The Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board will conduct in-person oral arguments on Tuesday, January 19, 2027, in Nashville.
Starting at 10:00 a.m. Central Time, the Board will hear Leiton Villalobos v. Stevens & Sons, Inc. The employee brought two claims involving the same ankle, one relating to a 2020 event and the other occurring in 2024. During that time, the employer changed carriers. The employee now needs an ankle replacement. After an expedited hearing, the trial court drafted two orders, determining that the carrier for the 2024 injury is liable for the surgery and the employee’s attorney’s fees. That carrier (Great American) appealed. To avoid an inconsistent outcome, the employee appealed the second order relieving Argonaut Insurance from responsibility for the ankle surgery for the 2020 injury and moved to consolidate the cases.
Next, in Johnson v. Parallon Enterprises, the employee sought additional medical benefits. The trial court denied the interlocutory request, reasoning that the medical proof—mostly conflicting causation letters—offered conclusory opinions and no explanation as to how each doctor arrived at their conclusions. The employee appealed.
The afternoon session kicks off at 1:00 p.m. Central Time with Rogers v. Structural System Repair Group, LLC. The employee treated out of state and needed a rating under the 6th Edition of the Guides. Instead of offering a panel, the employer obtained a records review with a Tennessee physician to give the rating. The trial judge held in an expedited hearing order that the employer should have offered a panel so the employee could choose a doctor to examine him and then give a rating. The employer appealed.
Finally, in Jones v. Critical Nurse Staffing, LLC, the employee settled her original award at 15%, based on opinions from an independent medical examiner and a physician from the Medical Impairment Rating Registry. She later sought extraordinary relief. But the trial court awarded increased benefits, instead using the 3% rating that the authorized treating physician assigned, reasoning that the plain language of the statute requires an authorized treating physician to assign a rating of 10% or higher. The employee appealed.
The arguments will take place in the courtroom at the Tennessee Supreme Court building. Here’s the docket.
