FILED
Aug 26, 2026
03:01 PM(CT)
TENNESSEE COURT OF
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CLAIMS
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS
AT JACKSON
JESSE ELLIS, Docket No. 2025-70-1460
Employee,
v.
SHIPPERS CHOICE State File No. 16001-2024
TRANSPORTATION,
Employer,
and Judge Allen Phillips
BENCHMARK INS. CO.,
Carrier.
EXPEDITED ORDER FOR MEDICAL BENEFITS
The Court held an expedited hearing on August 6, 2026, where Mr. Ellis
requested additional medical and temporary disability benefits. For the below
reasons, the Court finds Mr. Ellis is entitled to additional medical benefits.
Claim History
Mr. Ellis, a truck driver, injured his left shoulder when throwing a chain over
a trailer. Shippers Choice furnished treatment, and an MRI showed a rotator cuff
injury, specifically a supraspinatus tendon tear. Shippers Choice offered Mr. Ellis a panel of physicians, and he chose orthopedic surgeon Dr. Harold Antwine. Dr.
Antwine said the tear was work-related, and he repaired it in early August, 2024.
Mr. Ellis then participated in physical therapy. On August 8, Mr. Ellis reported
to his therapist that he had “increased pain and discomfort” after falling from his
recliner and landing on his left shoulder. He also told Dr. Antwine about the recliner incident when he saw him later that month.
Mr. Ellis then continued physical therapy through mid-September, reporting
to the therapist often that he was improving. That same month, Dr. Antwine said Mr.
1
Ellis was “doing well” and recommended that he progress to the next phase of
physical therapy.
Unfortunately, later that month, Mr. Ellis showed signs of cellulitis in his
shoulder, and Dr. Antwine started a month-long course of antibiotics. When Mr.
Ellis saw Dr. Antwine in mid-October, the cellulitis was improved. Dr. Antwine
noted Mr. Ellis was “doing well and making good progress” until the cellulitis. In
late October, Mr. Ellis was “doing much better,” and Dr. Antwine said he would
consider placing him at maximum medical improvement and releasing him in a
month.
That did not happen. Instead, in early November, Dr. Antwine noted that he
was worse and had developed adhesive capsulitis. He recommended manipulation
of Mr. Ellis’s shoulder under anesthesia. Dr. Antwine again wrote that Mr. Ellis was
“doing well and making good progress” until the cellulitis infection caused a
“plateau.”
Dr. Antwine performed the manipulation on November 25. Mr. Ellis did
poorly. Shortly afterward, he was unable to raise his arm above 45° and complained
of “sharp pain” just at rest. Dr. Antwine recommended blood tests to rule out a
lingering infection and an MRI to reevaluate the rotator cuff.
The MRI showed Mr. Ellis had a recurrent tear of the supraspinatus tendon,
and tears of the infraspinatus tendon, biceps tendon, and labrum. On January 7, 2025, Dr. Antwine recommended surgery. Two days later, Dr. Antwine signed a preauthorization request for it.
Dr. Antwine also wrote in his January 7 note that Mr. Ellis gave a history of
“doing well” until the time he “slipped on a recliner landing on the shoulder and
another time [when] he was getting in the bed and felt a rip in the shoulder.” That
statement prompted Shippers Choice to ask Dr. Antwine whether the need for
surgery was primarily related to the work or to two “intervening causes.”
Shippers Choice asked Dr. Antwine this question:
[I]f [Mr. Ellis] would have needed the surgery anyway, regardless of
the intervening falls, then it is primarily related to work. But if he was,
as both he and you note, doing fine until the falls, and thus but for the
falls and intervening events, the surgery would not be needed, then it is
not primarily work related.
2
With that said, please indicate below whether this is primarily related
to work, or primarily related to the intervening causes.
Dr. Antwine checked a line beside the words “Intervening Events.” He also
signed a sworn declaration repeating that opinion. Based on the doctor’s opinion,
Shippers Choice denied the surgery.
Through his attorney, Mr. Ellis sought another opinion from orthopedic
surgeon Dr. Keith Nord, who recorded the history of the work incident, Mr. Ellis’s
treatment, and the cellulitis. Dr. Nord found that Mr. Ellis’s pain was 10/10 when he lifted his arm above “11:00” or when his arm came down.
Dr. Nord described the recliner incident as the “back of the recliner gave out
[and] went all the way back striking the ground.” Mr. Ellis told Dr. Nord he did not
notice any pain at the time. Dr. Nord also recorded an incident where Mr. Ellis was
“sliding his arms on the bed . . . and heard a crunch as he reached out.”
Unlike Dr. Antwine, Dr. Nord said the work injury caused the need for
treatment. Dr. Nord said that reaching to get in bed was not “really an injury at all, even if [Mr. Ellis] felt grinding.” Dr. Nord said the recliner incident “may have
caused an injury, but there was no reported dislocation.” Instead, Dr. Nord believed
the manipulation procedure was the more likely cause of the recurrent rotator cuff
tears and other injuries because they appeared on an MRI one month after the
procedure. He said that “attempted tearing of adhesive capsulitis can easily cause
this type of injury [.]” Dr. Nord agreed Mr. Ellis needed further treatment.
Dr. Antwine reviewed Dr. Nord’s report and signed a second sworn
declaration. He maintained that the intervening recliner and bed events were the
primary cause of Mr. Ellis’s need for surgery. He also said that Mr. Ellis did not
complain of “new pain” at the first visit after the manipulation. Dr. Antwine said,
“Dr. Nord was not present at the time of the manipulation and thus can only speculate as to causation.” Dr. Antwine also said the “patient stands out in [his] mind,” and
“the manipulation [he] performed was done slowly and gently, solely to break up
adhesions.” He saw no indication of any injury during the procedure. He said a
properly performed manipulation would not cause a tear.
Mr. Ellis described how he was told to sleep in a recliner after the first surgery
and, about five days after, he had lain back with a pillow under the left shoulder
when the chair fell backwards. He said he fell about one and a half feet, but he did
not hit his left shoulder. He told his therapist and Dr. Antwine about the incident,
3
but he also said his pain did not change. He described the incident where his shoulder cracked getting into bed as simply reaching out with his arms while he lay down. He
had no change in his pain level.
Mr. Ellis testified that since the manipulation, he has had tremendous
problems. He said he awoke to find his right arm was bruised, but Dr. Antwine told
him he did not touch the other side. He demonstrated lifting his left arm to a point
just at or below shoulder level, and he appeared in pain while lifting and lowering
his arm. He also testified that Dr. Antwine never discussed the recliner or bed
incidents as potential causes of his need for surgery.
Mr. Ellis has not had surgery, but he wants Shippers Choice to pay for it. He
asked for a panel of physicians and claimed that Dr. Antwine told him that he did
not want to treat him. He returned to work as a truck driver for another company,
where he does not have to secure loads “about a month and a half” after Shippers
Choice denied his surgery. He gave no specific dates but asked for temporary
benefits from the denial until his reemployment.
Shippers Choice maintained its denial was appropriate based on Dr.
Antwine’s opinions, which are presumed correct because he is the authorized
physician chosen from a panel. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(E) (2026). Dr.
Antwine should remain the treating physician. Shippers Choice said Dr. Nord’s
opinion was speculative at best, as any injury during the manipulation would have
been apparent at the time. Finally, Mr. Ellis offered no proof of temporary disability benefits.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
At this expedited hearing, Mr. Ellis must prove he would likely prevail on his
request for benefits at trial. Id. § 50-6-239(d)(1).
Turning first to Mr. Ellis’s request for medical benefits, the parties offered
competing medical opinions from Dr. Antwine and Dr. Nord. The Court must
determine which opinion to accept and which contains the more probable cause of
Mr. Ellis’s need for surgery. Sanker v. Nacarato Trucks, Inc., 2016 TN Wrk. Comp.
App. Bd. LEXIS 27, at *12 (July 6, 2016).
In making that determination, the Court considers the physicians’
qualifications, the circumstances of their examinations, the information available to them, and the importance attached to that information by other experts. Orman v.
Williams Sonoma, Inc., 803 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tenn. 1991).
4
Both Drs. Antwine and Nord are orthopedic surgeons, and the Court finds
their qualifications equal.
As to the circumstances of their evaluations, the proof favors Dr. Antwine. As
the treating physician, he had more contact with Mr. Ellis than Dr. Nord, who saw
him once for purposes of litigation. “It seems reasonable that the physicians having
greater contact with [an employee] would have the advantage and opportunity to
provide a more in-depth opinion, if not a more accurate one.” Id. at 677.
Both physicians had access to the same information, except Dr. Antwine had
the benefit of observing Mr. Ellis’s shoulder during the first surgery and the
manipulation procedure. See Smith v. TrustPoint Hosp., LLC, 2021 TN Wrk. Comp.
App. Bd. LEXIS 1, at *21 (Jan. 6, 2021).
However, the importance attached to the information controls which opinion
is the more probable explanation for Mr. Ellis’s need for surgery. Specifically, Dr.
Nord explained that the attempted release of adhesive capsulitis can “easily” cause
injuries like the ones shown on Mr. Ellis’s second MRI after the manipulation. Mr.
Ellis might recover for the direct and natural results of complications resulting from treatment. Anderson v. Westfield Grp., 259 S.W.3d 690, 696 (Tenn. 2008).
Dr. Antwine said Mr. Ellis did not complain of new pain at the first visit after
the manipulation. However, the note from the first visit recorded Mr. Ellis’s sharp
pain even at rest and marked loss of mobility. Those findings prompted the second
MRI, which showed multiple anatomic changes not seen closer in time after the work
injury.
Further, Dr. Antwine said in his answers to Shippers Choice’s questionnaire
and in his declaration that the recliner and bed incident were more likely than not
the cause of Mr. Ellis’s need for surgery. He said Mr. Ellis was doing well until those two events. However, just one month after the recliner incident, Dr. Antwine said in
September that Mr. Ellis was “doing well.” A month later, Dr. Antwine said Mr.
Ellis was doing well until the cellulitis, not mentioning the recliner incident. A week later, Dr. Antwine contemplated releasing Mr. Ellis in one month.
That history is inconsistent with the recliner incident being a causative factor
in the need for surgery. Further, the Court has been unable to find a specific mention in either Dr. Antwine’s notes or those of the physical therapist of the incident where Mr. Ellis was merely climbing into bed when his shoulder cracked. Instead, Mr. Ellis
5
was doing well until he developed cellulitis and then much worse, based on the MRI
findings after the manipulation. In sum, Dr. Nord offered the more probable
explanation of what caused Mr. Ellis’s need for surgery.
Mr. Ellis’s testimony supports that finding. He was calm, self-assured,
reasonable, confident, and forthcoming. See Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 694-695 (Tenn. 2014) (discussing indicia of witness credibility). The Court’s direct
observation of his lost motion was consistent with what Dr. Antwine wrote at his
last visit and with Dr. Nord’s findings. Mr. Ellis appeared to be in pain after
demonstrating the lost motion.
Based on these findings, the Court holds Mr. Ellis is entitled to further
treatment of his left shoulder, including surgery. The Court also finds that a new
panel of physicians is appropriate. Dr. Antwine has said under oath in two
declarations that the need for surgery, in his opinion, is not related to the work injury. Given that, he is unable to furnish reasonable and necessary treatment as required
by section 50-6-204(a)(1)(A).
Regarding temporary disability benefits, Mr. Ellis must present expert
medical proof that he became disabled from working due to a compensable injury;
a causal connection between the injury and his inability to work; and the duration of his disability. Jones v. Crencor Leasing and Sales, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd.
LEXIS 48, at *7 (Dec. 11, 2015). At this time, Mr. Ellis has offered only that he
missed approximately a month of work. Without medical proof of a specific duration
of any disability, his request for temporary disability benefits is denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:
1. Shippers Choice shall provide Mr. Ellis with reasonable and necessary
medical treatment under section 50-6-204(a)(1)(A) for his left-shoulder
injury, including surgery. A new panel of physicians shall be provided.
2. Mr. Ellis’s request for additional temporary disability benefits is denied at this
time.
3. A Status Hearing is set for Monday, November 9, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. Central
Time. The parties must call 855-543-5038 to participate.
4. Unless appealed, compliance must occur within seven business days of entry
of this order as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-6
239(d)(3).
ENTERED August 26, 2026.
JUDGE ALLEN PHILLIPS
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
APPENDIX
Exhibits:
1. Medical records of Dr. Harold Antwine
2. Correspondence to Dr. Antwine
3. Sworn declarations of Dr. Antwine
4. Physical therapy notes
5. Medical record of Dr. Keith D. Nord
6. Surgery authorization request
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this order was sent as shown on August 26, 2026.
Name Email Service sent to:
Edward L. Martindale, Jr., X [email protected]
Employee’s Attorney [email protected]
B. Duane Willis, X [email protected]
Employer’s Attorney
PENNY SHRUM, COURT CLERK
7
Right to Appeal:
If you disagree with the Court’s Order, you may appeal to the Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Board. To do so, you must:
1. Complete the enclosed form entitled “Notice of Appeal” and file it with the Clerk of the
Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims before the expiration of the deadline.
If the order being appealed is “expedited” (also called “interlocutory”), or if the
order does not dispose of the case in its entirety, the notice of appeal must be filed
within seven (7) business days of the date the order was filed.
If the order being appealed is a “Compensation Order,” or if it resolves all issues
in the case, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty (30) calendar days of
the date the Compensation Order was filed.
When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must serve a copy on the opposing party (or attorney,
if represented).
2. You must pay, via check, money order, or credit card, a $75.00 filing fee within ten calendar
days after filing the Notice of Appeal. Payments can be made in-person at any Bureau office
or by U.S. mail, hand-delivery, or other delivery service. In the alternative, you may file an
Affidavit of Indigency (form available on the Bureau’s website or any Bureau office)
seeking a waiver of the filing fee. You must file the fully-completed Affidavit of Indigency
within ten calendar days of filing the Notice of Appeal. Failure to timely pay the filing
fee or file the Affidavit of Indigency will result in dismissal of your appeal.
3. You are responsible for ensuring a complete record is presented on appeal. If no court
reporter was present at the hearing, you may request from the Court Clerk the audio
recording of the hearing for a $25.00 fee. If you choose to submit a transcript as part of your
appeal, which the Appeals Board has emphasized is important for a meaningful review of
the case, a licensed court reporter must prepare the transcript, and you must file it with the
Court Clerk. The Court Clerk will prepare the record for submission to the Appeals Board,
and you will receive notice once it has been submitted. For deadlines related to the filing of
transcripts, statements of the evidence, and briefs on appeal, see the applicable rules on the
Bureau’s website at https://www.tn.gov/wcappealsboard. (Click the “Read Rules” button.)
4. After the Workers’ Compensation Judge approves the record and the Court Clerk transmits
it to the Appeals Board, a docketing notice will be sent to the parties.
If neither party timely files an appeal with the Appeals Board, the Court Order
becomes enforceable. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(3) (expedited/interlocutory
orders) and Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(7) (compensation orders).
For self-represented litigants: Help from an Ombudsman is available at 800-332-2667.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
www.tn.gov/workforce/injuries-at-work/
[email protected] -800-332-2667
Docket No.: ________________________
State File No.: ______________________
Date of Injury: _____________________
Employee
v.
Employer
Notice is given that ____________________________________________________________________
[List name(s) of all appealing party(ies). Use separate sheet if necessary.]
appeals the following order(s) of the Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (check one or more applicable boxes and include the date filestamped on the first page of the order(s) being appealed):
□ Expedited Hearing Order filed on _______________ □ Motion Order filed on ___________________ □ Compensation Order filed on__________________ □ Other Order filed on_____________________ issued by Judge _________________________________________________________________________.
Statement of the Issues on Appeal
Provide a short and plain statement of the issues on appeal or basis for relief on appeal: ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________
Parties
Appellant(s) (Requesting Party): _________________________________________ ☐Employer ☐Employee Address: ________________________________________________________ Phone: ___________________ Email: __________________________________________________________
Attorney’s Name: ______________________________________________ BPR#: _______________________ Attorney’s Email: ______________________________________________ Phone: _______________________ Attorney’s Address: _________________________________________________________________________
* Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellant *
LB-1099 rev. 01/20 Page 1 of 2 RDA 11082 Employee Name: _______________________________________ Docket No.: _____________________ Date of Inj.: _______________
Appellee(s) (Opposing Party): ___________________________________________ ☐Employer ☐Employee Appellee’s Address: ______________________________________________ Phone: ____________________ Email: _________________________________________________________
Attorney’s Name: _____________________________________________ BPR#: ________________________ Attorney’s Email: _____________________________________________ Phone: _______________________ Attorney’s Address: _________________________________________________________________________
* Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellee *
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, _____________________________________________________________, certify that I have forwarded a true and exact copy of this Notice of Appeal by First Class mail, postage prepaid, or in any manner as described in Tennessee Compilation Rules & Regulations, Chapter 0800-02-21, to all parties and/or their attorneys in this case on this the __________ day of ___________________________________, 20 ____.
[Signature of appellant or attorney for appellant]
LB-1099 rev. 01/20 Page 2 of 2 RDA 11082