Skip to main content

Amy A. Cummings-Boyd v. Law Offices of Jeffrey A. Garrety, P.C.

Tenn.March 4, 2022No. W2021-00720-SC-R3-WC
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Justice Holly Kirby
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
Appeal to Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel; affirmed as modified

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Appellate court affirmed the trial court's order compelling the employer to provide ongoing medical treatment for the employee's work injury, but modified the order to remove predetermined approval of future treatments without case-by-case review of medical necessity.

Excerpt

This appeal involves an employer's appeal of an order to compel medical treatment. The employer argues the trial court erred by ordering it to provide the employee specific continuing treatment, as well as treatments requested by all of her approved treating physicians in the future, without evidence that the continuing and future treatments are reasonably necessary and causally related to her work injury. The employer's appeal has been referred to this Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Suprerne Court Rule 51. We affirm the trial court's order compelling the requested medical treatment, but modify the order to omit predetermined approval of future medical treatments, and affirm as modified.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Amy Cummings-Boyd was injured at work while employed at a law firm. She needed ongoing medical treatment for her work-related injury. The employer's workers' compensation insurance was required to pay for her medical care, but the employer challenged a court order that would have required them to automatically approve and pay for all future treatments recommended by her doctors without reviewing each treatment individually. **What the Court Decided** The appeals court ruled that the employer must continue paying for Cummings-Boyd's current medical treatment for her work injury. However, the court modified the original order to clarify that the employer doesn't have to automatically approve all future treatments. Instead, each future treatment must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine if it's medically necessary and related to the work injury. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling protects workers' rights to receive necessary medical care for work injuries while also establishing reasonable limits. Workers can expect their employers to pay for ongoing treatment that's clearly related to their workplace injury. However, workers should understand that very expensive or experimental future treatments may require additional review and approval rather than being automatically covered.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Derinda Carr v. Windham Professionals, Inc.
Tenn.Apr 2022

Appellant Derinda Carr challenges the trial court's finding her neck injury did not arise primarily "out of and in the course and scope of' her employment. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We agree with the trial court and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Win
Bethany Shelton v. Hobbs Enterprises, LLC
Tenn.Sep 2021

Bethany Shelton ("Employee") filed a petition for benefit determination against Hobbs Enterprises, LLC ("Employer") alleging an injury to her right shoulder suffered in a work- related accident on August 26, 2017. She sought temporary total, permanent partial, and continued medical benefits. Following the issuance of a dispute certification notice, Employer moved for summary judgment on the basis the only medical testimony, from the Employee's treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Sean Kaminsky, was insufficient as a matter of law to establish causation. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims (the "trial court") denied the motion and denied Employer's motion to reconsider. Employer sought an expedited appeal before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, but then sought and was granted a dismissal of that appeal. A trial was held, after which the trial court denied Employee's claim on the ground she had failed to meet her burden to establish her right shoulder injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment with Employer. Employee filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied. She appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims.

Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.