Morris, Damon Curry v. Select Services
2025 TN WC App. 35
Tenn. Work. Comp. App. Bd.2025Background
- Damon Curry Morris, an administrative assistant for Select Services, claimed work-related arm and shoulder injuries from an alleged physical altercation with his supervisor during his termination process.
- The employer denied both the occurrence of any assault and the existence of a work-related injury.
- Initial treatment addressed left arm bruising, with medical records showing no shoulder complaints immediately after the incident; a shoulder tear was diagnosed months later.
- The trial court initially ordered the employer to provide a physician panel and subsequently, over the employer’s objections, ordered more medical treatment for the left shoulder.
- At the expedited hearing, the court acknowledged a lack of expert proof linking the shoulder condition to the incident but still granted medical benefits, prompting the employer's appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to further medical treatment for shoulder injury | Shoulder tear was caused by work incident, entitled to ongoing treatment | No proof incident caused the shoulder condition; initial panel fulfilled obligations | Employee did not meet burden of causation; order for more treatment reversed |
| Burden of proof at expedited/interlocutory stage | Reporting incident and medical need suffices for medical benefits | Employee must show likelihood of prevailing on causation | Employee must present sufficient evidence of work-related causation |
| Compliance with prior court order on provision of benefits | Employer did not comply by denying follow-up care after first visit | Panel provided, claim reviewed after visit, not obligated to approve further care | Court found employer complied; no further benefits required without evidence |
| Effect of inconsistent and late-reported symptoms | Later-reported shoulder symptoms related to original event | No credible evidence of shoulder injury from incident; delay undermines claim | Absence of early/consistent shoulder complaint fatal to claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Madden v. Holland Grp. of Tenn., Inc., 277 S.W.3d 896 (Tenn. 2009) (sets deference standard for factual findings in workers’ compensation)
- Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393 (Tenn. 2013) (addresses de novo review of statutory interpretation in workers' comp)