FILED
Sep 04, 2026
12:45 PM(CT)
TENNESSEE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
APPEALS BOARD
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
Frank Gayden, Jr. Docket No. 2024-70-0756
v. State File No. 3045-2024
Tyson Foods
Appeal from the Court of Workers’
Compensation Claims
Allen Phillips, Judge
Affirmed and Certified as Final
In this compensation appeal, the employee asserts that the trial court erred in its conclusion that he had failed to offer sufficient expert medical proof in support of his claim after excluding certain medical proof he attempted to offer into evidence. The documents that the employee attempted to offer into evidence were letters signed by his unauthorized physician, and the employer objected that the letters were inadmissible hearsay. In its order, the trial court sustained the objection, found the employee had failed to offer admissible medical proof in support of his claim, and denied the requested benefits. The employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and certify it as final.
Presiding Judge Timothy W. Conner delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which Judge Pele I. Godkin and Judge Meredith B. Weaver joined.
Frank Gayden, Jr., employee-appellant, pro se
Jared S. Renfroe, Memphis, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, Tyson Foods
Factual and Procedural Background
Frank Gayden, Jr. (“Employee”), alleged that he sustained an injury to his right shoulder on November 15, 2023, as a result of reaching overhead to pull “racks” from the “blast cooler” while working for Tyson Foods (“Employer”).1 Employee maintained that
1
We have not been provided with a transcript of the compensation hearing or a brief from Employee, so we glean the facts from the contents of the record.
1
he reported the incident to his supervisor and the “night nurse” at Employer’s onsite facility one week later, on November 22, 2023. He also contended that he told Nancy Cody, Employer’s human resources representative, that he had injured his right shoulder at work, which Ms. Cody denied. Medical records from Employer’s on-site medical facility dated November 21 indicate that Employee reported complaints of soreness in his shoulder that had persisted for “about a week.” However, there is no indication in those records that Employee related his shoulder soreness to any specific incident at work.2
Ultimately, Employee was provided a panel of physicians on January 3, 2024, from which he selected Dr. Peter Gardner. However, before that scheduled appointment, Employer denied the claim on the basis that Employee had not timely reported a workrelated injury. As a result, Employee sought unauthorized medical treatment, including two surgeries, with Dr. Timothy Sweo. Upon completing his treatment, Dr. Sweo apparently placed Employee at maximum medical improvement and assigned an
anatomical impairment rating, as documented in two letters Employee attempted to introduce into evidence during the compensation hearing.3
After the compensation hearing, the trial court issued an order denying Employee’s claim for benefits. Specifically, the court concluded that, regardless of whether Employee provided proper notice of a work-related injury, he had failed to provide any admissible medical proof that his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of the employment. Because the letters Employee had attempted to introduce from Dr. Sweo constituted the entirety of Employee’s medical proof, the court found Employee had not met his burden of proof and dismissed his petition. Employee has appealed.
Standard of Review
The standard we apply in reviewing a trial court’s decision presumes that the court’s factual findings are correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(7) (2025). When the trial judge has had the opportunity to observe a witness’s demeanor and to hear in-court testimony, we give considerable deference to credibility determinations made by the trial court. Madden v. Holland Grp. of Tenn., Inc., 277 S.W.3d 896, 898 (Tenn. 2009). However, “when it comes to deposition testimony, an appellate panel is in the same position as the trial court to make credibility determinations.” Edwards v. Peoplease, LLC, No. W2024-01034-SC-R3-WC, 2025 Tenn.
2
Near the top of the November 21 record, there is a notation that the medical record reflects a “NonOccupational Visit,” and a subsequent summary of that report stated it is for “Non[-]Work[-]Related Encounters Only.”
3
Tenn. Comp. R. and Regs. 0800-02-21-.15(2) provides that “[l]etters or written statements addressing medical causation . . . may be excluded through valid objection under the Tennessee Rules of Evidence” at a compensation hearing. The trial court sustained Employer’s hearsay objection and excluded those documents, although they are contained in the record on appeal and marked for “identification” only.
2
LEXIS 514, at *18 (Tenn. Dec. 22, 2025). Thus, when medical proof is presented by deposition, “the reviewing court may draw its own conclusions about the weight and credibility of the expert testimony.” Id. Moreover, the interpretation and application of statutes and regulations are questions of law that are reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness afforded the trial court’s conclusions. See Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393, 399 (Tenn. 2013). We are also mindful of our obligation to construe the workers’ compensation statutes “fairly, impartially, and in accordance with basic principles of statutory construction” and in a way that does not favor either the employee or the employer. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-116 (2025).
Analysis
On his notice of appeal, Employee states:
The trial court erred by excluding the signed [] medical causation opinion of
my Authorized Treating Physician, Dr. Tim Sweo, and then concluding that
I presented no expert medical proof of causation. The court also erred in its
evidentiary ruling regarding [Employer’s] health records and in relying on
evidence that was inconsistent [and] revised.
However, Employee has not provided a transcript of the hearing, a statement of the evidence approved by the trial court, or a brief on appeal.4 Without a transcript or statement of the evidence, we must presume that the evidence presented supported the findings of the trial court. See, e.g., Estate of Cockrill, No. M2010-00663-COA-R3-CV, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 754, at *11-12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2010) (“[W]here no transcript or statement of the evidence is filed, the appellate court is required to presume that the record, had it been properly preserved, would have supported the action of the trial court.”). Moreover, in the absence of a brief, we have been presented with no meaningful legal argument to explain how Employee believes the trial court erred. As stated by the Tennessee Supreme Court, “[i]t is not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her.” Sneed v. Bd. of Pro. Resp. of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010). Appellate courts will not “dig through the record in an attempt to discover arguments or issues that [a party] may have made had [they] been represented by counsel” because doing so “would place [the opposing party] in a distinct and likely insurmountable and unfair disadvantage.” Webb v. Sherrell, No. E2013-02724-COA-R3-CV, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2015).
It is well settled that the employee in a workers’ compensation case bears the burden of proving all essential elements of his or her claim. See Scott v. Integrity Staffing Sols., No. 2015-05-0055, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *6 (Tenn. Workers’
4
Employee filed a motion to accept a late-filed brief, which we denied on August 20 because the motion was not timely filed. See Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-22-.04(1) (2023).
3
Comp. App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015). Medical causation is one of these essential elements of a workers’ compensation claim and, as a general rule, requires expert medical proof. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12) (2025); Edwards v. Peoplease, No. 2020-07-0656, 2024 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 23 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. July 2, 2024). Although the rules governing proceedings before the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims provide that signed causation letters are admissible at expedited hearings, those same rules state that such documents “may be excluded through valid objection under the Tennessee Rules of Evidence” at compensation hearings. See Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-21-.15(2) (2026).
Here, the exhibits in the record contain one page of a September 2024 letter Employee’s former counsel sent to Dr. Sweo asking the physician to address medical causation. Although there is an “X” beside the “Yes” in response to one of the questions, the response is not initialed, signed, or dated by Dr. Sweo. Other letters from Dr. Sweo dated July 10, 2025, which are signed, do not address medical causation. In response to hearsay objections from Employer’s counsel, these exhibits were not admitted into evidence.5 We conclude the trial court did not err in its exclusion of the letters offered into evidence by Employee or in its finding that Employee failed to meet his burden of establishing his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment.
For its part, Employer asks that we find Employee’s appeal frivolous, citing his failure to file a brief. As defined by Tennessee’s appellate courts, a frivolous appeal is one that had “no reasonable chance of succeeding,” Adkins v. Studsvik, Inc., No. E2014-00444-SC-R3-WC, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 588, at *30 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel July 21, 2015), or one that is “devoid of merit” or “brought solely for delay,” Harris v. Express Emp. Pros., No. 2025-60-7980, 2026 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 40, at *24 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. July 9, 2026). Here, Employee fairly raised a legal issue concerning the admissibility of purported medical evidence, and we decline to find Employee’s appeal frivolous.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order denying workers’ compensation benefits and certify it as final. Costs on appeal have been waived.
5
We further note that, even if those documents had been admitted into evidence, the information and opinions contained in those letters are insufficient to meet Employee’s burden of proving that his right shoulder condition and resulting permanent impairment were primarily caused by a work-related accident.
4