McGauvran, James v. ATOS Syntel, Inc.
2021 TN WC App. 66
| Tenn. Work. Comp. App. Bd. | 2021Background
- Employee (James McGauvran), a salaried ATOS Syntel functional lead, sat on a low brick wall in a designated third-floor smoking/meeting area, used an e‑cigarette for the first time, began coughing, lost consciousness, fell backward off the wall and sustained a cervical injury and other injuries.
- Employer denied the claim as idiopathic (not arising primarily out of employment). Employee sued for compensability, medical and temporary disability benefits, and sought an expedited hearing on the record limited to compensability.
- The trial judge accepted written materials, applied the expedited-hearing evidentiary standard (“likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits”), and found the injury compensable; the order did not award or address temporary disability or medical benefits.
- Parties later asserted they had stipulated to benefits contingent on compensability, but no signed/file-stamped stipulation appears in the record and there is no indication the judge considered any stipulation.
- The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board vacated the expedited hearing order and remanded, holding the trial court exceeded its authority by using the expedited-hearing procedure and its lesser standard to decide compensability-only issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McGauvran) | Defendant's Argument (ATOS Syntel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an expedited hearing under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d) may be used to decide compensability-only | Court may decide compensability on the record using the expedited standard; parties agreed compensability was the central issue | Expedited procedure is limited to disputes concerning temporary disability or medical benefits, not compensability alone | Vacated — expedited procedure and its "likely to prevail" standard cannot be used to decide compensability-only; trial court exceeded authority |
| Whether the parties’ purported stipulations regarding benefits should be considered | Stipulations were filed/emailed and should have been considered as fixing benefits contingent on compensability | No signed/file-stamped stipulations in the record; no evidence the judge received or considered them | Denied supplementation; appeals board found no record evidence the judge considered stipulations |
| Whether the trial court applied the proper standard of review to documentary-only decision | Employee relied on documentary record and the expedited evidentiary standard | Employer argued the expedited evidentiary standard was inapplicable to compensability-only disputes | Appeals board emphasized the limited scope of the expedited standard (for temporary disability/medical benefits) and applied de novo review to documentary determinations, vacating the order |
Key Cases Cited
- Madden v. Holland Grp. of Tenn., 277 S.W.3d 896 (Tenn. 2009) (deference to trial-court factual findings when the judge observes witness testimony)
- Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393 (Tenn. 2013) (questions of law, including statutory interpretation, reviewed de novo)