Skip to main content
Skip to main content

Randy W. Netherton, Michael L. Netherton and Sheryl N. Perry v. Sean M. Netherton Travis Perry

Mo. Ct. App.December 31, 2019No. WD82579
Plaintiff WinMcLane Co., Inc.

Case Details

Judge(s)
Lisa White Hardwick, Judge
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
expedited hearing
Circuit
6th Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

Employee James Hawes prevailed in his request for a panel of physicians for a work-related back injury. The court ordered the employer McLane Co., Inc. to provide a statutory panel despite the employer's reliance on EFA testing that showed no acute injury, finding the employer violated Tennessee law by referring the employee to a single physician rather than providing a choice of physicians.

What This Ruling Means

**Workers Have Right to Choose From Multiple Doctors for Work Injuries** This case involved James Hawes, an employee at McLane Co., Inc., who hurt his back at work and requested a panel of doctors to choose from for his treatment. The company had sent Hawes for testing that showed no acute injury, and based on those results, they referred him to only one doctor instead of giving him multiple options. The court ruled in favor of Hawes, ordering McLane Co. to provide him with a statutory panel of physicians as required by Tennessee law. The judge found that the company violated state workers' compensation rules by limiting Hawes to a single doctor, regardless of what their testing showed about his injury. This decision matters because it protects workers' rights to have choices in their medical care after workplace injuries. Under Tennessee law, injured employees are entitled to select from a panel of doctors rather than being forced to see only the doctor their employer picks. Even if initial tests don't show obvious injury, workers still maintain this right to medical choice. This ruling reinforces that employers cannot bypass these protections by relying solely on their own medical evaluations to limit treatment options.

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

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. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.