McNicholas, Carol v. Whelan Security Co.

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS AT NASHVILLE Macey McGuire, ) Employee, ) Docket No. 2025-60-0654 v. ) TC Restaurant Group, LLC, ) Employer, ) State File No. 2734-2024 Wesco Insurance Company, ) Carrier, ) And ) Troy Haley, as Administrator of the ) Judge Joshua D. Baker Subsequent Injury and Vocational ) Recovery Fund for the State of ) Tennessee. ) EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER (DECISION ON THE RECORD) Ms. McGuire requested a decision based on a review of the record seeking reinstatement of medical treatment and temporary disability benefits for a back injury. Because her authorized treating physician does not believe she suffered a work-related injury, the Court denies her request for benefits at this time. Motions to Strike Before delving into the merits of Ms. McGuire’s request, the Court must address defense counsel’s two motions. Both motions request to strike filings by Ms. McGuire and relate to deadlines established by this Court in its notice docketing this claim for review on the record. The docketing notice listed documents it was considering when reviewing the claim and gave the parties deadlines. Relevant here, the docketing notice said, “On or before July 16, 2025, each party shall file any objections to the admissibility of any document listed above and specifically state the legal basis for the objection.” The notice also gave aa July 23 deadline for filing position statements and stated that the Court will not consider any position statements filed after the deadline.  Just two minutes before midnight on July 17, Ms. McGuire filed objections to portions of the listed documents and followed this up by filing an amended, more detailed, list of objections on July 25. Defense counsel opposed the objections and moved to strike them as untimely. The Court agrees and strikes the objections raised by Ms. McGuire in both her July 17 and July 25 filings. Ms. McGuire did not file her position statement until July 25. She said a serious family emergency prevented her from filing it on time and sent an email to the court clerk detailing the circumstances. The clerk forwarded this to defense counsel the next morning, and defense counsel moved to strike the position statement. Under the circumstances described in her email to the clerk, the Court grants her additional time and accepts the position statement. Claim History On December 22, 2023, Ms. McGuire injured her back at work “bending forward and twisting [her] upper body . . . to retrieve a fallen serving tray.” Initially, TC Restaurant Group provided medical treatment and paid temporary disability benefits. Ms. McGuire selected orthopedic spine surgeon Dr. Mitul Patel from a panel. After an MRI, Dr. Patel diagnosed “acute on chronic low back pain” and suspected a “lumbar strain” with “possible disk bulge [at] L4-L5/L5-S1.” On April 22, 2024, he signed a causation questionnaire in which he agreed the “work accident contribute[d] more than 50% to Ms. McGuire’s current complaints.” When asked if the work incident had caused a permanent aggravation, he circled, “Cannot state.” About a month later, Dr. Patel seemed confused in Ms. McGuire’s medical record about her “diffuse symptoms not only in her back but also the neck and the entire left side of her upper and lower extremities.” He wrote, “She is concerned about these neurologic symptoms. She asks for a neurology referral.” Although Dr. Patel wrote the referral, he expressed some doubt about its necessity by writing, “I am not sure if Workmen’s Compensation will cover this. She has simply had so many symptoms ever since she had this relatively benign work-related injury where she dropped a tray and bent over to pick it up.” In June 2024, defense counsel sent Dr. Patel video surveillance of the work accident and a written account from Ms. McGuire about what happened. Counsel asked Dr. Patel to review both the video and statement and then to respond to a series of questions by marking “yes” or “no.” As evidenced by his responses, Dr. Patel’s opinion on medical causation changed after reviewing the video and statement. He could no longer state with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Ms. McGuire suffered a lumbar strain or that her disc bulge resulted from the work incident. He also saw no other injury that might have occurred from the incident.

FILED Aug 05, 2025 02:18 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS AT NASHVILLE KENDRA SMITH, ) Docket Nos. 2025-60-3038 Employee, ) 2025-60-3037 v. ) REGARD RECOVERY JP, LLC, ) Employer, ) TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE CO., ) Carrier. ) State File Nos. 40527-2024 ) 860132-2025 And, ) TROY HALEY AS ) ADMINSTRATION OF THE ) SUBSEQUENT INJURY AND ) VOCATIONAL RECOVERY FUND ) Judge Joshua D. Baker FOR THE STATE OF TENNESSEE. ) ) ) EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER At a July 23 expedited hearing, Ms. Smith requested a pulmonology panel, medical treatment, and continued temporary disability benefits for an alleged work-related aggravation of her preexisting asthma.1 For the reasons below, the Court holds she is likely to prevail at a final hearing on a pulmonology referral. Further, because she has workplace restrictions that Regard Recovery did not accommodate, she is also likely to prevail in proving entitlement to temporary disability benefits. However, without expert medical evidence establishing the reasonableness and necessity of the specific medical treatment she sought, that request is denied at this time. 1 Regard Recovery filed a motion to consolidate these claims, which Ms. Smith opposed. At the trial’s outset, the Court consolidated the claims for the purpose of this hearing because Ms. Smith was seeking the same benefits in both claims. 1  Claim History Ms. Smith was exposed to vape smoke at work twice within a week, once on May 22 and again on June 1, 2024. She alleged the exposures aggravated her preexisting asthma, and Regard Recovery initially accepted her claim. Within three days of her last exposure, an adjuster emailed Ms. Smith a choice of three walk-in clinics listed in the body of an email but omitting any physicians’ names. Ms. Smith responded to the email with her choice of clinic. At the clinic, a nurse recommended on June 6 that Ms. Smith see a pulmonologist. Her recommendation read, “Follow up with pulmonologist as recommended to evaluate the extent of the potential damage to your lungs that vaping smoke may be contributing to.” A doctor at the same clinic also signed a pulmonology referral about a week later, on June 14. Additionally, Ms. Smith received restrictions that Regard Recovery did not accommodate, leaving her unemployed. Christopher Broderick, who supervised adjusters on Ms. Smith’s claim, signed a declaration detailing the efforts made to find three pulmonologists until the claim’s denial “as not a compensable incident” on January 17, 2025. Mr. Broderick explained, “Despite these efforts, no panel of three pulmonologists could be assembled in compliance with Tennessee workers’ compensation requirements.” Regard Recovery gave no proof explaining why the claim was denied at that time. Four months after the denial, Dr. Margaret Ikard, Ms. Smith’s primary care doctor, signed a letter explaining Ms. Smith saw “pulmonology for asthma and sleep apnea” before the work exposures but “did not require oxygenation during the day.” Since then, she continued, “The patient has reported worsening . . . symptoms with exposure to smoking, vaping, and air pollutants. To my knowledge, patient’s respiratory status has progressively declined, to now requiring oxygen.” A day later, and nearly a year after the pulmonology referral, Regard Recovery offered Ms. Smith a panel of two pulmonologists. But Ms. Smith declined to choose one since the panel limited her choice to only two physicians.

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Income Tax REGGIE B. MEDFORD, ) and SALLY MEDFORD, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) TC-MD 240188R ) v. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ) State of Oregon, ) ) Defendant. ) DECISION Plaintiffs appealed Defendant’s Written Objection Determination and Notice of Assessment, dated January 8, 2024, for the 2019 tax year. Defendant determined that Plaintiffs’ horse boarding activity was not operated with a profit motive. As a result, Defendant counted their gross receipts as ordinary income and denied their Schedule C deductions under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 183, commonly referred to as the hobby loss rules. The court disagrees with Defendant’s determination and finds that Plaintiffs’ activity was operated with a profit motive. Trial was held on September 12, 2024, in the courtroom of the Oregon Tax Court. Attorney James Oberholtzer appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Sally Medford (Sally) and Reggie B. Medford (Reggie) testified on their own behalf. Marla Santino and Jeanne Gettman also testified on behalf of Plaintiffs. Jennifer O’Brien appeared on behalf of Defendant. Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 1 to 76 and Defendant’s Exhibits A to Z were received into evidence. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS In 2013, Plaintiffs purchased a 16-acrea property in Woodburn, Oregon, which included a residence, a small barn, and an indoor riding area. Although they did not own horses at the time, DECISION TC-MD 240188R 1 both had equestrian experience in their youth. The property exceeded their original budget and size expectations, prompting them to explore several income-generating agricultural ventures. They considered hazelnut farming and goat breeding but ultimately found these alternatives impractical due to poor soil quality issues and irrigation limitations. Plaintiffs chose to start a full-service horse boarding business that managed all aspects of horse care. They relied on advice from a friend, Cheryl Ledford, an experienced horse boarder, and also conducted online research. The facility began with a four-stall barn, which they expanded to include 14 new stalls, and an old goat barn which they repurposed, resulting in 23 stalls by 2018, including stalls for their own horses. (Ptfs’ Ex 15 to 18, 42 to 55, 59.) The business launched a website in 2013 to market their services, but they also relied on word-of-mouth to attract clients. (Ptfs’ Ex 20.) Plaintiffs entered into boarding contracts and liability waivers (Ptfs’ Ex 21, 22), maintained horse rosters and stall assignments (Ptfs’ Ex 24), tracked veterinary care, and kept handwritten income and expense ledgers (Ptfs’ Ex 25 to 27). They filed Articles of Organization for French Prairie Acres LLC (Ptfs’ Ex 34), carried liability insurance (Ptfs’ Ex 32, 33), and kept records of labor hours and pay for hired help (Ptfs’ Ex 29). A “barn chores checklist” itemized 26 daily tasks (Ptfs’ Ex 30, 31). Plaintiffs reported cumulative business losses from 2013 to 2019 totaling $64,083, with 2014 being the only profitable year. (Def’s Ex D at 9.) However, excluding property holding costs, they had a net positive cash flow of $16,868. Id. Plaintiffs raised boarding fees by approximately $75 per month over a six-year period. (Def’s Ex D at 12.) The operation was largely maintained by Sally working full-time to facilitate the business, with Reggie assisting in facility upgrades and construction on the weekends. /// DECISION TC-MD 240188R 2  Although Plaintiffs lacked a formal written business plan, they modeled aspects of the business after others in the industry and consulted with peers. (Ptfs’ Ex 38.) Defendant challenged their business classifications due to discrepancies between their ledgers and bank records, problems with form 1099 filings, lack of adequate fee structure adjustments, and possible misclassification of employees as independent contractors. (Ptfs’ Ex 5 at 4.) Plaintiffs sold the property in 2023 for $1.3 million, generating a gain of $875,000. Improvements made to the property during their operation likely enhanced its marketability for horse-related use. Sally testified that the buyers of the property owned eight horses, suggesting the facility’s appeal