Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102

Section 50-6-102(13)(E) gives an employee-selected physician from the employer's designated panel a rebuttable presumption of correctness on causation.

Holman, Douglas v. Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC · filed 2015-12-21(13)(E)

Once an employer offers the employee a panel of physicians in accordance with the statute, then the selected physician is designated the "treating physician," and that physician's opinion on causation is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of correctness.

The authorized treating physician’s opinion on causation is presumed correct, and the employee must present countervailing evidence to rebut that presumption.

Garrard, John v. Mechanical Components of Tennessee · filed 2015-12-22(13)(E)

Despite this knowledge, Dr. Hubbard opined that a causal relationship existed between Mr. Garrard’s cervical pain, finger tingling and the workplace accident. As the authorized treating physician, his opinion carries a presumption of correctness. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(E) (2014). Thus, the Court finds, based on the evidence before it at this time, that Mr. Garrard is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in proving a causal relationship between his cervical pain, hand tingling and the workplace accident.

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.

Adams, James v. Pristine Building Services · filed 2016-01-05(13)(E)

Mr. Adams selected Concentra Medical Centers from a panel of physicians provided by Pristine, who provided treatment with Dr. Thomas at Concentra. Therefore, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(13)(E) (2014) establishes a rebuttable presumption of correctness for Dr. Thomas’ causation opinion.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives a rebuttable presumption of correctness to the causation opinion of a physician selected by an employee from the employer’s panel.

Virgil, Margaret v. Nissan North America · filed 2016-01-13(14)(E)

Ms. Virgil selected Dr. Hazlewood from a panel of physicians provided by Nissan. Therefore, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(E) (2015) establishes a rebuttable presumption of correctness for Dr. Hazlewood’s causation opinion.

An authorized treating physician’s causation opinion carries a presumption of correctness that requires contradictory expert medical proof to overcome.

Syph, Deborah v. Choice Food Group, Inc. · filed 2016-01-13(13)(E)

Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(13)(E) (2015), his opinion carries a presumption of correctness that can only be overcome by the presentation of contradictory expert medical proof.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives the panel-selected treating physician’s causation opinion a presumption of correctness that the employee must rebut by a preponderance of the evidence.

Johnson, Essie v. First United Methodist Church · filed 2016-01-25(14)(E)

Pursuant to section 50-6-102(14)(E) (2015), Dr. Murrell'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 a rebuttable presumption of correctness to the causation opinion of a physician selected from an employer-provided panel.

Williams, David v. Nissan North America, Inc. · filed 2016-01-26(14)(E)

Mr. Williams selected Dr. Hazlewood from a panel of physicians provided by Nissan. Therefore, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(E) (2015) establishes a rebuttable presumption of correctness for Dr. Hazlewood’s causation opinion that Mr. Williams’ condition is not work related.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives a rebuttable presumption of correctness to the causation opinion of a physician selected from an employer-provided panel.

Hemingway, James v. Nissan · filed 2016-01-28(14)(E)

Therefore, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(E) (2015) establishes a rebuttable presumption of correctness for Dr. Woodall’s causation opinion that Mr. Hemingway’s condition is not work related.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives the authorized treating physician’s causation opinion a rebuttable presumption of correctness that an employee cannot overcome with lay criticism alone and no contrary medical opinion.

Rohrenbach, Terry v. Yates Services · filed 2016-03-04(14)(E)

Therefore, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 102(14)(E) (2015) establishes a rebuttable presumption of correctness for Dr. Woodall’s opinion that Mr. Rohrenbach’s condition did not arise primarily out of his employment. ... Absent a contrary medical opinion, Mr. Rohrenbach cannot rebut the presumption of correctness afforded Dr. Woodall’s opinion by the statute.

The presumption of correctness for an authorized treating physician’s causation opinion can be rebutted by employee testimony and contrary medical evidence.

Arriaga, Elsa v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. · filed 2016-03-09(14)(E)

Because we agree with the alternative finding made by the trial court that Employee presented sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of correctness, we need not decide whether Employer established an opinion entitled to a presumption of correctness.

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

Perez, Octavio vs. Shipper’s Choice · filed 2016-03-11(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. Shipper's Choice presented no contrary medical proof to rebut Dr. Nord's opinion. The Court finds Dr. Nord's causation opinion sufficient evidence, at this expedited hearing stage, for the Court to conclude Mr. Perez is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits concerning causation.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes correct the causation opinion of a treating physician selected from the employer’s designated panel, subject to rebuttal by a preponderance of the evidence.

Owens, Adrian v. Unitrac Railroad Materials, Inc., a division of Healey Railroad Corporation · filed 2016-03-18(14)(E)

The 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.

The authorized treating physician’s causation opinion carries a presumption of correctness that may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Yarbrough, James v. Protective Services Co., Inc. · filed 2016-04-13(14)(E)

As such, his opinion that the work injury contributed more than fifty percent in causing the need for medical treatment carries a statutory presumption of correctness. The Court also examined the opposing opinion of Dr. Christian, a non-treating physician who performed a record review only, and finds Dr. Jones' causation opinion has not been rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 50-6-102(13)(E) gives an authorized treating physician’s opinion on causation a rebuttable presumption of correctness.

Yarbrough, James v. Protective Services Co., Inc. · filed 2016-05-27(13)(E)

As the trial court observed, the opinion expressed by Dr. Jones is entitled to a presumption of correctness. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(E) (2015). The trial court ruled that while Dr. Christian, who never treated or examined Employee, offered a contrary view, his opinion was insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of correctness. Based upon our review of the record, it cannot be said that the evidence preponderates against this finding.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes the panel-selected treating physician's causation opinion correct, but permits rebuttal by a preponderance of the evidence.

Hall, Steven v. Mid-South Industrial, Inc. · filed 2016-06-10(14)(E)

The opinion of the treating physician, selected by the employee from a panel designated by the employer is presumed correct on the issue of causation subject to rebuttal by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E) (2015). ... Even if Dr. Pearce were an authorized physician whose opinion is entitled to a presumption of correctness, the Court finds such presumption is rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes correct the causation opinion of the treating physician selected by the employee from the employer's panel, subject to rebuttal by a preponderance of the evidence.

Mendez, Severiano v. Serra Jackson Automotive d/b/a Serra Chevrolet Cadillac Buick GMD · filed 2016-06-13(14)(E)

Under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(E) (2015), Dr. Brophy's causation opinion is presumed correct.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes a panel-selected physician’s causation opinion correct, but a preponderance of the evidence can overcome that presumption.

Womack, Angela v. Yorozu Automotive TN · filed 2016-06-30(14)(E)

Yorozu is correct that because Ms. Womack selected Dr. Joyner from a panel of physicians, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(E) (2015) establishes a presumption of correctness for any causation opinion given by Dr. Joyner.4 However, the statute is clear that this presumption may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives a rebuttable presumption of correctness to the causation opinion of an authorized treating physician selected from the employer’s panel.

Hewlett, Angela v. SMX Staffing · filed 2016-07-01(14)(E)

Ms. Hewlett selected Dr. Coogan from a panel of physicians provided by SMX. Therefore, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(E) (2015) establishes a rebuttable presumption of correctness for Dr. Coogan’s causation opinion.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives a rebuttable presumption of correctness on causation only to the opinion of a treating physician whom the employee selected from the employer’s designated panel.

Webb, Jacqueline v. FEDEX Services · filed 2016-07-08(14)(E)

Based upon the testimony of Mr. Colquhoun and a reading of the statute, the Court finds Dr. Alday was not a "treating physician, selected by the employee from the employer's designated panel of physicians," and his causation opinion is not entitled to a presumption of correctness in this case.

The authorized treating physician's causation opinion is presumed correct, and unsupported allegations of influence or altered records do not rebut that presumption.

Pool, Ronald v. Jarmon D&Q Transport · filed 2016-07-18(14)(E)

Moreover, Dr. Choi's causation opinion is presumed correct. Although contending there was collusion of some sort, Mr. Pool provided no evidence to substantiate his claim that Ms. Mulderig influenced Dr. Choi's expert opinions or that the medical records were in any way altered.

A specialist referred by the panel-selected treating physician is a statutory treating physician whose causation opinion receives a rebuttable presumption of correctness.

Engler, Jonathan v. Able Moving Co. · filed 2016-08-17(14)(E)

The Court holds that Dr. Brophy is a statutory "treating physician" as he was a specialist physician referred by Dr. Varner, the "treating physician" selected by Mr. Engler from Able's designated panel. As a statutory "treating physician," Dr. Brophy's opinion is entitled to a presumption of correctness on the issue of causation.

An authorized treating physician’s opinion on causation is presumed correct, and a contrary records review may fail to rebut that presumption.

Love, Sarah v. Delta Faucet, Co. · filed 2016-09-19(14)(E)

When one of those experts is an authorized treating physician, that expert’s opinion is afforded a presumption of correctness on the issue of causation. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E) (2015). ... The trial court determined the presumption of correctness afforded the authorized treating physician’s opinion was not rebutted by Dr. Sickle’s review of the records. The evidence does not preponderate otherwise.

A physician who was not on an employer-provided panel receives no rebuttable presumption of correctness for a causation opinion.

Wilson, Richard Lee v. Ryder Logistics · filed 2016-09-09(13)(E)

However, since Dr. Thompson was not a panel physician, his opinion regarding causation is not entitled to the rebuttable presumption of correctness set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(13)(E) (2015).

The panel physician's causation opinion is presumed correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Darraj, Jamal v. McKee Foods · filed 2016-10-07(14)(E)

Further, as the panel physician, Dr. Jemison's opinion regarding causation "shall be presumed correct but this presumption shall be rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence." Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E) (20 15). ... Therefore, the Court holds that Mr. Darraj failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of correctness given to Dr. Jemison's opinion on causation.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes correct an authorized treating physician’s causation opinion when the employee selected that physician from the employer’s designated panel, subject to rebuttal by a preponderance of the evidence.

Crumble, Mae v. Express Employment Services · filed 2016-10-12(14)(E)

If Dr. Sioson is an authorized treating physician selected in accordance with section 50-6-204(a)(3), his opinion “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(14)(E).

The authorized treating physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct, and an unexplained contrary medical opinion does not overcome that presumption.

Crowson, Patricia v. UDR, Inc. · filed 2016-10-20(13)(E)

As the authorized treating physician, Dr. Garside’s opinion on the causal relationship between these conditions and her work injury is presumed correct. ... Without an explanation of why her opinion differs, it is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attached to Dr. Garside’s opinion.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes the panel treating physician's causation opinion correct, and an opposing opinion showing only contributory and temporal links does not rebut that presumption.

Tusa, Jos v. Volkswagen Group of America · filed 2016-11-29(14)(E)

In view of the above-quoted backdrop to Dr. Blake's causation opinion, the Court holds her opinion does not rebut the presumption of correctness afforded the opinion of Dr. Recasens. At its core, Dr. Blake's opinion established only contributory and temporal links between Mr. Tusa's arthritic conditions and his work at Volkswagen.

The authorized treating physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct, and the employee must rebut that presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.

Bufford, Joe v. Northwest TN Human Resource Agency · filed 2016-12-05(14)(E)

Further, as the authorized physician, Dr. Chandler’s opinion regarding causation “shall be presumed correct but this presumption shall be rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at § 50-6-102(14)(E)(2015). ... In this case, the Court must presume Dr. Chandler’s opinion to be correct and Mr. Bufford must rebut that presumption in order to prevail. Mr. Bufford presented Dr. Kuhn’s opnion in an effort to rebut the presumption. The Court holds he failed to do so.

The authorized treating physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct, and merely submitting a contrary physician’s opinion does not overcome that presumption.

Smith, Claretha v. Eaton Electrical · filed 2016-12-07(14)(E)

The Court holds that the mere submission of the opinion of Dr. Grebner is not sufficient to overcome the statutory presumption in favor of Dr. Vaughn.

An authorized treating physician’s opinion on causation is presumed correct, but a preponderance of the evidence can rebut that presumption.

Amofa, Anthony v. Yates Services · filed 2016-12-21(14)(E)

Nevertheless, under the Workers' Compensation Law, this selection results in a presumption that Premise Health providers' opinions on causation are correct but rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence.

The authorized treating physician's opinion on causation is presumed correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Holsopple, Jennifer v. Volunteer Staffing, Inc. · filed 2016-12-21(14)(E)

Accordingly, this Court concludes that Dr. Holladay's opinion failed to rebut the presumption of correctness afforded Dr. Seaworth, the authorized treating physician, on the issue of causation and medically necessity.

The authorized treating physician's opinion on causation is presumed correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Bass, Clarence v. The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2017-01-25(14)(E)

Thus, the Court holds Dr. Landsberg's opinion is insufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness afforded to Dr. Coogan's opinion by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

Waxstein, Victoria v. Architectural Graphics, Inc. · filed 2017-01-30(14)(E)

However, Architectural Graphics did not offer expert proof on the issue of causation. As previously noted, the opinion of the ATP is presumed correct on the issue of causation. Therefore, the Court finds Ms. Waxstein appears likely to establish that the recommended MRI is causally related to her work injury.

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

Diana, Annicia v. ABM Industries, Inc. · filed 2017-02-01(14)(E)

As the authorized treating panel physician, Dr. Ambrosia's causation opinion is presumed correct unless overcome by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes an authorized physician's causation opinion correct and requires the employer to rebut it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Wiles, Ellen v. Dillards · filed 2017-02-01(14)(E)

Dillards does not dispute that Dr. Thomas is an authorized doctor, and thus his opinion on causation is entitled to a presumption of correctness that can only be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E) (2016). Dr. Thomas clearly gave his opinion that Ms. Wiles' left carpal tunnel syndrome was primarily due to her employment with Dillards. Thus, the burden shifted to Dillards to establish it is likely to rebut Dr. Thomas' opinion by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing on the merits in order to justify its denial of benefits.

The authorized treating physician’s opinion on causation is presumed correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence; an employee’s account of no prior back pain did not overcome the opinion without contrary medical evidence.

Stallion, Samuel v. TruGreen, L.P. · filed 2017-02-02(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 this presumption shall be rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E) (2016). Here, there is no medical opinion addressing the issues of medical causation and the need for medical treatment other than Dr. Jolley’s opinions. Employee offered no evidence, aside from his assertion that he did not have back pain prior to the injury, to support a finding that there was a compensable aggravation of a pre-existing condition.

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

Adams, Roy v. Beverly Park Place Health and Rehabilitation · filed 2017-02-07(14)(E)

Furthermore, the panel-selected physician's causation opinion is presumed correct, as is the treatment he recommends. However, that opinion might be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

A panel physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Haynes, Tonona v. Natchez Trace Youth Academy · filed 2017-02-23(14)(E)

Because Ms. Haynes chose him from a panel, Dr. Chandler's causation opinion is entitled to a presumption of correctness, rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E) (2016). ... These opinions on both the right and left shoulders are in the realm of speculation and possibility, and insufficient to rebut Dr. Chandler.

A selected treating physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct, but the employee may overcome that presumption with sufficient countervailing evidence.

Wilhite, Donna v. Millwork · filed 2017-03-01(14)(E)

Accordingly, in order to continue treating with Dr. Pickering under workers’ compensation, Ms. Wilhite must present countervailing evidence sufficient to overcome his causation opinion. The Court finds that Ms. Wilhite carried that burden for two reasons.

An authorized panel physician’s causation opinion carries a rebuttable presumption of correctness.

Andrews, Torey v. Yates Services, LLC · filed 2017-03-10(14)(E)

Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(E) establishes a rebuttable presumption of correctness for a causation opinion given by an authorized panel physician.

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

Lindsay, Angie v, CVS Distribution Center · filed 2017-04-25(14)(E)

Under Tennessee workers' compensation law, the panel-selected physician's causation opinion is presumed correct, as is the treatment he recommends. However, that opinion might be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 50-6-102(14) presumes a panel physician’s causation opinion correct, and merely submitting a contrary opinion conditioned on potentially missing medical records does not overcome that presumption.

Crabtree, Daryl v. Eaton Corporation · filed 2017-03-09(14)

Further, as the panel physician, Dr. Hutcheson's opinion regarding causation "shall be presumed correct but this presumption shall be rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence." Jd. ... Based on the evidence submitted, the Court holds that the mere submission of the opinion of Dr. Hodges is not sufficient to overcome the statutory presumption in favor of Dr. Hutcheson.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives an authorized treating physician’s causation opinion a rebuttable presumption of correctness when medical opinions conflict.

Bass, Clarence v. The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2017-05-26(14)(E)

When one of those experts is an authorized treating physician, that expert’s opinion is afforded a presumption of correctness on the issue of causation. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E).

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives a treating physician a rebuttable presumption of correctness on causation only when the physician was selected from a legally compliant employer panel.

Driver, Robert W. v. Triumph Group, Inc. · filed 2017-10-16(14)(E)

Dr. Tippens, whom Mr. Driver chose from the panel, determined that Mr. Driver’s knee injury did not result from the workplace accident. Because Triumph failed to provide Mr. Driver a panel of physicians that complied with the law, the Court holds that his opinion does not carry a presumption of correctness.

The authorized treating physician’s causation opinion carries a rebuttable presumption of correctness, but a response about disability does not necessarily address whether the injury arose primarily out of employment.

Hornal, Jeff v. Thunder Ridge Transport, Inc. · filed 2018-03-27(14)(E)

Because Mr. Homal selected Dr. Anderson from a panel, the law affords his opinion a rebuttable presumption of correctness. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(E). ... This opinion leaves open for interpretation whether Dr. Anderson would have answered the same way if the adjuster had inquired whether Mr. Homal's injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. ... In view of the above, the Court holds that, at a hearing on the merits, Mr. Homal will likely prevail in rebutting Dr. Anderson's unfavorable causation opinion by a preponderance of the evidence. Dr. Anderson's opinion did not specifically address the causation of Mr. Homal's injury, while Dr. Wiesman's opinion did.

The authorized treating physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct, and an employee’s lay belief alone does not rebut it.

Mendez, Severiano v. Serra Jackson Automotive, LLC, d/b/a Serra Chevrolet · filed 2016-12-20(14)(E)

Dr. Brophy’s opinion is presumed correct. Although this Court is fully cognizant of Mr. Mendez’s sincerely held belief that his surgery and subsequent period of inability to work were caused by his work injury at Serra, his lay opinion alone cannot rebut the expert opinion of Dr. Brophy.

The presumption of correctness applies to the opinion of a physician selected from a panel even after another physician becomes the current treating physician.

Johnson, Kaci v. Inspire Brands d/b/a/ Blazin Wings, Inc. · filed 2022-05-24(14)(E)

The Court rejects Inspire’s argument that Dr. Parsioon’s opinion lost its presumption when Dr. Murrell began treatment. Rather, the Appeals Board held in Endsley v. Benchmark Contractors, LLC, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 47, at *6-7 (Aug. 11, 2017), that the presumption of correctness under section 102(14)(E) applies to the opinion of “a physician” selected from a panel, not only to the opinion of the current treating physician.

A panel physician’s causation opinion carries a rebuttable presumption of correctness that an employee may overcome by a preponderance of the evidence.

Theus, Michael v. Toyota Boshoku America, Inc. · filed 2022-01-21(14)(E)

As the panel physician, Dr. Hutchison’s causation opinion is afforded a rebuttable statutory presumption of correctness. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E). The issue is whether Mr. Theus successfully rebutted the presumption afforded Dr. Hutchison’s opinion by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court finds he did.

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

Conn, Frances v. Amazon · filed 2022-01-24(14)(E)

Amazon relied upon Dr. Ballard. Because Ms. Conn chose her from a panel, her opinion is presumed correct subject to rebuttal by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E). The Court must determine if Ms. Conn rebutted the presumption of correctness attached to Dr. Ballard’s opinion. After reviewing the evidence, the Court holds she did not.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes a physician selected from an employer-provided panel is correct on causation, but the employer may rebut that presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.

Hodge, Raphaela v. Amazon.com · filed 2022-01-31(14)(E)

However, since Ms. Hodge chose Dr. Miller from a panel, his opinion is presumed correct subject to rebuttal by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E). The Court must determine if Amazon rebutted the presumption of correctness attached to Dr. Miller’s opinion. After reviewing the evidence, the Court holds it did.

A physician chosen from a panel has a presumptively correct causation opinion, but a court may give greater weight to another physician who treated the worker more often and over a longer period.

Hanna, Emad v. Gaylord Opryland, d/b/a Marriott International · filed 2022-03-07(14)(E)

Because he was chosen from a panel, Dr. Kaminsky’s causation opinion is presumed correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E). ... The Court places greater weight on Dr. Abtahi’s opinion.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives an authorized treating physician’s causation opinion a presumption of correctness that a preponderance of the evidence can rebut.

Lawson, Charles v. Amazon.com Services, LLC · filed 2022-05-10(14)(E)

When a trial court evaluates expert medical proof of causation, it must give the opinion of an authorized treating physician a presumption of correctness, but this presumption can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes the treating physician’s opinion on whether a condition is work related to be correct when no other medical proof rebuts it.

Harris, Eboni v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center · filed 2022-05-25(14)(E)

Not only is Dr. Mittal’s opinion presumed to be correct under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(E), but also it is unrebutted by any other medical proof.

A panel-selected physician’s causation opinion receives a rebuttable presumption of correctness.

Eason, Rodney v. Nucor Steel Memphis, Inc. · filed 2022-06-09(14)(E)

As the panel-selected physician, Dr. Parsioon’s causation opinion is afforded a rebuttable presumption of correctness. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E).

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

Edwards-Bradford, Patrece v. Kelloggs USA, LLC · filed 2022-06-29(14)(E)

Without this discussion, the Court is unable to find that Dr. Dalal’s causation opinion rebuts the presumption afforded to the causation opinions of Drs. Parsioon and Murrell.

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

Branch, Chasidy v. Professional Care Services · filed 2022-08-26(14)

Additionally, the opinion of the panel-selected physician shall be presumed correct on the issue of causation, but this presumption shall be rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence. ... His opinion is presumed correct.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes correct each causation opinion given by a panel-selected physician while authorized to treat, even if another physician later becomes the treating physician.

Johnson, Kaci L. v. Inspire Brands d/b/a Blazin Wings, Inc. · filed 2022-09-07(14)(E)

As such, both physicians provided causation opinions at the time they were authorized treating physicians, and, therefore, each opinion is entitled to the presumption of correctness in accordance with the plain language of section 50-6- 102(14)(E).

Section 50-6-102 requires medical expert opinion to establish that an injury is work-related and presumes the treating physician’s causation opinion correct.

Dorsey, LaToya v. Amazon.com, Inc. · filed 2015-04-17(13)(C)-(E)

Tennessee Code Annotated sections 50-6-102(13)(C) and (D) require that Ms. Dorsey prove the work-relatedness of her injury by medical expert opinion. Section 50-6-102(13)(E) provides that "the opinion of the treating physician ... shall be presumed correct on the issue of causation" (emphasis added). These provisions contemplate that the authorized treating physician, as opposed to an authorized treating nurse practitioner, fulfills a vital role in the determination of the compensability of a claim.

Section 50-6-102(13)(E) presumes the authorized treating physician’s opinions correct when assessing a claimed work injury.

Boshers, Michael W. v. City Of Camden · filed 2015-06-02(13)(E)

The evidence establishes an incident, provision of a panel for approved medical treatment, and a recommendation from Dr. Berry for further evaluation by a specialist. As the treating physician, Dr. Berry's opinions are presumed correct under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-1 02( 13 )(E).

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes an authorized treating physician’s opinion on causation correct, while an independent medical evaluator’s opinion receives no such presumption.

Holborn, Shanan v. Walmart · filed 2016-06-28(14)(E)

Dr. Cruz’s opinion with regard to the cause of her symptoms is entitled to a presumption of correctness while Dr. Matthews’ opinion is not. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E) (2015).

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes an authorized treating physician’s opinion on causation correct.

Bailey, Sr., Jerry W. v. Team Construction, LLC · filed 2016-09-26(14)(E)

As the authorized treating physician selected from a panel, Dr. Burrus’ opinion on causation is presumed correct. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E) (2015).

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes the authorized treating physician’s opinion correct on causation.

Darraj, Jamal v. McKee Foods Corporation · filed 2017-01-17(14)(E)

This opinion is entitled to a presumption of correctness pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(E).

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives an authorized treating physician's causation opinion a presumption of correctness that does not apply to a second-opinion physician's opinion.

Dohve, Lisa v. First United Methodist Church · filed 2017-03-02(14)(E)

Therefore, Dr. Shibayama's causation opinion is entitled to a presumption of correctness while Dr. Kauffman's opinion is not. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E) (2016).

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives the treating physician’s opinions a presumption of correctness.

Thompson, Davisd v. Comcast Corporation · filed 2017-11-02(14)(E)

Since Dr. Johnson is the treating physician, the law affords his opinions a presumption of correctness. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E).

The authorized treating physician's opinion on causation is presumed correct, but another physician's opinion can rebut that presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.

Lamb, Rhonda v. Karm Thrift Store, LLC · filed 2017-06-05(14)(E)

After careful consideration of the competing medical opinions, the Court places greater weight on Dr. Holt's opinion and holds it rebuts the presumption of correctness afforded to Dr. Renfree's opinion by a preponderance of the evidence.

An authorized treating physician’s opinion that an injury was not work-related receives a presumption of correctness when the parties stipulate to that opinion.

Thysavathdy, Sisouphahn v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations · filed 2017-07-06(14)(E)

Based on this stipulation, we conclude Dr. Novak’s opinion that Employee’s injury was not work-related is entitled to a presumption of correctness as provided in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(E).

The authorized treating physician’s opinion on causation is presumed correct, but competing medical evidence can rebut that presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.

Allsup, Brent v. Lenoir City Utilities Board · filed 2017-07-14(14)(E)

In addition, the opinion of the authorized treating physician "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(14)(E) (2016). ... After careful consideration of the competing medical opinions, the Court places greater weight on Dr. Calhoun's opinion and holds it rebuts the presumption of correctness afforded to Dr. Sanabria's opinion by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

Latch, Terry v. A&A Express · filed 2017-07-17(14)(E)

Because Dr. Parsioon served as a treating physician, his opinion is afforded a presumption of correctness subject to rebuttal by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E) (2016).

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives an authorized treating physician’s medical causation opinion a presumption of correctness that a preponderance of the evidence can rebut.

Lamb, Rhonda v. KARM Thrift Stores, LLC · filed 2017-07-26(14)(E)

When a trial court evaluates expert medical proof of causation, it must give the opinion of an authorized treating physician a presumption of correctness, but this presumption can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

Adamczyk, Adam v. Prospect, Inc. · filed 2017-11-20(14)(E)

As the authorized physician, Dr. Wells' causation opinion is entitled to a presumption of correctness that can only be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E). ... Given all of the above findings, the Court finds that Prospect failed to produce sufficient evidence to rebut Dr. Wells' opinion that Ms. Adamczyk's mid-back pain primarily arose out of and in the course and scope of her employment with Prospect.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes the treating physician’s causation opinion correct, but that opinion may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Privett, Ricky v. Signal Point Systems · filed 2017-12-07(14)(E)

The Court recognizes Dr. Cobb’s causation opinion is presumed correct subject to rebuttal by a preponderance of the evidence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E). However, the Court finds Dr. Chung’s opinion rebuts Dr. Cobb’s opinion based upon the above findings.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives an authorized physician’s opinion on whether an injury arose primarily out of employment a presumption of correctness that may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Thompson, David v. Comcast Corporation · filed 2018-01-30(14)(E)

Dr. Johnson’s opinion in this regard is entitled to a presumption of correctness, which can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E) (2017). Aside from its own interpretation of the medical records, Employer has presented no proof, expert or otherwise, to support its contention that Employee cannot meet his burden of proof in establishing his low back injury is causally related to the work injury.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives an authorized treating physician’s causation opinion a rebuttable presumption of correctness.

McDonough, James v. Phillips General and Mechanical · filed 2018-02-16(14)(E)

The records-review reports of Dr. Walker and Dr. Alexander and surveillance video of Mr. McDonough fail to rebut Dr. Pang's causation opinion, which is presumed correct.

A physician’s causation opinion presumed correct under subsection (14)(E) may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Wallis, Jeff v. Baptist Memorial Hospital · filed 2018-04-04(14)(E)

Next, the Court finds Mr. Wallis established the work incident contributed more than fifty percent to his disablement and need for treatment. In so finding, the Court recognizes Dr. Lovell's opinion is presumed correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102 (14)(E). However, his opinion is subject to rebuttal by a preponderance of the evidence, and the Court finds Mr. Wallis would likely prevail in rebutting that opinion at a hearing on the merits.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) allows an employee to rebut the presumption favoring the treating physician’s causation opinion with medical records, another physician’s testimony, and the employee’s testimony.

Joiner, Roger v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2018-04-19(14)(E)

The Court finds Mr. Joiner overcame the presumption of correctness afforded Dr. Kauffman’s causation opinion with documentation of his complaints from his initial providers, Dr. Neely’s testimony, and his own testimony.

An authorized treating physician’s opinion on causation receives a presumption of correctness that contrary evidence must overcome by a preponderance.

Henderson, Regina v. The EGGO Company · filed 2018-06-01(14)(E)

When one of those experts is an authorized treating physician, that expert's opinion on the issue of causation is afforded a presumption of correctness. Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-102(14)(E). ... Considering each of these opinions, the Court holds Dr. Chung's opmwn is insufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness afforded to Drs. Varner and Murrell's opinions by a preponderance of the evidence.

The authorized treating physician’s opinion on causation is presumed correct, but opinions from other qualified physicians can overcome that presumption.

Jernigan, Robert v. Bailey Co., Inc. · filed 2018-10-03(14)(E)

While Dr. Moran’s opinion is entitled to the presumption of correctness, the Court finds the opinions of three qualified physicians are sufficient to overcome that presumption, at least until Dr. Moran has an opportunity to address the lack of any prior findings of radiculopathy.

The authorized treating physician’s opinion is presumed correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Foster, Bessie v. Andy Frain Services, Inc. · filed 2018-11-20(14)(E)

Dr. Dalal, as the authorized treating physician, is presumed correct subject to rebuttal by a preponderance of the evidence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 102(14)(E). ... When so doing, the Court holds Dr. Dalal was correct and that Frain did not rebut his opinion by a preponderance of the evidence.

The authorized treating physician’s opinion on causation is presumed correct, but a preponderance of the evidence can rebut that presumption.

Wallis,Jeffrey v. Baptist Memorial Hospital · filed 2018-06-20(14)(E)

Under these circumstances, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that Dr. Camillo’s opinions, when considered in conjunction with Employee’s testimony, rebutted Dr. Lovell’s causation opinion.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes the authorized treating physician’s causation opinion correct, but the court may reject that presumption when the physician lacks information about the employee’s current complaints.

Muncy, Rick v. Premium Distributors, Inc. · filed 2018-08-27(14)(E)

Dr. Russell’s causation opinion is presumed correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102 (14)(E). However, the Court rejects the presumption in this case. ... The Court questions how Dr. Russell could know what Mr. Muncy’s “current complaints” are and assess whether they are related to the work injury when he last saw Mr. Muncy so long ago.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes the authorized treating physician’s causation opinion correct; opposing medical proof must overcome that presumption.

Krupla, Douglas v. Eagle Transport Corp. · filed 2018-09-07(14)(E)

In order to establish causation, Mr. Krupla relies on the ATP, Dr. Jordan, whose opinion is presumed correct. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E). ... After careful consideration, the Court finds that Dr. West’s analysis and conclusions are insufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness of Dr. Jordan’s causation opinion.

An authorized treating physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct and can be overcome only by contrary expert medical proof.

Lindsay, Courtland v. Western Express · filed 2018-10-11(14)(E)

His causation opinion carries a presumption of correctness, and the presumption can only be overcome by contrary expert medical proof. See id. at § 50-6-102(14)(E). Mr. Lindsay presented no contrary expert medical proof, only lay testimony. The Court, therefore, holds Mr. Lindsay would be unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in proving medical causation of his injury.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives an authorized treating physician's causation opinion a rebuttable presumption of correctness.

Gilbert, Thomas v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2019-02-21(14)(E)

When one of those experts is an authorized treating physician, that expert's opinion is afforded a presumption of correctness on the issue of causation. ... Thus, the Court holds that Mr. Gilbert rebutted the presumption of correctness to Dr. Raab's causation opinion and proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his need for knee replacement surgery arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment.

An authorized treating physician’s causation opinion receives a rebuttable presumption of correctness.

Neal, Wendy v. Moore Construction Co. Inc. · filed 2019-02-08(14)(E)

The Court finds that Dr. Mathews’s opinion is entitled to a presumption of correctness and that Ms. Neal did not rebut that presumption.

The authorized treating physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct, and the opposing party must overcome that presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.

Foster v. Andy Frain Services, Inc. · filed 2019-03-05(14)(E)

Moreover, the causation opinions expressed by an authorized treating physician are presumed correct, and the burden is on the opposing party to overcome this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.

An authorized treating physician’s opinion on whether an injury was caused by work is presumed correct unless the employee rebuts it with sufficient evidence.

Joyner, Donell v. Lehman Roberts Co. · filed 2019-04-08(14)(E)

The opinion of the treating physician, selected by the employee from the employer’s designated panel of physicians under section 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. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E). ... Here, the authorized treating physician, Dr. Harriman, found Mr. Joyner’s neck and shoulder conditions chronic. His opinion is presumed correct. Likewise, Dr. Ferguson, selected from a panel, agreed with Dr. Harriman and added that Mr. Joyner’s condition was “clearly not related to” his work injury. Dr. Swaminathan did not overcome Dr. Harriman’s opinion that the conditions were chronic, which Dr. Ferguson supported.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes the authorized treating physician’s opinion on injury causation correct.

Dennis, Chrostopher v. Memphis. Light, Gas & Water · filed 2020-07-07(14)(E)

As Mr. Dennis’s authorized treating physician, Dr. Jones’s opinion is presumed correct. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E).

The authorized physician’s opinion on whether an injury arose primarily from employment is presumed correct.

Smith, Angel v. Trustpoint Hospital, LLC · filed 2020-08-28(14)(E)

Dr. Joyner, as the authorized physician, gave his opinion that Ms. Smith’s injury arose primarily from the 2017 incident, and his opinion on causation is presumed correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E).

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes the authorized treating physician’s causation opinion correct, but a more reliable contrary medical opinion can rebut that presumption.

Said, Medhat v. Communications Test Design, Inc · filed 2020-12-22(14)(E)

In sum, Dr. Jones’s opinion is consistent, based on better information, and more reliable than Dr. Baxter’s, and the Court holds that Mr. Said rebutted the presumption of correctness afforded to Dr. Baxter’s causation opinion.

The authorized treating physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct when the court weighs competing medical opinions.

Smith, Angel v. TrustPoint Hospital, LLC · filed 2021-01-06(14)(E)

The causation opinion of one of those physicians, Dr. Joyner, is entitled to a presumption of correctness as provided in section 50-6-102(14)(E).

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes a panel-selected treating physician’s causation opinion correct, subject to rebuttal by a preponderance of the evidence.

Hanna, Emad v. Marriott International, DBA Gaylord Opryland · filed 2020-10-15(14)(E)

The causation opinion of a treating physician selected from a panel is presumed correct, but this presumption is rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E).

A panel physician’s opinion that an injury did not arise primarily from employment is presumed correct, and contrary expert medical evidence is needed to rebut it.

Barbary-Smith, Shanika v. Hendrickson USA, LLC · filed 2020-12-10(14)(E)

Hendrickson provided Dr. Kasper’s opinion that her carpal tunnel syndrome did not arise primarily from her employment, and his opinion is presumed correct. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 102(14)(E).

The opinion of a physician selected from a panel is presumed correct but may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence; records lacking a medical assessment of work-relatedness do not rebut that presumption.

Wolfe, Barbara v. Chick-Fil-A · filed 2021-02-08(14)(E)

Importantly, Dr. Kaelin’s opinion is presumed correct because Ms. Wolfe chose him from a panel. His opinion may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E). Ms. Wolfe offered her chiropractor’s records, which confirm that she reported falling on boxes at work, but they did not contain a doctor’s assessment of the work-relatedness of her condition. Therefore, she did not rebut the presumption of correctness given to Dr. Kaelin’s opinion at this time.

The panel-selected physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct, and the employee must rebut it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Mays, April v. Fast Pace Medical Clinic, PLLC · filed 2021-03-11(14)(E)

Here, Ms. Mays selected Dr. Johnson from a panel. Therefore, the Court must presume his causation opinions are correct. To overcome this presumption, Ms. Mays must present evidence rebutting his opinion by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E).

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) does not presume a physician’s causation opinion correct when the employer’s adjuster rejected the employee’s choice of physician within the selected specialty practice group.

Russell, Frederick v. Aluma Form, Inc. · filed 2021-04-28(14)(E)

Here, the proof showed that the adjuster rejected Mr. Russell’s choice of Dr. Pokabla at Memphis Orthopedic Group and chose Dr. Jones. Thus, the Court holds Dr. Jones was not a panel-selected physician, and his causation opinion is not presumed correct.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes the authorized physician’s causation opinion correct, but the opinion must be identifiable before that presumption can resolve causation.

Lemons, Tina v. Elwood Staffing Services, Inc. · filed 2021-05-04(14)(E)

While Dr. Berry’s opinion on the issue of causation is statutorily presumed to be correct, the record here does not disclose what Dr. Berry’s opinion on causation is. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 102(14)(E).

A panel-selected treating physician’s opinion on the cause of an employee’s current need for medical care is presumed correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Owens, Sheila v. Sitters, Etc. · filed 2021-05-12(14)(E)

As the treating physician, his opinion on this issue is entitled to a presumption of correctness, which Employee has not rebutted. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E).

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives the causation opinion of the physician chosen from the panel a rebuttable presumption of correctness; the court adopts that opinion when competing opinions do not overcome the presumption.

Moore, Dianne v. Beacon Transport, LLC · filed 2021-06-30(14)(E)

The law does, however, provide a rebuttable presumption of correctness to the causation opinion given by the physician chosen from the panel—in this case, Dr. Strickland. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E). ... Because the law requires the Court to presume Dr. Strickland’s opinion correct, and the Court finds the countervailing opinions insufficient to overcome that presumption, the Court adopts Dr. Strickland’s causation opinion.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) does not give a physician’s causation opinion a presumption of correctness when the employer offers a choice of two medical facilities instead of a panel of physicians.

Enriquez, Salvador v. Defender Services, Inc. · filed 2021-09-30(14)(E)

The parties did not dispute that Employer failed to provide a panel of physicians and that, instead, Employee was given a choice of selecting a medical provider from two different facilities. Accordingly, there is no statutory presumption of correctness accorded to Dr. Waldrop’s causation opinion. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E) (2020).

The causation opinion of a treating physician selected from the employer’s designated panel is presumed correct, but the employee may overcome that presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.

Moore, Dianne v. Beacon Transport, LLC · filed 2021-10-29(14)(E)

Here, because the trial court’s decision to deny benefits hinged on its evaluation of expert medical proof of causation, including an opinion from a panel-selected physician, Employee must show both that the trial court abused its discretion in accepting the causation opinion of Dr. Strickland over that of other physicians and that Employee’s evidence of causation overcame the presumption of correctness accorded Dr. Strickland’s opinion.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives the causation opinion of an authorized treating physician selected from a panel a rebuttable presumption of correctness, which the employee must overcome by a preponderance of the evidence.

Carter, Paulette v. Frito-Lay, Inc. · filed 2021-05-24(14)(E)

As an authorized treating physician, selected from a panel, Dr. Layton’s opinion is afforded a rebuttable statutory presumption of correctness. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E). Thus, the first issue before the Court is whether Ms. Carter successfully rebutted that presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court finds that she did not.

The rebuttable presumption favoring an authorized treating physician’s causation opinion is facially neutral and consistent with the workers’ compensation law’s impartial-construction rule.

Gwendolyn Jumper v. Kellog Company · filed 2021-06-23(14)(E)

While the authorized treating physician in the case before us did not believe Employee’s injury was work related, the statutory presumptions in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(E) and Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(k)(7) are facially neutral, do not favor the employee or employer, and are entirely consistent with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-116.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes the causation opinion of a panel-selected treating physician correct.

Morgan, Deborah v. Beall Manufacturing, Inc. · filed 2021-07-16(14)(E)

As the panel-selected treating physician, Dr. Calfee’s causation opinion is presumed correct. See Tenn. Code Ann. §50-6-102(14)(E).

An authorized physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct when the physician was selected from an employer-provided panel.

Morgan, Deborah v. Beall Manufacturing, Inc. · filed 2021-10-25(14)(E)

As an authorized physician selected from a panel, Dr. Calfee’s causation opinion is presumed to be correct. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E).

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes an authorized physician’s causation opinion correct, and an employer’s failure to offer a contrary medical opinion leaves that presumption unrebutted.

Jones, Gaston v. AT&T Services, Inc. · filed 2021-11-08(14)(E)

Employer did not offer any medical opinion to rebut the presumption of correctness afforded Dr. Goldin’s causation opinion. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E) (2020). Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not err in determining that Employer failed to rebut the statutory presumption that Dr. Goldin’s causation opinion was correct.

A treating physician’s causation opinion receives a rebuttable presumption of correctness only if the opinion first meets the minimum statutory standards for proving causation.

Shelton v. Hobbs Enterprises, LLC · filed 2021-09-27(14)(E)

It is only when the ... testimony meets the minimum statutory standards in the first instance there may be a rebuttable presumption of correctness in favor of the causation opinion of the treating physician.

The opinion of a physician selected from an employer-provided panel is presumed correct, and the employee must rebut that presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.

Malone, Torrey v. NIssan North America, Inc. · filed 2021-11-03(14)(E)

Because Mr. Malone selected her from a panel of physicians, Dr. Walker’s opinion is presumed to be correct. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E). The question, therefore, is whether the preponderance of the evidence would be sufficient to rebut that presumption at trial.

Section 50-6-102(12)(E) presumes correct the panel-selected physician’s opinion that an injury did not arise from employment.

Hopson, Michael v. Driven Brands Holdings · filed 2022-11-18(12)(E)

Moreover, Dr. Price’s opinion is presumed correct under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(12)(E).

The authorized treating physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Johnson, Carlos M. v. Corecivic, Inc. · filed 2023-08-14(12)(E)

Also, since Dr. Ferguson is the authorized treating physician, his causation opinion is presumed correct, but it can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(E).

A panel-selected physician’s opinion on injury causation is rebuttably presumed correct.

Rash, Clayton v. Fine Line Transportation, LLC · filed 2023-10-04(12)(E)

As a panel-selected physician, his causation opinion is rebuttably presumed correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(E). ... The Court does not find that Dr. Kaminsky’s opinion overcomes the presumption the correctness afforded Dr. Grinspun.

Section 50-6-102(12)(E) presumes an authorized panel physician’s causation opinion correct, subject to rebuttal by competing medical proof.

Burris, Stuart v. Amazon.com · filed 2023-12-08(12)(E)

As a starting point, Dr. Fish and Dr. McNamara are both authorized panel physicians whose causation opinions are presumed correct. Tenn. Code. Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(E). Therefore, Dr. Fish’s opinion that Mr. Burris’s injury at Amazon was the primary cause of his current symptoms is presumed correct. The same is true of Dr. McNamara’s opinion that the new symptoms might be an extension of the original injury.

An authorized panel physician’s opinion on whether work caused the injury is presumed correct.

REAZKALLAH, MAIKEL v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC · filed 2023-12-11(12)(E)

As he is an authorized panel physician, Dr. Nevels’s causation opinion is presumed correct.

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

Jones, William v. Transforce, Inc. · filed 2024-04-05(12)(E)

Dr. Jones, as the authorized panel physician, has a presumption of correctness on causation. Tenn. Code. Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(E). This presumption can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. ... Therefore, Mr. Jones’s proof is insufficient to rebut the presumption afforded Dr. Jones.

Section 50-6-102(12)(E) presumes a panel-selected authorized physician’s causation opinion correct unless a preponderance of the evidence rebuts it.

Ridley, Theralease v. Mature Care of Standifer Place, LLC · filed 2024-07-09(12)(E)

As the authorized physician selected from a panel, Dr. Langenbeck’s opinion on causation is presumed correct, but that presumption can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(E) (2023). ... In the present case, when the written opinion of Dr. Dreskin is compared to the testimony of Dr. Langenbeck, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Employee had rebutted the presumption of correctness attributable to Dr. Langenbeck’s causation opinion.

Section 50-6-102(13)(E) presumes an authorized treating physician’s opinion on medical causation is correct.

DAVIDSON, JAMES v. GIBSON GUITAR · filed 2025-01-28(13)(E)

Moreover, his opinion on medical causation and treatment recommendations is presumed correct. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 50-6-102(13)(E), 50-6-204(a)(3)(H).

A panel-selected treating physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct, but another medical opinion may rebut it by a preponderance of the evidence.

LEAVELLE, MARCUS v. RCT MEMPHIS TN PC · filed 2025-04-08(12)(E)

Because Mr. Leavelle chose Dr. Goodfred from a panel, his opinion is presumed correct subject to rebuttal by a preponderance of the evidence. ... Considering the Smith factors, the Court holds Mr. Leavelle has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Bernholt’s opinion rebuts the presumption of correctness attached to Dr. Goodfred’s opinion.

An authorized treating physician’s opinion on causation is presumed correct, but a competing medical opinion can overcome that presumption by a preponderance of evidence.

CLENDENING, CANDICE v. NASHVILLE READY MIX · filed 2025-12-23(12)(E)

When one of those experts is an authorized treating physician, that expert’s opinion has a presumption of correctness on the issue of causation. ... Considering the definition of a mental injury and the relevant factors for weighing the doctors’ opinions, Dr. Caruso’s opinion is more reliable, credible, and persuasive, and it overcomes by a preponderance of evidence the presumption of correctness afforded to Dr. Douglas, Ms. Clendening’s authorized orthopedist.

A panel-selected physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct and may be overcome only by a preponderance of expert medical evidence.

White, Wigelia v. Federal Express Corp. · filed 2026-05-11(12)(E)

Moreover, the opinion of a panel-selected physician “shall be presumed correct on the issue of causation.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(E). Here, Dr. Escue, the panel-selected physician, ultimately opined that “the symptoms reported on September 27, 2024 are not more than 50% related to the alleged work incident.” That opinion was entitled to a presumption of correctness that could only be overcome by a preponderance of the expert medical evidence.

Section 50-6-102(12)(e) presumes an authorized treating physician’s opinion on medical causation is correct; those opinions can negate causation at summary judgment when the employee presents no admissible contrary proof.

Yarbough, Jerry v. TrueBlue, Inc., Docket No. 2020-08-0119 · filed 2025-10-01(12)(e)

In short, we conclude the trial court correctly determined that Employer negated an essential element of Employee’s claim by presenting the expert opinions of two authorized physicians, whose opinions are presumed correct, indicating that Employee’s medical complaints did not arise primarily out of the work accident.

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

Mtiri, Lotfi v. Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Memphis · filed 2026-06-18(14)(E)

In the present case, the trial court correctly stated that Dr. Lochemes, as the authorized treating physician, has a presumption of correctness regarding causation pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(E), which provides that “the treating physician” who was “selected by the employee from the employer’s designated panel” is entitled to a presumption of correctness that is rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence.

A panel physician’s causation opinion is rebuttably presumed correct when determining whether an injury is compensable.

Hussein, Abdullah v. Taylor Farms TN, Inc., d/b/a Taylor Fresh Foods, Inc. · filed 2023-03-20(12)(E)

This opinion is clear and mirrors the definition of a compensable injury in the Workers’ Compensation Law. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12). Moreover, Dr. Elalayli was chosen from a panel, so his causation opinion is rebuttably presumed correct. Id. at -102(12)(E).

A physician selected from a panel who gives only a one-time causation opinion without treating the employee is not entitled to the presumption of correctness.

Owens, Sheila v. Sitters, Etc. · filed 2023-07-06(12)(E)

Sitters relies upon Dr. Sielatycki, whom Ms. Owens selected from a panel. However, he never acted as a treating physician and instead documented her one-time visit as a second opinion limited to addressing causation. Therefore, the Court holds Dr. Sielatycki’s opinion is not entitled to a presumption of correctness.

Section 50-6-102(12)(E) presumes an authorized treating physician’s causation opinion correct, and the employee must rebut that presumption with admissible proof.

Miller, Towanda v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. · filed 2024-02-15(12)(E)

As authorized treating physicians, their causation opinions are presumed correct. Id. at -102(12)(E). Ms. Miller has the burden of rebutting that presumption. The Court finds that she did not, as she offered no admissible proof to counter the opinions of Drs. Jones and Brophy.

A referral physician does not receive the statutory presumption of correctness given to a physician the employee selects from a panel.

BLADES, MARTIN v. VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC. · filed 2026-06-03(12)(E)

The Court did not give the testimony of Dr. Hutcheson the statutory presumption of correctness because he was a referral physician, not one whom Mr. Blades selected from a panel.

Section 50-6-102(13)(E) contemplates a causation opinion from the panel-selected physician; if that physician refuses to give one, the employer must provide a new panel.

Drovdahl, Chad v. City of Bristol, Tennessee · filed 2015-08-31(13)(E)

The Workers' Compensation Law presumes that the panel-selected physician will render an opinion on causation. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(13)(E) (2014). ... Instead of three orthopedists, Bristol provided only two, and the one Mr. Drovdahl chose refused to render a causation opinion. Neither circumstance is acceptable. Consequently, Bristol shall provide Mr. Drovdahl a panel of physicians comprised of three orthopedists.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes correct the causation opinion of a physician the employee selects from an employer-provided panel.

Leas, Anthony v. Opus Inspection, Inc. · filed 2016-02-11(14)(E)

Mr. Leas selected Dr. Wieck from a panel of physicians provided by Opus. Therefore, Dr. Wieck’s causation opinion is presumed to be correct, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(E) (2015).

A physician’s causation opinion receives a presumption of correctness when the employee selects the physician from a legally compliant panel, even if the employer delayed providing the panel.

Green, James v. Kellogg Companies · filed 2017-01-19(14)(E)

Thus, the Court finds Mr. Green chose Dr. Robinson from a proper panel and further holds that Dr. Robinson's opinion is entitled to a presumption of correctness pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(E) (2016).

A physician selected from a panel solely to review records and provide a second opinion on causation does not receive the statutory presumption of correctness.

Woodard, Dawn v. Amazon.com · filed 2017-05-31(14)

However, the Court finds that Dr. Hutcheson is not entitled to a statutory presumption of correctness. As the parties acknowledged, Ms. Woodard selected Dr. Hutcheson from a panel solely for the purpose of a record review to address causation. The Court is unaware of any statutory law or case law indicating that a physician selected from a panel to perform a "second opinion" or record review is entitled to the statutory presumption of correctness.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) does not give a treating physician’s opinion a presumption of correctness without evidence that the employee selected the physician from a panel offered by the employer.

Halbert, Paul v. Nestle Holdings, Inc. · filed 2017-06-09(14)(E)

The parties offered no evidence regarding whether Mr. Halbert selected Dr. Shell from a panel of doctors offered by Nestle. Therefore, his opinion cannot be afforded the presumption of correctness established by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(14)(E) (2016).

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives an authorized panel physician’s causation opinion a rebuttable presumption of correctness only when the employer provided a sufficient physician panel.

Baumgardner, William v. UPS · filed 2017-06-28(14)(E)

Because UPS presented no evidence that an insufficient number of doctors was available in Murfreesboro or its immediate vicinity, the Court holds that the list of physicians was insufficient to entitle Dr. Rungee to the presumption of correctness established in section 50-6-102(14)(E).

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes a panel-selected physician's causation opinion correct, subject to rebuttal by a preponderance of the evidence.

Bates, Royella v. US Farathane · filed 2017-12-28(14)(E)

Dr. Brophy's causation optmon is presumed correct subject to rebuttal by a preponderance of the evidence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E). However, the Court finds Dr. Chung's opinion rebuts Dr. Brophy's opinion based upon the above findings.

A causation opinion from an employee-selected panel physician is presumed correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Muse, Estel "Blackie" v. Campbell County · filed 2018-04-12(13)(E)

Dr. Hovis is an orthopedic surgeon and a panel-selected physician. Therefore, his opinion that Mr. Muse’s right shoulder and left upper extremity conditions are less than fifty percent related to the work injury is also presumed correct.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) does not presume a physician’s causation opinion correct without proof that the employee selected that physician from a statutory panel.

Bedwell, Donna v. Richland Country Club · filed 2018-05-03(14)(E)

Second, Richland did not introduce proof that Ms. Bedwell selected Dr. Graham from a panel under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(ii). Therefore, his causation opinion is not presumed correct; see Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-102(14)(E).

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

Hoss, Timothy v. ASR Metals · filed 2018-06-05(14)(E)

Dr. Brasfield is the authorized panel physician. As such, his opinion is presumed correct on the issue of causation. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E). ... Thus, the Court finds that ASR Metals has not rebutted Dr. Brasfield's causation opinion by the preponderance of the evidence.

A panel-selected treating physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Ventura, Valdez v. Ccon Metals USA, Inc. · filed 2018-06-26(14)(E)

Dr. Linder’s causation opinion is afforded a presumption of correctness that is rebuttable only by a preponderance of the evidence.

The panel-selected treating physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct; notes and checked answers that do not express a causation opinion do not rebut that presumption.

Brown, Linda v. Nissan North America · filed 2018-09-04(14)(E)

At this time, the Court finds that Dr. MacGregor's notes and answers to questions in a letter do not constitute an opinion on causation. Ms. Brown did not rebut the presumption of correctness the statute affords Dr. Walker's opinion.

The causation opinion of a panel-selected treating physician is presumed correct, and contrary medical opinions must rebut it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Hollis, Aleceia v. Komyo America · filed 2018-09-13(14)(E)

Based on this testimony, the Court holds that Dr. Sauter’s causation opinion fails to rebut Dr. Sanabria’s causation opinion by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives a presumption of correctness to the causation opinion of a physician the employee selects from a panel.

Henson, Eric v. Wal-Mart · filed 2018-07-10(14)(E)

First, Wal-Mart correctly argued that Dr. Gardner's opllllon is afforded a presumption of correctness because Mr. Henson chose him from a panel. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E).

A panel physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct, and the employee must overcome that presumption to establish a different cause of injury.

Coon, Gerald v. Commercial Warehouse and Cartage, Inc. · filed 2018-07-26(14)(E)

As a panel physician, Dr. Carver’s causation opinion is presumed correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E). ... In considering these three opinions and the evidence provided overall, the Court finds that Mr. Coon failed to overcome the presumption of correctness attached to Dr. Carver’s negative causation opinion.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives a panel-selected physician’s causation and impairment opinions a presumption of correctness that may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

McCall, Floyd v. Ferrell Paving Co, · filed 2018-07-26(14)(E)

As the panel-selected physician, Dr. Jones' opinions on causation and impairment are entitled to a presumption of correctness, rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E).

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives a panel-selected physician’s causation opinion a presumption of correctness that an employee’s lay testimony alone does not overcome.

Lagel, Imad v. Elwood Staffing Services, LLC · filed 2018-08-16(14)(E)

The Court must afford Dr. Nevels’ opinion a presumption of correctness, and Mr. Lagel’s lay testimony alone does not overcome that presumption.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives the opinions of a physician chosen from a panel a presumption of correctness rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence.

Chambers, Anjanette v. Memphis Area Transit Authority · filed 2018-10-03(14)(E)

The Court finds Dr. Sokoloff’s opinions are afforded a presumption of correctness, rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence, because Ms. Chambers chose him from a panel. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E).

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) gives a presumption of correctness to the panel-selected authorized treating physician’s causation opinion.

Johnson, Landon v Loomis Armored · filed 2018-12-17(14)(E)

As the panel-selected authorized treating physician, Dr. Parsioon’s causation opinion is afforded a presumption of correctness. See Tenn. Code Ann. §50-6-102(14)(E)(2018).

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) does not give a statutory presumption of correctness to the causation opinion of a physician who was not selected from the employer’s panel.

Spraggins, Sharon v. Delta Faucet · filed 2019-01-11(14)(E)

In analyzing the opinions of the physicians, the Court notes Dr. Dolan was not a panel-selected treating physician; thus, his opinion is not entitled to a statutory presumption of correctness. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E).

An authorized panel physician’s opinion on causation is presumed correct, but a preponderance of the evidence may rebut it.

Hollis, Aliceia v. Komyo America · filed 2019-01-22(14)(E)

The opinion of an authorized physician selected from a panel pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 204(a)(3) is “presumed correct” on the issue of causation, but such an opinion is rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes correct the causation opinion of the physician the employee selected from the employer's panel, even if the employer later denied the claim, unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Daron, Kenneth v. Hickman County Government · filed 2019-02-01(14)(E)

The Court must first address which doctor is the authorized treating physician, since the "treating" doctor's opinion on causation is presumed correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E). This section states that the presumption of correctness as to causation shall be attributed to the opinion of the doctor "selected by the employee from the employer's designated panel of physicians[.]" Here, that doctor was unquestionably Dr. Karpos, whether or not Hickman County later denied Mr. Daron's claim. Thus, Mr. Daron must rebut Dr. Karpos' causation opinion by a preponderance of the evidence.

The panel-selected physician’s causation opinion is presumed correct but may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Tipton, Betty v. Dynametal Technologies · filed 2019-02-15(14)(E)

The physician selected from a panel is presumed correct on causation, but that presumption can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence standard. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14)(E). ... Dr. Brophy determined they were not and, although his causation opinion is presumed correct, Dr. Chung’s causation opinion rebuts it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes an authorized, panel-selected treating physician’s opinion on the cause of an injury correct.

Lloyd, Ronnie v. American Timber, LLC · filed 2019-02-22(14)(E)

As the authorized, panel-selected physician, Dr. Wallace’s causation opinion is presumed correct.

A treating physician’s causation opinion does not receive the statutory presumption of correctness if the employee did not select the physician from a panel.

Darnell, Lisa v. Star Vending, Inc. · filed 2019-02-28(14)(E)

The Court does not give Dr. Dabbs’ opinion a presumption of correctness because Ms. Darnell did not select him from a panel.

Section 50-6-102(14)(E) presumes a treating physician’s causation opinion correct only when the employee selected that physician from the employer’s designated panel.

Waugaman, Tracy v. Westrock Services, Inc. · filed 2019-03-11(14)(E)

WestRock lastly argues that Dr. Hazlewood’s opinion on causation is presumed correct, as he was an authorized treating physician. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 102(14)(E) (Providing that the causation opinion of a 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.). The Court disagrees. While he treated Ms. Waugaman’s right-elbow injury for pain after release by her orthopedic surgeon, she never selected him from a panel.