SMITH, KENDRA V. REGARD RECOVERY JP, LLC

FILED Jun 26, 2025 02:04 PM(CT) TENNESSEE WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD Carol McNicholas ) Docket No. 2024-60-4924 ) v. ) State File No. 57686-2023 ) Whelan Security Co., et al. ) ) ) Appeal from the Court of Workers’ ) Compensation Claims ) Joshua D. Baker, Judge ) Affirmed and Remanded In this interlocutory appeal, the employer alleges the trial court erred in declining to dismiss the employee’s petition for benefit determination, which the employer asserted was filed for the “sole purpose” of tolling the statute of limitations. The trial court determined that the employee’s petition, on its face, identified disputed issues beyond merely tolling the statute of limitations and, in presuming the truth of the allegations and averments in the petition, it concluded her petition stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. Because we agree with the trial court’s rationale and conclusions, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case. Presiding Judge Timothy W. Conner delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which Judge Pele I. Godkin and Judge Meredith B. Weaver joined. W. Troy Hart and Lauren N. Gray, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellant, Whelan Security Co. Adam C. Brock-Dagnan, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employee-appellee, Carol McNicholas Factual and Procedural Background Carol McNicholas (“Employee”) was working for Whelan Security Co. (“Employer”) when she reported an alleged work-related accident occurring on July 30, 2023, that resulted in a head injury. Employer initially accepted the work accident as a compensable event under Tennessee’s Workers’ Compensation Law, and certain medical and temporary disability benefits were paid. 1  On July 24, 2024, Employee filed a petition for benefit determination (“PBD”). In her PBD, Employee described the work incident in which a chair she was using collapsed, causing her to strike her head on a gate and concrete. In Section C of her petition, Employee stated she was filing the PBD “to toll the statute of limitations and resolve all permanency-related aspects.” In Section D, when asked to identify all unresolved issues, Employee checked boxes indicating that “[a] dispute exists regarding: Amount of Permanent Disability Benefit[s],” “Original Award,” and “Resulting Award and/or Increased Benefits.” In Section E, she requested a telephonic mediation to address these unresolved issues. Thereafter, in December 2024, the assigned mediator issued a Dispute Certification Notice (“DCN”) “due to unresolved . . . mediation regarding permanent disability and/or medical benefits.” The mediator further indicated a dispute existed as to “Employee’s average weekly wage or workers’ compensation rate per week.” Under the section of the DCN entitled “Disputed Issues,” the mediator marked “Compensability,” “Medical Benefits,” and “Permanent Disability Benefits.” As is required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-236(d)(3), the mediator forwarded the DCN to both parties and requested any revisions, amendments, or additions to the DCN within five business days. The mediator then apparently received correspondence from Employer’s counsel asking the mediator to include “Employer’s Amendments to the proposed DCN,” which included six statements summarizing Employer’s objections and defenses. 1 The second and fourth statements reflected the following: “The allegations set forth in the PBD do not qualify as an injury via Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law”; and “Employer denies that there was any accident or injury within the scope and course of employment further reserving all defenses.” Finally, Employer’s statement included the following: “This is an ALL ISSUES case and there are no matters to which the parties stipulate.” (Emphasis in original.) The following month, Employer filed a motion to dismiss Employee’s PBD pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6). In its motion, Employer acknowledged that, in considering such a motion, a trial court is to take all alle

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.

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