C)

However, Mr. Bufford does not have to prove his current need for medical treatment was caused “100%” by the original injury. Instead, he must show a fifty percent or more causal connection.

An employee must establish to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that employment contributed more than 50% to the injury or need for medical treatment.

Winningham, Robert v. Perdue Farms, Inc. · filed 2017-06-28(14)(C)

Mr. Winningham must prove "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [the injury] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the death, disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C) (2016). ... For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes Mr. Winningham failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish he is likely to prove at trial that his left arm complaints arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment with Perdue.

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

Williams, Mark v. Yates Services · filed 2017-12-19(14)(B), (14)(D)

Mr. Williams did not introduce any medical testimony or records to establish to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that his injury contributed more than fifty percent in causing his need for medical treatment, considering all causes.

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

Smith, Stephanie v. Maxx · filed 2018-03-09(14)(C)

Ms. Smith requests payment of medical bills from Regional One. To prevail, she must establish a compensable injury that led to her incurring those bills. As pertinent here, she must show, "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [her alleged work injury] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the ... need for medical treatment[.]" Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C) (Emphasis added).

Section 50-6-102(14)(D) requires expert medical proof of work-relatedness beyond a mere possibility to establish benefits.

Smith, Marcia A. v. Allegis Group, Inc. · filed 2018-07-02(14)(D)

Dr. Maddox’s discussion of the work-relatedness of Ms. Smith’s ganglion cyst is insufficient because he couched his opinion more within the realm of possibility than likelihood. Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(D) provides that expert medical testimony of the “possibility” of the work-relatedness of a condition is insufficient to establish benefits.

An employee seeking medical treatment must show to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that employment contributed more than fifty percent to the need for treatment, considering all causes.

Elliott, Mark v. Heritage Food Services, Inc. d/b/a Heritage Grill · filed 2018-07-27(14)(C)

This means that, to be entitled to treatment, the employee must show, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the need for treatment, considering all causes.

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.

Bryant, Stephanie v. Frito Lay, Inc. · filed 2018-10-08(14)

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

An injury must contribute more than fifty percent to the need for medical treatment, considering all causes, and an aggravation of a pre-existing condition must arise primarily from employment.

Cotner, Jamie v. Dollar General Corp. · filed 2018-12-07(14)

Mr. Cotner must establish that the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. He must show “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.” An accidental injury generally does not include an 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.” 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 generally Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2018). Thus, causation must be established by expert medical testimony.

An injury causes a need for medical treatment only if the work injury contributed more than fifty percent to that need, considering all causes, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Montgomery, Anthony v. Mitchell Industrial Tire Co., Inc. · filed 2019-04-23(14)(C)

Mitchell is correct that Mr. Montgomery has the burden to establish that he will likely prevail at trial that his need for psychological care arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C) (2018), which provides “[a]n injury causes . . . the need for medical treatment only if it has been shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [the work injury] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . medical treatment, considering all causes.” The Court holds that Mr. Montgomery met his burden of proof with Dr. Blake’s testimony.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) and (D) requires a claimant to prove through a doctor’s opinion that a work injury more likely than not contributed over fifty percent to the claimant’s disablement or need for treatment.

Kassmieh, Michael v. NEIS, INC. · filed 2020-01-20(14)(C), (D)

Tennessee Code Annotated sections 50-6-102(14)(C) and (D) state that claimants must prove through a doctor's opinion that a work-related injury more likely than not contributed more than fifty percent in the claimant's disablement or need for treatment.

Section 50-6-102(14)(B)-(D) requires proof to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that employment contributed more than fifty percent to the injury; testimony that work possibly exacerbated a condition is insufficient.

Shelton, Bethany v/ Hobbs Enterprise, LLC · filed 2020-06-05(14)(B)-(D)

An injury arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment only if the employee shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury, considering all causes. To prove this, Ms. Shelton must show by “a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the employment contributed more than fifty percent” to the cause of her injury. “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)(B)-(D). The “speculation or possibility” portion of the statute is key in this claim. ... The Court finds that Dr. Kaminsky’s testimony is insufficient to satisfy the perponderance standard.

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

Justus, Joseph v. Blalock & Sons, Inc. · filed 2020-08-06(14)

To do that, he must establish to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that his work accident contributed more than fifty percent in causing the need for medical treatment, considering all causes. Reasonable degree of medical certainty means “‘it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or uncertainty.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). Given that the standard requires “medical certainty,” causation must be established through expert medical opinion.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires proof to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that employment contributed more than fifty percent to the injury; a medical opinion that the condition may be related to a work fall does not meet that standard.

Lackey, Jennifer v. Marriott International · filed 2020-08-31(14)

More importantly, he wrote that her breast distortion “may be related” to the fall. This language, and his entire report, fall short of what the statute requires—that an employee show “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury.”

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

Ferguson, Anne Michelle v. Amazon.com, Inc. · filed 2020-10-28(14)(C)

In addition, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(C) provides that “[a]n injury causes death, disablement, or the need for medical treatment only if it has been shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that it contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing [the disablement], considering all causes.” (Emphasis added). In view of this authority, the Court holds that Ms. Ferguson did not prove that her disablement since May 21, 2019, primarily arose from her employment at Amazon.

Section 50-6-102(14) requires a causal link between the work injury and the condition requiring treatment; a procedure for an unrelated preexisting condition does not meet that requirement merely because it was performed during surgery for the work injury.

Hart, Jeannie v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp. · filed 2020-11-25(14)

We conclude Dr. Hutchison’s testimony was insufficient to establish a causal link between the work accident and the need for the distal clavicle resection and does not satisfy the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14).

Section 50-6-102(14) requires medical proof that a work accident contributed more than fifty percent to the condition for which benefits are sought, considering all causes.

Mosely, Amanda v. HG Staffing, LLC · filed 2021-01-26(14)

To prove causation, she must show to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that her January 10 work accident contributed more than fifty percent in causing her current symptoms, considering all causes.

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

Harrison, Elizabeth v. Chattanooga Staffing · filed 2021-02-08(14)

To obtain medical benefits, Ms. Harrison must show, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the incident “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.”

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 condition, considering all causes.

Claybrooks, Sondra L. v. Insight Global, LLC · filed 2021-03-03(14)

To prove causation, Ms. Claybrooks must show to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that her work injury contributed more than fifty percent in causing her complaints, considering all causes. “Reasonable degree of medical certainty” means “it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or uncertainty.”

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) requires an injury to contribute more than fifty percent to the need for medical treatment, shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Greve, Robert v. Southern Integrated Servs. · filed 2021-06-18(14)(C)

Further, an injury causes the need for medical treatment only if it is shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty to have contributed more than fifty percent in causing the need.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) requires an expert medical opinion establishing work-related causation to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Mann, Geraldine v. ACA Transport, LLC · filed 2021-06-21(14)(C)

She must prove this causal connection by a “reasonable degree of medical certainty,” which requires an expert medical opinion. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C).

Section 50-6-102(14) requires medical proof that a work accident contributed more than fifty percent to causing the employee’s current symptoms, considering all causes.

Mosley, Amanda v. HG Staffing, LLC · filed 2021-04-07(14)

However, to prove causation, Ms. Mosley’s testimony must be supported by medical proof. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2020). She must show to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that her work accident contributed more than fifty percent in causing her current symptoms, considering all causes.

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

Sims, William v. Nissan North America, Inc. · filed 2021-09-23(14)

To prove causation, Mr. Sims must show to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that his work injury contributed more than fifty percent in causing these symptoms, 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). Given that the standard requires “medical certainty,” causation must be shown through an expert medical opinion.

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.

Bailey, Marie P. v. Amazon · filed 2022-02-11(14)

To receive benefits, she must show, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the November 15, 2020, incident contributed more than fifty percent in causing the need for medical treatment, considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14).

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) requires the work injury to contribute more than 50% of the need for medical treatment, considering all causes; at an expedited hearing, the employee must show a likelihood of proving that causation at trial.

Edwards, Jo Carol v. PeopLease, LLC · filed 2022-03-18(14)(C)

When a 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). ... However, we further conclude that the proof is insufficient to show a likelihood of prevailing at trial in proving that the need for bilateral total knee replacements was primarily caused by the work accident.

Section 50-6-102(12) requires an employee seeking additional medical treatment to show, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the accident contributed more than fifty percent to the need for treatment, considering all causes.

Melton, Jeannette v. Amazon.com Services, LLC · filed 2023-03-02(12)

To meet this burden, Ms. Melton must show, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the accident contributed more than fifty percent in causing the need for additional medical treatment, considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12).

A claimant must prove to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the work injury contributed more than 50% to the need for medical treatment, considering all causes.

Worrell, Albert v. Obion County School District · filed 2023-06-29(12)(C)-(D)

As a result of the General Assembly’s passage of the 2013 Workers’ Compensation Reform Act (“Reform Act”), for accidents occurring on or after July 1, 2014, an injured employee has the burden of proving that the work-related accident or injury “contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing . . . the need for medical treatment.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(C). Moreover, such evidence must be “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty,” meaning that “in the opinion of the physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or possibility.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(D).

Section 50-6-102(12)(C) requires expert medical proof to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that an injury or need for treatment arose primarily out of employment.

Williams, Patrick v. Yates Services · filed 2023-07-05(12)(C)

He must prove that relation to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty,” which necessarily requires an expert medical opinion. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 102(12)(C).

Section 50-6-102(12) requires medical proof of causation to establish that an injury arose primarily out of employment.

Abdelshahaed, Reazkallah v. Taylor Fresh Foods, Inc. · filed 2023-07-20(12)

Because the Court has no medical proof of causation, Mr. Abdelshahaed did not show that his injury arose out of and in the course and scope of his employment.

Section 50-6-102(12)(D) requires an expert medical opinion establishing causation of a claimed injury.

Woods, Lorene V. ST. FRANCIS SENIOR HEALTHCARE CENTER · filed 2024-03-05(12)(D)

She must establish causation through expert medical opinion. Id. at -102(12)(D). ... However, even if she told the doctors about her neck symptoms, the law requires an expert opinion establishing causation, and she did not submit it.

An employee seeking medical treatment for a work-related aggravation must show through expert medical evidence that the work accident caused more than fifty percent of the need for that treatment.

Edwards, Jo Carol v. Peoplease, LLC · filed 2024-07-02(12)(C)

In other words, the employee must establish through expert medical evidence that the work accident was more than fifty percent the cause of the need for the treatment being recommended.

Section 50-6-102(12) requires a physician to find, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the work injury contributed more than 50% to the need for medical treatment, considering all causes.

Scott, Janice v. The Kroger Co. · filed 2024-10-10(12)

To meet this burden, she must show that a physician found to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that her work injury contributed more than 50% in causing her current need for medical treatment, considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12). The Court holds that Ms. Scott did not carry her burden of proof.

Section 50-6-102(13)(C) requires a medical expert’s opinion linking the injury to the need for medical treatment to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Cooke, Benjamin S. v. Williamson County Parks and Recreation · filed 2015-02-27(13)(C)

The Legislature amended the statute in 2013 to require that a medical expert offer an opinion that a causal link is present.

A compensable injury must arise primarily from an identifiable work incident that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, contributed more than 50 percent to the need for treatment or disability when all causes are considered.

Vinson, Dedra v. Dillard's, Inc. · filed 2015-03-05(14)

To prove a compensable injury, Ms. Vinson must show that her alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. To do so, she must show her injury primarily arose out of a work-related incident, or specific set of incidents, identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Further, she must show, “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that it contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” “Shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” means that, in the opinion of the treating physician, it is more likely than not considering all causes as opposed to speculation or possibility. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14) (2016).

An injury causes a need for medical treatment only when the work injury contributed more than 50% to that need, considering all causes, as shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Green, Mark v. Sumpter Solutions, LLC · filed 2015-04-21(13)(C)

However, the statute further provides: “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 (50%) in causing … [the] need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(C) (2014) (emphasis added). ... Accordingly, Mr. Green failed to show that the July 24, 2014 accident contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in his current need for surgery. For that reason, the Court denies his request for medical benefits.

Section 50-6-102(13)(B) requires proof that employment caused more than half of the injury, but an employee may receive temporary medical benefits before proving medical causation.

Moseley, Carlton v. Vanderbilt Medical Center and Vanderbilt University · filed 2015-05-14(13)(B)

“An injury “arises primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment” only if it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(B) (2014). ... Vanderbilt correctly asserts that Mr. Moseley has not carried his burden of proving that his injury arose primarily out of his employment. However, the missing element is medical causation. The Court holds that it is not necessary for Mr. Moseley to prove medical causation in order to receive temporary medical benefits.

Section 50-6-102(13)(B) requires proof that employment primarily caused the injury, but medical causation need not be proved at an expedited hearing to obtain temporary medical benefits.

Bucher, David v. Diversco/ABM Industries, Inc. · filed 2015-10-06(13)(B)

Diversco correctly asserted that Mr. Bucher has not carried his burden of proving that his injury arose primarily out of his employment. However, the missing element is medical causation. The Court holds that it is not necessary for Mr. Bucher to prove medical causation at this time in order to receive temporary medical benefits.

At an expedited hearing, an employee may receive temporary medical benefits before proving the medical causation required to establish that an injury arose primarily out of employment.

Cargile, Pamela v. HCA Physicians Service · filed 2015-11-04(13)(B)

HCA correctly asserts that Ms. Cargile has not carried her burden of proving her injury arose primarily out of her employment. ... The Court holds it is not necessary for Ms. Cargile to prove medical causation at this time in order to receive temporary medical benefits.

Section 50-6-102(13)(C) requires proof to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the injury causing disability or a need for treatment contributed more than 50 percent considering all causes.

Johnson, Essie v. First United Methodist Church · filed 2016-01-27(13)(C)

“Arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment” requires a showing, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the injury causing disablement or the need for medical treatment contributed more than fifty percent considering all causes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(C) (2015).

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) and (D) require a physician’s opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that work contributed more than 50% to the need for treatment; lay testimony alone does not prove medical causation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Arciga, Nohemi v. AtWork Personnel Services · filed 2016-02-02(14)(C), (14)(D)

With respect to the element of medical causation, an employee has the burden of proving, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the work accident "contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing ... the need for medical treatment, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C) (2015). In addition, the phrase "shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty" is defined to require an "opinion of the physician" that it is "more likely than not, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-102(14)(D) (2015). In the present case, Employee has offered no expert medical evidence to support a finding of causation. Her lay testimony, while probative to the issue of causation, is insufficient in and of itself to satisfy her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) requires expert medical proof that the work incident contributed more than 50% to the disablement or need for treatment; without that proof, medical causation is not established at an expedited hearing.

Walton, Lee A. Sr. V. Averitt Express · filed 2016-03-07(14)(C)

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

Section 50-6-102(14)(C)-(D) requires expert medical testimony establishing that a work injury contributed more than fifty percent to the need for treatment or disability, based on a physician’s opinion that causation is more likely than not rather than speculative.

Lewis, Lea Ann v. Molly Maid · filed 2016-03-10(14)(C)-(D)

In order to establish causation, an employee must prove "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [the injury] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the death, disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-102(14)(C) (2015). 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) (2015). Thus, causation must be established by expert medical testimony, and it must be more than "speculation or possibility" on the part of the doctor.

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

Choate, Jerry v. Revel Logging, LLC · filed 2016-03-11(14)(C)

Thus, the issue is medical causation. Mr. Choate must show, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the incident "contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C) (2015).

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) and (D) require expert medical testimony that an injury more likely than not contributed over 50% to death, disablement, or the need for treatment, considering all causes.

Swain, Kenneth v. Standard Candy Company · filed 2016-04-03(14)(C), (14)(D)

In order to establish causation, Mr. Swain must prove "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [the injury] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the death, disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C) (2015). 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) (2015). Thus, causation must be established by expert medical testimony.

A work injury must contribute more than 50% to the employee’s disablement or need for medical treatment, shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty considering all causes.

Hannigan, Sean v. Paramount Uniform Rental · filed 2016-04-26(14)(C)

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

A compensable injury requires expert medical proof linking the injury and resulting disability or need for treatment to the employee’s work.

Munyan, Bart v. PCL Industrial Construction Co. · filed 2016-05-18(14)(C)

The law clearly places the burden on Mr. Munyan to prove, by expert medical proof, that he sustained disability and the need for medical care due to his alleged work- related injury. He did not do so.

A work injury must contribute more than fifty percent to the need for medical treatment, considering all causes, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty; at an expedited hearing, evidence that the employee is likely to prove that causal link can support medical benefits.

Parker, Janice v. Regional Health · filed 2016-06-01(14)(C)-(D)

Ms. Parker must show, "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [her alleged work injury] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the ... disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C) (2015). "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). ... The Court finds these statements sufficient to establish Ms. Parker would likely prevail at a hearing on the merits regarding medical causation.

A physician’s designation of an injury as work-related does not itself satisfy subsection (14)(C)’s requirement that the injury contributed more than fifty percent to the need for medical treatment, shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Moss, Michael v. Wood Personnel Services · filed 2016-06-03(14)(C)

Dr. Nevels checked Mr. Moss’ injury as work-related after his very first visit on November 19, 2015. This statement does not conform to the statute’s requirement that causation be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the injury contributed more than fifty percent in causing the need for medical treatment.

A compensable injury must be shown to have contributed more than fifty percent to the need for medical treatment, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty; without supporting medical causation evidence, the employee cannot establish causation.

Adams, Larita v. Verizon Wireless · filed 2016-08-18(14)(C)

Further, she must show, “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that it contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the . . . disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 102(14)(C) (2015). ... Absent a contrary medical opinion, Ms. Adams cannot establish causation.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C)-(D) requires expert medical proof, beyond speculation or possibility, that an injury contributed more than 50% to the need for treatment, considering all causes.

Miller, Christopher v. TRW Automotive U.S., LLC · filed 2016-06-02(14)(C)-(D)

In order to establish causation, an employee must prove "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [the injury] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the death, disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C) (2015). 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) (2015). Thus, causation must be established by expert medical testimony, and it must be more than "speculation or possibility" on the part of the doctor.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) requires a medically certain causal connection between an injury and the need for treatment, with the injury contributing more than fifty percent considering all causes.

Dunn, Jason v. United States Infrastructure · filed 2016-07-18(14)(C)

Further, "[a]n injury causes death, disablement or the need for medical treatment only if it has been shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that it contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the death, disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C) (2015). ... Dr. Kahn did not address whether the need for Mr. Dunn's left shoulder surgery was more than fifty percent related to overuse as a result of the October 17, 2014 right shoulder work-related injury.

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

Gamble, Ceasar v. Miller Industries, Inc. · filed 2017-02-09(14)(C)

Furthermore, “[a]n injury causes death, disablement or the need for medical treatment only if it has been shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that it contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the death, disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C) (emphasis added). In this case, Employee has failed to produce evidence suggesting that the work injury contributed more than 50% in causing the need for the total hip replacement surgery.

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

Coles, Giles v, YRC, Inc. · filed 2017-02-14(14)(C)

However, upon careful review of the medical records, the Court finds Mr. Cole failed to come forward with any proof demonstrating that he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits that his alleged injuries caused his need for further medical treatment. Thus, he cannot establish the second required element of his claim for benefits; namely, that the incident contributed more than fifty percent to his need for further medical treatment. The absence of any expert medical opinion on this point is fatal to his claim at this hearing.

An employee must prove to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a work injury contributed more than 50% to the disability or need for medical treatment, considering all causes; a negligent intervening event can defeat causation for later treatment and disability.

Bolden, II, Douglass v, Lowe's Home Centers · filed 2017-03-10(14)(C)

In order to establish causation, an employee must prove "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [the injury] contributed more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the death, disablement or need for medical treatment, considering all causes." Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-102(14)(C) (2016). ... Therefore, the Court holds Mr. Bolden's negligence rendered him unable to establish he is likely to prevail at a Compensation Hearing in proving a causal relation between his work-injury of July 1, 2016, and his need for an orthopedic referral and temporary disability benefits resulting from his inability to work due to increased restrictions.

Section 50-6-102(14)(C) requires an employee seeking temporary disability benefits at an expedited hearing to show a likelihood of proving that the work accident contributed more than fifty percent to the temporary disability.

Edwards, Malcolm S. v. The Job Shoppe U.S.A. · filed 2017-04-20(14)(C)

When considering this definition in light of the standard of proof at an expedited hearing, we conclude that, in order to be awarded temporary disability benefits at an expedited hearing, an employee must come forward with sufficient evidence to show he or she is likely to prevail at trial in proving the work accident contributed more than fifty percent in causing the temporary disability.

Section 50-6-102 requires proof of the injury date, medical evidence connecting the injury to treatment, and evidence sufficient to determine average weekly wages when those matters are needed to establish benefits.

Compton, Pamela v. Mo's Investments, Inc., d/b/a/ Sicily Restaurant · filed 2018-01-11(14)(A), (14)(C), (14)(D), (3)(A)

Ms. Compton cut her arm at work, but she failed to prove entitlement to any medical expenses or temporary disability benefits. Ms. Compton failed to identify the specific date of her injury. See Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-102(14)(A). Further, she failed to provide a medical opinion sufficient to prove her injury required the medical treatment she received. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(C) and (D). Additionally, she did not provide medical excuses to cover at least seven days that would entitle her to temporary total disability benefits or provide sufficient evidence for the court to determine her average weekly wage. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 50-6-205(a) and -102(3)(A). Thus the Court holds that Ms. Compton failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish entitlement to medical and temporary disability benefits.

Section 50-6-102(13)(E) gives the authorized treating physician’s causation opinion a presumption of correctness, but the presumption does not apply when that physician provides no causation opinion.

Brees, Sarah v. Escape Day Spa & Salon · filed 2015-02-10(13)(E)

Because Dr. Siegel did not provide a causation opinion, the presumption of correctness does not apply.

A physician assistant’s causation opinion does not satisfy the requirement that causation be shown through a physician’s opinion.

Daniels, Cathy v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. · filed 2015-02-25(13)(D)

Based on this authority, the Court finds that PA Martin's causation opinion does not meet the statutory standard set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 102(13)(D)(2014) since it is not the opinion of a physician.

The treating physician's causation opinion receives the statutory presumption of correctness only when the employee selected that physician from the employer's designated panel.

Nance, Tequila v. Randstad US · filed 2015-04-27(13)(E)

Here, Randstad did not provide a panel. Hence, no presumption of correctness attaches to Dr. Ellis' opinion and there is nothing for Ms. Nance to rebut by a preponderance of the evidence.

The presumption that a treating physician’s opinion on causation is correct does not attach when the employee did not select that physician from an employer-designated panel of at least three physicians.

Duncan, Danya v. Houchens Food Group, Inc. · filed 2015-05-12(13)(E)

There is nothing in the record indicating Mr. Duncan received a panel from which he chose Dr. DeVries. In providing only one doctor on the original panel and not providing a panel of specialists from which Mr. Duncan could chose, Houchens failed to comply with the plain language of section 50-6-204(a)(3). Hence, no presumption of correctness attached to Dr. DeVries' causation opinion.

A treating physician’s opinion on causation does not receive the statutory presumption of correctness when the employer’s physician panel is defective.

Marzette, Shelton v. Pat Salmon & Sons, Inc. · filed 2015-08-19(13)(E)

In this case, because the panel was defective, Dr. Rucker’s opinion is not entitled to a presumption of correctness.

Section 50-6-102(13) does not require an employee to supply medical proof of an injury before the employer provides medical care upon notice; the panel physician may assess causation during treatment and examination.

Jarrett, Lee Anna v. SRG Global · filed 2015-05-12(13)

To prove entitlement to medical benefits, the statute does not require Ms. Jarrett 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).

Section 50-6-102(13)(C) does not require proof of medical causation to a reasonable degree of medical certainty before an employee who has given notice of injury can receive a physician panel for temporary medical benefits.

Hale, Sherry v. Prime Packaging & Label, LLC · filed 2015-06-25(13)(C)

The Court holds that, upon Ms. Hale gtvmg notice of her injury, it was unnecessary for her to prove medical causation to a reasonable degree of medical certainty in order to receive temporary medical benefits, namely, a panel.

Section 50-6-102(13) does not require medical proof of injury before an employer provides medical care after notice of injury and a request for treatment; the panel physician may address causation during treatment.

Dzielak, Ken v. Nyrstar Tennessee Mines · filed 2015-07-28(13)

To prove entitlement to medical benefits, the statute does not require an employee to present medical proof of an injury before the employer is required to provide medical benefits. Rather, the Workers' Compensation Law contemplates that an employer will provide medical care upon receipt of notice of the injury and after the employee has expressed a need for medical treatment, 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).

The presumption for a treating physician’s causation opinion requires actual treatment; a physician who only examines the worker once without treating her does not qualify.

Kirk, Regina v. Amazon.com, Inc. · filed 2015-07-07(13)(E)

Dr. Eldurkar saw Ms. Kirk only once, ordered no diagnostic testing, and offered no treatment. In light of the above authority, the Court finds that, because he did not treat Ms. Kirk, Dr. Eldurkar's opinion is not entitled to the statutory presumption.

An authorized physician’s opinion receives no presumption of correctness under subsection (13)(E) when the employee did not select the physician from a panel.

Farnsworth, Darren v. Foley Company · filed 2015-06-27(13)(E)

Moreover, while Foley Company or its workers' compensation insurer authorized Dr. Copeland's treatment, Mr. Farnsworth did not select Dr. Copeland from a panel of physicians. Therefore, no presumption of correctness is given Dr. Copeland' s opinion. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(E).

The panel-selected treating physician’s opinion on causation is presumed correct, and a conclusory contrary opinion that does not address whether work caused more than 50% of the injury is insufficient to rebut it.

Taylor, Brandon TEC Industrial · filed 2015-08-31(13)(E)

Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(13)(E) (2014), "[t]he opinion of the treating physician, selected by the employee from the employer's designated panel of physicians pursuant to§ 50-6-204(a)(3), shall be presumed correct on the issue of causation, but his presumption shall be rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence." ... Dr. Jenkins is not asked to consider all causes or to opine that a work accident contributed more than 50% in causing Mr. Taylor's injury, as the above- referenced statute requires. The Court determines Dr. Jenkins' opinion on causation is insufficient to rebut Dr. Kakkar's assessment.

A panel physician's opinion on causation is presumed correct, and a competing opinion framed as speculation or possibility does not rebut that presumption.

Thysavathdy, Sisouphahn v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations · filed 2015-11-18(13)(E)

Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 102(13)(E) (2014), Dr. Novak's opinion is entitled to the presumption of correctness on the issue of causation. ... In Mr. Thysavathdy's case, the Court finds Dr. Vaughan's opinion falls within the realm of "speculation or possibility" and is insufficient at this time to rebut the presumption of correctness of Dr. Novak's opinion.

Section 50-6-102(13)(E) presumes the panel-selected treating physician’s causation opinion correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Buchanan, Luther v. Carlex Glass Co. · filed 2015-08-31(13)(E)

Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(13)(E) (2014), "[t]he opinion of the treating physician, selected by the employee from the employer's ... designated panel of physicians pursuant to § 50-6-204(a)(3), shall be presumed correct on the issue of causation but this presumption shall be rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence." Carl ex did not rebut the medical opinions given by BMH and TOC, and Mr. Buchanan selected either one or both medical providers from a panel.

Section 50-6-102(13)(E) presumes the panel-selected treating physician’s causation opinion correct, and a conjectural opinion that only suspects a work connection does not rebut that presumption.

Boyd, Michael v. Revel Logging, LLC. · filed 2015-09-22(13)(E)

Such an opinion is conjectural, does not establish that the injury is primarily work-related, and is insufficient to rebut the presumption 'of correctness attached to Dr. Waggoner's opinion under section 50-6-102(13)(E).

Section 50-6-102(13)(E) presumes a panel-selected treating physician's opinion on medical causation correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Kimery, Robert v. Trillium Staffing · filed 2015-10-13(13)(E)

Pursuant to section 50-6-102(13)(E), Dr. Jones' opinion is afforded a presumption of correctness on the issue of medical causation that is rebuttable only by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court finds the medical proof, at this time, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of correctness afforded Dr. Jones.

Section 50-6-102(13)(E) gives no presumption of correctness to an unauthorized provider's causation opinion, but the court may still give that opinion weight.

Shannon, Jared v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2015-10-19(13)(E)

Mr. Shannon correctly argued that Dr. Haslam's opinion, given his status as an unauthorized provider, is not entitled to a presumption of correctness. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102 (13)(E) (2015). However, that does not mean his opinion is entitled to no weight at all.

Section 50-6-102(13)(E) presumes the authorized treating physician’s causation opinion is correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Syph, Deborah v. Choice Food Group, Inc. · filed 2015-11-06(13)(E)

The Workers’ Compensation Law presumes the authorized treating physician’s opinion on causation is correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(E) (2014). Ms. Syph provided no contradictory causation opinion.

A causation opinion carries the statutory presumption of correctness only when the treating physician was selected from the employer’s designated panel of physicians.

Wilson, Bradley v. Dana Holding Corporation · filed 2015-12-16(13)(E)

Since neither doctor was a treating physician from a panel of physicians, neither opinion carries any statutory presumption of correctness.

Section 50-6-102(13)(E) presumes the selected treating physician’s causation opinion correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

James v. Tyson Foods, Inc. · filed 2015-12-23(13)(E)

In this case, Mr. Sadler must rebut Dr. Calfee's opinions by a preponderance of the evidence. The only expert evidence tendered by Mr. Sadler is the IME of Dr. Dalal. The Court finds Dr. Dalal does not rebut Dr. Calfee's opinions by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes correct the causation opinion of a treating physician selected from the employer's panel, unless a preponderance of the evidence rebuts it.

Scott, Raymond v. Snyder Services Plumbing Co. · filed 2016-01-26(14)(E)

Moreover, the opinion of the treating physician, selected by the employee from the employer's designated panel of physicians, is presumed correct on the issue of causation. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E) (2015). This presumption, however, is rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence. !d. Mr. Scott selected Dr. Bobo from Snyder's panel of physicians on April 13, 2015. As the authorized treating physician, Dr. Bobo's causation opinion is presumed correct. He causally related Mr. Scott's tom biceps tendon to Mr. Scott's work incident, and Snyder has not presented any evidence to rebut Dr. Bobo's causation opinion.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes a panel-selected treating physician's opinion on causation correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Thomas, William v. MTD Products, Inc. · filed 2016-02-18(14)(E)

Pursuant to section 50-6-102(14)(E) (2015), Dr. Nord's causation opinion is afforded a presumption of correctness that is rebuttable only by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives the authorized treating physician’s causation opinion a rebuttable presumption of correctness; without contrary medical evidence, an employee cannot overcome that presumption at an expedited benefits hearing.

Leas, Anthony v. Opus Inspection, Inc., et al. · filed 2016-03-30(14)(E)

Here, the trial court determined that Employee’s authorized treating physician, Dr. Wieck, opined that his injury was not primarily caused by his employment and that Employee had not presented any medical evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness afforded that opinion. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E) (2015). On appeal, Employee points to no medical evidence contrary to the trial court’s ruling, and our review of the record reveals none. Thus, we have no difficulty affirming the trial court’s decision to deny benefits at this point in the case.

The presumption that a panel-selected treating physician is correct on causation does not depend on whether a court considers the treatment at a medical appointment appropriate or adequate.

Long, Joann v. Southeast Eye Specialists · filed 2016-02-02(13)(E)

Neither of these provisions preconditions the "treating physician" designation, or the application of the presumption of correctness, on a court's perception of whether the treatment provided at any given medical appointment was appropriate or adequate.

Section 50-6-102(13)(E) presumes a physician’s medical causation opinion correct unless a preponderance of the evidence rebuts it.

Williams, Kimberly v. Volco Group · filed 2016-03-24(13)(E)

Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(13)(E) (2015), Dr. Milek's opinion is afforded a presumption of correctness on the issue of medical causation that is rebuttable only by a preponderance of the evidence. Ms. Williams did not introduce contrary medical proof to rebut the presumption.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes the authorized treatment provider's causation opinion correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Sanker, Jason v. Nacarato Trucks, Inc. · filed 2016-05-16(14)(E)

In addition, Dr. Elalayli's opinion, as the authorized treatment provider, is presumed correct on the issue of causation, but this presumption shall be rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E) (2015).

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

Sanker, Jason v. Nacarato Trucks, Inc. · filed 2016-07-06(14)(E)

The pertinent workers' compensation statute requires trial courts to presume the correctness of an authorized treating physician's causation opinion. ... The trial court concluded that Employer did not present sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of correctness given to Dr. Elalayli's causation opinion. We agree.

A treating physician's causation opinion receives a rebuttable presumption of correctness only when the employee selected that physician from the employer's designated panel.

Rucker, Tony v. Flexible Staffing Solutions of Tennessee · filed 2016-07-26(14)(E)

The opinion of the treating physician, selected by the employee from the employer's designated panel of physicians, shall be presumed correct on the issue of causation, but the presumption is rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. Here, Flexible Staffing did not provide Mr. Rucker a panel of physicians. As such, Dr. McElligott's opinion is not entitled to a presumption of correctness on the issue of causation.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) does not give a physician selected from a panel for a one-time independent medical evaluation a presumption of correctness on causation.

Poellnitz, Robert v. Resolute Forest Products · filed 2016-07-08(14)(E)

The Court also finds that Dr. Strait is not entitled to a statutory presumption of correctness regarding causation under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 102(14)(E) (2015). As Dr. Strait's December 7, 2015 office note indicates, he saw Mr. Poellnitz for a one-time "Independent Medical Evaluation." (Ex. 7.) The Court is unaware of any statutory law or case law indicating that a physician selected from a panel to perform an IME is entitled to the statutory presumption of correctness.

The authorized treating physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct, and competing medical evidence must rebut that presumption.

Lee, Erica v. Amazon · filed 2026-03-30(12)(E)

Dr. Jones’s opinions given in response to the questionnaire have a presumption of correctness, and Dr. Buechner’s opinion, based in part on his review of an MRI completed nearly two years after the work accident and with no comparison to the prior MRI completed in October 2023, does not rebut that presumption. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(E) (2025).

A treating physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct when the employee selected that physician from the employer’s panel, and another physician’s opinion must rebut it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Brees, Sarah v. Escape Day Spa & Salon · filed 2015-03-12(13)(E)

Having determined that Dr. Siegel provided a causation opinion that is entitled to a presumption of correctness in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 102(13)(E), we further find that Dr. Abbey's causation opinion does not rebut Dr. Siegel's opinion by a preponderance of the evidence.

The treating physician's causation opinion is presumed correct when the employee selected that physician from the employer's panel, and the employee may rebut it with contrary evidence.

Velsor, Robin v. Amazon.Com, Inc. · filed 2015-06-16(13)(E)

The only medical opinion contained in the record before this Court that addressed causation is the report of Dr. Hazlewood, an authorized treating physician selected from a panel of physicians. ... Ms. Velsor failed to offer a contrary opinion to rebut Dr. Hazlewood's opinion. Accordingly, based on a review of the present record, this Court finds that Ms. Velsor is not likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits.

Section 50-6-102(13)(E) gives a physician selected from the employer’s panel a rebuttable presumption of correctness on causation, which an unsupported contrary opinion may fail to overcome.

Boyd, Rosemary v. Hewlitt Packard Co. · filed 2015-07-06(13)(E)

Because these doctors were panel selections, the opinions of the Concentra physicians are entitled to the presumption of correctness on the issue of causation, pursuant to subsection (E) above. ... In the absence of any supporting explanation of how Ms. Boyd tore her rotator cuff while typing on a keyboard, the Court finds that Dr. Downs’ statement is insufficient to rebut the presumption of correctness of the authorized physicians’ opinions at this time.

A treating physician selected from the employer's designated panel has a rebuttable presumption of correctness on causation, overcome by a preponderance of the evidence.

Boyd, Rosemary v. Hewlett Packard Co. · filed 2015-07-24(13)(E)

Given that Employee admitted receiving a panel on the PBD, a reasonable interpretation of the technical record and documentary evidence is that Concentra was the authorized provider selected in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(3) (2014) and is, therefore, entitled to the presumption of correctness on the issue of causation. ... In short, the evidence presented to date does not preponderate against the trial court's conclusion that the opinions offered by Dr. Downs do not rebut the causation opinions offered by the Concentra physicians.

Section 50-6-102(13)(E) gives a rebuttable presumption of correctness to the causation opinion of a physician selected from an employer-provided panel.

Campbell, Beverly v. Century Mold Co., Inc. · filed 2015-12-14(13)(E)

Ms. Campbell selected Dr. Johnson from a panel of physicians provided by Century. Therefore, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(13)(E) (2014) establishes a rebuttable presumption of correctness for his causation opinion.

Section 50-6-102(13)(E) gives a rebuttable presumption of correctness on causation to the opinion of a treating physician selected from the employer’s designated panel; an unauthorized physician’s opinion receives no such presumption.

McIntosh, Sarah Kaye v. Randstad · filed 2015-09-24(13)(E)

Having found that Dr. Alday is not an authorized treating physician in this case, his opinion on causation carries no presumption of correctness.

Credible employee testimony may be considered in deciding whether a preponderance of the evidence rebuts the authorized treating physician's presumed-correct causation opinion.

Kirk, Regina v. Amazon.com, Inc. · filed 2015-10-08(13)(E)

In view of the above-cited authority, the Court finds it proper to consider Ms. Kirk's testimony in determining whether a preponderance of the evidence rebuts Dr. Eldurkar's opinion of non-compensability.

The treating physician’s causation opinion receives a rebuttable presumption of correctness, but there is no opinion to rebut when the physician gives no basis for attributing the condition to a nonwork cause.

Seabaugh, Thomas v. Revel Logging · filed 2015-10-09(13)(E)

Further, the opinion of the treating physician, selected by the employee from the employer's designated panel of physicians shall be presumed correct on the issue of causation, but this presumption shall be rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(E) (2014). ... There is no stated basis for the recommendation that orthopedic evaluation should occur under personal insurance rather than workers' compensation. Thus, there is no causation opinion for Mr. Seabaugh to rebut.

A treating physician selected from the employer’s panel has a rebuttable presumption that the physician’s causation opinion is correct.

Tidmore, John v. Tennessee Steel Center · filed 2015-11-05(13)(E)

Dr. Brady's third causation opinion meets Mr. Tidmore's burden, and is presumed correct since he is the authorized treating physician selected from a panel.

A treating physician selected from the employer's panel is presumed correct on causation, but that presumption can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

White, Melinda v. Caris Healthcare · filed 2015-11-06(13)(E)

In making its findings, this Court is aware of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-1 02(E) that states that the opinion of "the treating physician, selected by the employee from the employer's designated panel of physicians ... shall be presumed correct on the issue of causation but this presumption shall be rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence." The combination of Ms. White's testimony, the information contained in the medical records referenced herein, and the previously stated flaws in Dr. McElligott's responses, provide a sufficient rebuttal of Dr. McElligott's opinion at this interlocutory stage.

Section 50-6-102(13)(E) presumes the panel-selected treating physician's causation opinion is correct, but the presumption is rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence.

Kirk, Regina v. Amazon.com, Inc. · filed 2015-11-16(13)(E)

Our review leads us to conclude that the preponderance of the evidence supports the trial court's determination that Employee established she is likely to prevail at a trial on the merits in overcoming the presumption of correctness afforded Dr. Eldurkar's causation opinion and in establishing that her left shoulder injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment.