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.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Lisa White Hardwick, Judge
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
bench trial

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

Employee Hawes prevailed in obtaining an order requiring employer McLane to provide a panel of physicians for his claimed work-related back injury, despite McLane's reliance on an EFA test showing no injury. The court found McLane violated statutory obligations by referring the employee to a single physician rather than providing a panel.

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.

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.