A car accident lawyer in Knoxville will help you with your case and pursue your owed compensation.

Contact us online for a consultation free of charge.

What Is Brake Checking and Why Do Drivers Do It?

Brake checking happens when a driver intentionally slams on their brakes in front of a following vehicle, forcing the trailing driver to stop short or swerve. This behavior is typically rooted in frustration, road rage, or an attempt to retaliate against a tailgater.

Some drivers brake check to send a message, but others do it in an attempt to cause an accident. Staged rear-end collisions are a known form of insurance fraud, where the lead driver triggers a crash, hoping to file claims for vehicle damage and bodily injury against the trailing driver’s policy. Whatever the reason, the maneuver is reckless and can trigger rear-end collisions, multi-vehicle pileups, and severe injuries.

How Tailgating Creates Dangerous Conditions on the Road

Tailgating refers to the practice of following another vehicle at an unsafe distance, leaving too little space to brake or maneuver if the lead car slows down or stops. This behavior leaves no margin for error when traffic slows or stops unexpectedly. Stopping distances increase with speed, weather, and vehicle weight, and a driver riding the bumper of the car ahead cannot react in time to avoid a crash.

Tailgating also places pressure on the lead driver, who may respond by accelerating erratically, changing lanes without signaling, or brake checking. Both drivers may contribute to a volatile situation that frequently ends in a collision.

Establishing Fault After a Tailgating or Brake Checking Accident

Tennessee operates under a fault-based insurance system. The driver responsible for causing a crash is also responsible for paying for the resulting damages, typically through their liability insurance.

Determining fault depends on the circumstances of the crash. Consider the following scenarios:

• Tailgating Accidents: A driver follows another vehicle too closely and rear-ends the lead car when traffic slows. The trailing driver is presumed at fault because Tennessee law requires motorists to maintain a safe following distance. However, if the lead driver merges into a lane without signaling, leaving no time for the trailing driver to react, the lead driver may be assigned fault for the rear-end collision.
• Brake Checking Accidents: A driver becomes irritated with the rear driver and slams on their brakes without cause, causing a collision. Dashcam footage shows sudden, intentional braking. The lead driver may be held at fault for the reckless maneuver.

Evidence such as police reports, witness statements, and traffic camera footage can help establish what truly happened.

Were You Injured by an Aggressive Driver? Contact an Attorney

If another driver’s aggressive conduct caused your crash, you have the right to hold them accountable. An insurance claim or personal injury lawsuit can help you secure the compensation you need to move forward following your accident.

Cases that involve brake checking and tailgating require strong evidence and a clear understanding of Tennessee’s fault-based insurance system. A Knoxville personal injury attorney can build a robust claim that proves the other party’s liability, even if fault is disputed.

Reach out to a lawyer today to discuss your options and protect your right to fair compensation.

The post How Does Brake Checking and Tailgating Cause Accidents, and Who Is at Fault? appeared first on Brown & Roberto, PLLC.

Contact a Knoxville car accident lawyer today to pursue financial compensation for damages.

Call us at (865) 691-2777.

All Medical Expenses Related to Your Accident

Every dollar you spend treating injuries from the crash is recoverable in an insurance claim or personal injury lawsuit. That includes:

• Emergency room visits
• Ambulance transport
• Surgeries
• Hospital stays
• Prescription medications
• Physical therapy
• Mental health counseling
• Assistive devices like crutches or wheelchairs. 

You can also recover compensation for the projected cost of future treatment when your injuries require ongoing care, such as follow-up surgeries, long-term rehabilitation, or pain management.

Lost Wages and Future Earning Capacity

If your injuries kept you out of work, you can recover the income you missed during your recovery period. This category of compensation includes your salary, hourly pay, tips, commissions, bonuses, and the value of used sick or vacation days.

When a permanent injury limits the type of work you can do or forces you out of your profession entirely, you may also pursue compensation for diminished earning capacity. This calculation looks at the gap between what you would have earned over your career and what you can realistically earn now. An economist or vocational expert is often brought in to substantiate these losses.

Non-Economic Pain and Suffering Damages

Tennessee allows you to recover compensation for the pain and suffering that you have endured as a result of the accident. These non-economic damages may include physical pain, emotional distress, anxiety, depression, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement, and the strain that a serious injury places on your relationships.

Tennessee places a cap, or limit, on non-economic damages after a car accident. In most cases, this cap is $750,000. The ceiling rises to $1 million for catastrophic injuries like spinal cord damage, severe burns, or the loss of a limb.

Property Damage Sustained in the Collision

You are entitled to repair costs for your vehicle, or its fair market value if the damage is severe enough to total it. You can also recover compensation for the personal property destroyed in the crash, such as car seats, electronics, eyeglasses, tools, and clothing. Rental car expenses and the diminished resale value of a repaired vehicle may be recoverable as well.

Trust an Attorney to Maximize Your Car Accident Compensation

Calculating the true value of a car accident claim is harder than it looks, and insurers count on claimants underestimating what they are owed. In these situations, you need an attorney on your side.

A Knoxville injury lawyer can accurately calculate every category of damages you’re entitled to, from current and future medical costs to lost earning capacity, non-economic harm, and property losses. They often work with medical experts, economists, and vocational specialists to substantiate each figure.

Your attorney will also know which negotiation tactics adjusters use and how to counter them, preventing you from accepting an insufficient offer that fails to cover the full extent of your losses.

Contact a Tennessee car accident lawyer today to find out what your claim is truly worth.

The post Types of Compensation You Might Receive After a Car Accident appeared first on Brown & Roberto, PLLC.

A car accident attorney in Knoxville will fight for the compensation you deserve.

Contact our firm online to schedule a free consult today.

When the At-Fault Driver’s Insurance Covers Your Rental Car

Tennessee follows an at-fault system, which means the driver who caused the collision is generally on the hook for your damages, rental car costs included. You or your attorney can submit a third-party claim with the at-fault driver’s insurer and request reimbursement for a rental vehicle.

That said, the at-fault insurer may push back on what they are willing to pay. Common disputes involve the class of vehicle you rented, the daily rate, or the total number of days you kept the rental. Insurers may also delay payment if liability has not been formally established. In some cases, they may refuse to cover the rental entirely if they believe the repair timeline was unreasonable.

Using Your Own Insurance Policy to Pay for a Rental Car

If you carry rental reimbursement coverage in Tennessee, this policy can help pay for your rental vehicle. This insurance is an optional add-on, so you will need to elect this coverage when you purchase or renew your auto policy, and the policy will need to be active at the time of the collision. Your insurer will pay for a rental up to the daily and per-claim caps listed in your policy.

Using your own coverage is generally the fastest path to securing a rental vehicle after an accident. If your liability insurance claim is successful, your insurer can pursue reimbursement from the at-fault carrier through a process called subrogation.

How Long Will an Insurance Company Pay for a Rental Car?

Most insurance companies will pay for a rental vehicle for a reasonable period following the accident. If your vehicle is repairable, coverage typically lasts as long as the body shop needs to complete the work, based on a written repair estimate. For a total loss, the insurer will usually cover a rental for only a few days after issuing the settlement offer.

What Should You Do If the Insurance Company Disputes the Rental Car Costs?

If an insurance company denies or limits your rental reimbursement, contact a Tennessee car accident attorney who can advocate on your behalf. An attorney can negotiate directly with the adjuster, present evidence supporting the necessity and duration of the rental, and challenge unreasonable denials. Legal representation often changes how seriously an insurance company treats a claim, which can lead to faster resolution and full reimbursement of your rental expenses.

Discuss Your Options with a Tennessee Car Accident Attorney Today

Identifying who pays for your rental car should not add stress to your recovery. A Tennessee car accident attorney can review your situation, deal directly with the insurance companies, and fight for the compensation you need to cover your rental, repair costs, medical bills, and other accident-related expenses. After seeking medical care for your injuries, contact a Knoxville injury lawyer right away to protect your right to recovery.

Contact us today.

The post Who Should Pay for a Rental Car After an Accident? appeared first on Brown & Roberto, PLLC.

Contact a Knoxville car accident attorney today to schedule a free consultation.

How Tennessee’s Modified Comparative Fault Law Affects Your Claim

In Tennessee, car accidents that involve more than one responsible party are subject to the state’s modified comparative fault statute. As long as you are found to be less than 50% responsible for the accident, you can still recover compensation from other at-fault parties. However, your award will be reduced by your assigned percentage of fault.

For example, say that you are merging onto the highway when a speeding driver in the right lane hits your vehicle, but they argue you failed to yield properly before entering traffic. If you are deemed 20% at fault and your damages total $100,000, you would receive $80,000. Cross that 50% line, and you receive no compensation at all.

How Insurance Companies Use Shared Fault to Reduce Your Payout

Insurance adjusters are trained to identify any reason to assign blame to claimants. Their job is to protect the company’s bottom line, which means looking for evidence that shifts responsibility away from their policyholder and onto you. Even small details—a slightly delayed brake, a quick lane change, or a missed turn signal—can be used to inflate your share of fault.

The higher that an insurance company can push your percentage, the less they have to pay. Adjusters may request a recorded statement shortly after the crash, hoping you will say something that can later be used against you. They might also pressure you to accept a low settlement before the full extent of your injuries is known (such as brain injuries), or interpret the police report and medical records to support their version of events. Each tactic is designed to chip away at your credibility and reduce the final payout.

Why Working with an Attorney Can Help Reduce Your Percentage of Fault

Fault is not always as clear-cut as an insurance company makes it appear. The way responsibility is framed in the early stages of a claim can shape the entire outcome, which is why you need someone to advocate for your side of the story. A Knoxville personal injury attorney can challenge the narrative insurers try to build against you.

Your lawyer may gather surveillance footage, consult with accident reconstruction experts, and interview witnesses to establish a clearer picture of what happened. They will also know how to counter common tactics adjusters use to shift blame and negotiate aggressively for a fair assessment of liability. Every percentage point matters, and a strong legal strategy can directly increase the amount you walk away with.

Fight for Your Compensation with a Tennessee Car Accident Lawyer

Even if you are partially at fault for a car accident, you are not automatically barred from recovering compensation. A Tennessee car accident attorney can push back against unfair fault assignments and fight for the full recovery you are entitled to under state law.

Contact a lawyer today to discuss your case and protect what’s rightfully yours.

The post Can You Still Get Compensation If You Were Partially at Fault in a Car Accident? appeared first on Brown & Roberto, PLLC.

Cases against schools may vary based on whether the incident involves student on student conduct, the direct act of a school employee such as an assault or sexual misconduct, school bus accidents, or a slip and fall type incident. The cases apply the same foundational negligence framework. A plaintiff must prove five elements: (1) a duty of care owed to the plaintiff; (2) conduct below the applicable standard of care amounting to a breach; (3) an injury or loss; (4) cause in fact; and (5) proximate or legal cause. Roberts v. Robertson County Bd. of Educ., 692 S.W.2d 863 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985) (p. 34).

On proximate cause, Tennessee courts apply a three-pronged test:

1. the school’s conduct must have been a substantial factor in bringing about the harm;
2. there is no rule or policy that should relieve the wrongdoer from liability because of the manner in which the negligence resulted in the harm; and
3. the harm could have reasonably been foreseen or anticipated by a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence. McClenahan v. Cooley, 806 S.W.2d 767, 775 (Tenn. 1991).

Schools are not insurers of student safety. Teachers and school districts are not expected to insure the safety of students while they are at school; the applicable standard is reasonable and ordinary care under the circumstances. This standard varies based on the age and maturity of students and the dangers to which they are exposed. Rathnow v. Knox County, 209 S.W.3d 629, 634 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).

If your child was hurt on school grounds due to negligence or improper upkeep, contact a personal injury attorney in Knoxville today.

Call (865) 691-2777.

II. Foreseeability: Probability, Not Mere Possibility

Foreseeability is the linchpin of proximate cause analysis. The plaintiff must show that the injury was a reasonably foreseeable probability, not just a remote possibility, and that some action within the defendant’s power more probably than not would have prevented the injury.

In Rathnow v. Knox County (2006), a student fainted after viewing a first-aid video and was injured. The court reversed a $30,000 judgment, holding that the teacher was not negligent because the student’s fainting was not a reasonably foreseeable probability because the video was not sufficiently graphic, the student said she was “okay” when she left, she walked steadily, and no student had ever fainted from the video in the teacher’s 20-year career.

III. Student-on-Student Violence: Prior Misconduct Required

Tennessee follows a conservative foreseeability approach: student misconduct is not to be anticipated absent proof of prior misconduct. Mason ex rel. Mason v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 189 S.W.3d 217, 223 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).

In Mason (2005), a student was slashed with a razor from a school cosmetology kit on the school bus. The court vacated an $80,000 judgment, holding the attack was not foreseeable because the attacker had no history of violence, the students did not know each other, and the teacher had provided safety instructions and tested students on them before allowing them to transport the kits. The intentional criminal assault, and not the teacher’s actions, was the proximate cause.

Similarly, in Snider v. Snider (1993), a school released a student to her uncle, who raped her. The court affirmed dismissal because the harm was not foreseeable because school officials were unaware of the uncle’s prior conduct toward children, and the child showed no reluctance to leave with him. Violation of the school board’s release policy did not constitute negligence per se.

In Brackman v. Adrian (1971), a student was struck by a bat while playing catcher in a softball game. The court reversed judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the school was not an insurer of student safety and that the evidence failed to establish that teachers supervising the playground were negligent, as there was no proof of the student’s exact position behind the batter or that requiring a catcher’s mask was required under the circumstances.

IV. When Schools Are Held Liable

Inadequate Instruction and Supervision: In Roberts v. Robertson County Board of Education (1985), a student suffered a serious head injury when a drill press bit deflected during shop class. The court found the shop teacher negligent on four grounds: he permitted inexperienced freshmen to remain unsupervised in the presence of dangerous power equipment; he never instructed students in proper techniques for assisting others with shop machinery; he gave a student a drill bit for a use he had never been trained on; and the teacher conceded the accident would not have occurred had he been present to supervise. Judgment of $25,000 was entered against the school board.

Bullying with Notice and Policy Violations: In Moore v. Houston County Board of Education (2011), a student was repeatedly bullied and ultimately beaten by a peer who paid another student to carry out the attack. The court affirmed negligence and reversed immunity, finding the attack was foreseeable because administrators were notified of the bullying throughout the school year, the aggressor had made explicit threats, and administrators failed to follow the school’s mandatory bullying and harassment investigation policy. The school board’s failure to implement existing policy was an operational and not discretionary function, removing its governmental immunity. The court further held that where the Board had a duty to prevent foreseeable intentional acts of third persons, it was jointly and severally liable with the intentional tortfeasors for the full damages award.

Special Needs Students: In Phillips ex rel. Gentry v. Robertson County Board of Education (2012), a student with Asperger’s syndrome was blinded in one eye when his teacher left the classroom and another student struck him with a book. The court affirmed $300,000 in damages, finding two grounds of negligence: the teacher violated school policy by leaving the classroom unsupervised without arranging coverage, and the school failed to disseminate critical information about Jacob’s Asperger’s diagnosis, behavioral tendencies, and bullying history to his teacher. Because the school knew Jacob was a “bully magnet” and had difficulty reading social cues, a physical confrontation was foreseeable even without a prior incident specifically involving the same aggressor.

V. School Appropriate Response: Liability Avoided

In Zukowski v. Hamilton County Department of Education (2021), a student alleged prolonged bullying and sexual harassment at a magnet school. The court affirmed judgment for the school, finding that when bullying was reported, administrators responded appropriately because they addressed known bullies directly, informing them their conduct would not be tolerated, and offering the student a means to report further incidents. The court emphasized that schools must respond to known dangerous conditions, but cannot be absolute insurers of student safety, and upheld the trial court’s credibility findings that the student’s testimony about being ignored was not credible.

Key Takeaways

If your child is injured at school and you have reasons to believe that the school is at fault, contact our law firm. Our Knoxville personal injury lawyers routinely take school bus accident cases and other school-related injuries.

The post How Do I Prove a Claim Against a School For Their Negligence Against My Child? appeared first on Brown & Roberto, PLLC.

Contact us online or call (865) 691-2777 to pursue the compensation you deserve for injuries sustained.

Why? Because these cases are not just about medical bills or temporary wage replacement. They are about your future in the workforce. When your injury limits the kind of work you can do, your claim may involve permanent disability benefits, which are often heavily disputed by insurance companies and employers. Proving the full extent of your loss is not simple, it typically requires expert testimony.

One of the most critical experts in these cases is a vocational expert. A vocational expert evaluates your education, work history, skills, and medical restrictions to determine how your injury impacts your ability to compete in the job market. They don’t just look at whether you can return to your old job. They analyze how many jobs are realistically available to you now compared to before your injury.

This concept is often referred to as “loss of access to the labor market.” For example, if your injury (head trauma, spinal cord damage, etc…) prevents you from performing physical labor, and your entire work history is in physically demanding jobs, your access to employment may be significantly reduced. A vocational expert can quantify that loss and present it in a way that a judge or claims adjuster understands.

But hiring a vocational expert is only part of the equation. The way their opinions are developed and presented at trial can make or break your case. There are specific “magic words” and legal standards that must be used when questioning both your treating physicians and the vocational expert. These questions must tie your medical restrictions directly to your vocational limitations in a legally meaningful way.

Most injured workers simply don’t know what those words are or how to ask those questions. Without that knowledge, critical testimony may be excluded, weakened, or misunderstood. Insurance companies, on the other hand, have attorneys and experts who deal with these issues every day.

The bottom line is this: when your injury affects your ability to work in the future, a lot is at stake. Your long-term financial security, your career options, and your quality of life may all depend on the outcome of your claim.

That’s why it is almost always best to engage a lawyer early in the process. Early legal involvement can help ensure that your medical treatment is properly documented, that the right experts are retained, and that your case is built correctly from the start. Waiting too long can lead to mistakes that are difficult to fix later.

If your injury may permanently change your ability to work, don’t leave your future to chance. An experienced workplace injury attorney in Knoxville can help you protect it — submit a contact form today.

The post Do I Need an Attorney for My Workers’ Compensation Claim? Vocational Expert Edition appeared first on Brown & Roberto, PLLC.

Call (865) 691-2777 today.

What Experience Do You Have with Wrongful Death Cases?

Wrongful death law involves its own set of rules and challenges. You will want to know how many wrongful death cases an attorney has handled, what types of incidents were involved, and what outcomes they have secured.

Ask about cases similar to yours, whether they involved a car accident, medical malpractice, workplace incident, or defective product. An attorney with a proven track record in wrongful death litigation will be far better equipped to navigate your case.

How Do You Determine the Value of a Wrongful Death Claim?

The value of a wrongful death claim depends on numerous factors such as severity of injury (bruises vs. traumatic brain injuries). Make sure to ask how the attorney evaluates these elements and whether they work with economists, vocational experts, or other professionals to determine the final amount.

A trustworthy attorney will give you a candid, realistic evaluation of your potential settlement. Be cautious of anyone who guarantees a specific dollar amount before reviewing the factors of your case.

How Do You Structure Your Fees and Payment?

Most wrongful death attorneys work on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay no fees unless they recover compensation on your behalf. It is important to ask about the specific percentage they take, whether costs like filing fees and expert witness fees are deducted before or after the attorney’s share, and if there are any expenses you might owe regardless of the case’s outcome.

What Is the Statute of Limitations for My Wrongful Death Case?

In Tennessee, the statute of limitations for wrongful death cases is generally one year from the date of the deceased’s death. Missing this deadline can permanently bar you from recovering compensation. Certain circumstances can alter this timeline, so ask your attorney to confirm the filing deadline that applies to your situation.

Who Will Actually Be Handling My Case Day to Day?

Some firms assign cases to junior associates or paralegals after the initial consultation. There is nothing inherently wrong with that approach, but you should know who your primary point of contact is and how involved the lead attorney will remain. You want to feel confident that your case is receiving the focused attention it requires.

How Long Should I Expect My Case to Take?

Wrongful death cases can be resolved in a matter of months or stretch on for years. While no attorney can guarantee a precise timeline, your lawyer should be able to give you a realistic range based on the specifics of your situation.

Find the Right Tennessee Wrongful Death Lawyer for Your Case

The questions you ask during an initial consultation reveal a great deal about whether an attorney is the right fit for your family. Look for someone who answers openly, communicates clearly, and demonstrates care for your situation.

With legal representation on your side, you can protect your family’s best interests from the start. Contact a Knoxville personal injury attorney today to discuss your situation and begin pursuing the justice your family deserves.

Contact us online today.

The post Questions to Ask When Choosing a Wrongful Death Lawyer appeared first on Brown & Roberto, PLLC.

Commercial trucks are massive vehicles that demand rigorous maintenance to operate safely. These machines rely on thousands of interconnected mechanical systems, all of which must work in harmony to keep the vehicle running. When a critical component fails, the truck driver can easily lose control and cause a serious or even fatal collision with other vehicles on the road. Certain types of truck defects are more likely to lead to accidents than others.

Contact a Knoxville truck accident lawyer today for a free consultation — call (865) 691-2777.

Brake System Failures

A fully loaded tractor-trailer can weigh up to 80,000 pounds, and stopping that much mass requires a braking system in peak condition. Worn brake pads, leaking air lines, corroded drums, or improperly adjusted components can all affect this capability. When a truck driver can’t slow down in time, rear-end collisions and intersection crashes often follow.

Tire Blowouts

Truck tires endure enormous stress from heavy loads, long distances, and varying road surfaces. When tires are underinflated, overloaded, or worn past safe tread depth, a sudden blowout can send the driver swerving across lanes or leave large debris in the roadway. Other motorists may have virtually no time to react.

Steering System Malfunctions

A functioning steering system is essential for keeping a large truck on course. Defective power steering pumps, worn tie rods, or failed linkage components can cause a driver to lose directional control without warning. As a result, the truck may jackknife across multiple lanes of traffic or drift into oncoming vehicles.

Faulty or Broken Lights

Taillights, brake lights, turn signals, and reflective markers all serve a vital role in making trucks visible to surrounding traffic. When these systems malfunction, other drivers may not realize a truck is slowing, stopping, or changing lanes until it’s too late to avoid a collision. The risk of an accident is especially high at night or in poor weather.

Coupling and Hitch Defects

The coupling device connecting a trailer to its cab must be properly maintained and secured. A defective system can allow a trailer to detach while the truck is in motion, creating an uncontrolled obstacle on the highway.

Worn or Damaged Suspension Components

Suspension systems help distribute a truck’s weight evenly and keep the vehicle stable. If any part of this system is damaged, the truck’s handling can become dangerously unpredictable, increasing the likelihood of rollovers and loss of control.

Engine and Transmission Failures

An engine that stalls or a transmission that locks up can leave a truck stranded in a travel lane or cause sudden, unpredictable speed changes. These mechanical failures are especially hazardous on highways and steep grades where surrounding traffic is moving quickly.

Were You Hurt in an Accident Caused by a Defective Truck?

If a mechanical defect played a role in the crash that injured you, you may have grounds to pursue financial compensation from the trucking company, the vehicle manufacturer, or the maintenance provider responsible for keeping the truck safe. A Knoxville personal injury attorney can investigate the cause of the defect and build a strong case for your maximum recovery. After seeking medical care, contact a lawyer right away and explore your legal options.

Contact us online today for a consultation free of charge.

The post Most Common Truck Defects That Lead to Accidents appeared first on Brown & Roberto, PLLC.

Disputes over whether an injury is related to an original workplace accident can be complex, and a Knoxville workers’ compensation attorney may help injured workers navigate these issues.

This case addresses whether an employee, Bobbi Parcher, is entitled to additional workers’ compensation benefits after suffering a third rotator cuff tear following an initial workplace injury. The primary issues on appeal were:

1. whether the third injury was related to the original accident
2. if the proper start date and calculation of temporary disability benefits

Parcher was injured in August 2021 when she slipped and fell at work, injuring her right shoulder. Her employer accepted the injury as compensable and provided treatment, including surgery in February 2022 to repair a rotator cuff tear. Despite physical therapy, she continued to experience pain. In January 2024, imaging revealed further shoulder damage, and she underwent a second surgery in February 2024. Although she received additional treatment afterward, her symptoms persisted.

In October 2024, her treating physician, Dr. Christopher Bowman, determined she had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI), assigned a 6% impairment rating, and imposed permanent work restrictions. Because her employer could not accommodate those restrictions, she stopped working. However, her condition worsened. In January 2025, she reported renewed pain, and an MRI revealed a third rotator cuff tear. Dr. Bowman rescinded his prior MMI finding, concluding it was premature, and performed a third surgery in May 2025.

Although the employer authorized the surgery, it denied further disability benefits. It argued that the third tear was not primarily caused by the original workplace injury and could have resulted from other factors. Alternatively, it claimed that any benefits should begin only when MMI was rescinded in February 2025, not when she stopped working.

The trial court ruled in Parcher’s favor. It found that she was likely to prove that her third tear was causally related to the original injury. The court relied on Dr. Bowman’s opinion that the condition arose primarily out of her employment and noted there was no credible evidence of an intervening injury. It also concluded that the initial MMI determination was premature and that her ongoing symptoms represented a continuation of the original injury. As a result, the court awarded temporary disability benefits beginning October 25, 2024, the day after she stopped working, totaling 59 weeks.

On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court’s causation finding. It emphasized that the opinion of an authorized treating physician is presumed correct. Although Dr. Bowman acknowledged uncertainty about the exact cause of the re-tear, he explained that such injuries often fail to heal properly and can worsen over time. He maintained that the condition was primarily related to the original workplace injury, and the employer failed to rebut this opinion.

The Appeals Board also agreed that Parcher was entitled to temporary disability benefits starting in October 2024, when she was unable to work. However, it found that the trial court miscalculated the total amount of benefits. The Board modified the award, increasing it to $46,451.49, while affirming the remainder of the decision.

In conclusion, the Appeals Board held that Parcher’s third injury was compensable as a direct and natural consequence of her original workplace accident and that she was entitled to ongoing temporary disability benefits, with a corrected award amount.

Call a Knoxville personal injury lawyer today at (865) 691-2777 to pursue financial compensation for your injuries.

The post Parcher v Modern Business Inc. appeared first on Brown & Roberto, PLLC.

This case concerns whether an employer must provide a panel of specialists after an authorized treating physician recommends further evaluation for a workplace injury. The central issue on appeal was whether Larnell Moon, an injured employee, presented sufficient evidence to require his employer, FirstFleet, Inc., to provide a panel of neuro-ophthalmologists to evaluate his complaints of blurred vision.

Situations involving denied medical referrals or disputed treatment recommendations are often complex, and a Knoxville workers’ compensation lawyer can help injured workers understand their rights under Tennessee law.

Moon was injured on December 28, 2022, while working as a commercial truck driver when he was involved in a single-vehicle accident. As a result of the accident, he sustained multiple injuries, including orthopedic issues affecting his knees and wrist, as well as a traumatic brain injury. He received authorized medical treatment for these conditions and was eventually referred to Dr. Erwin Manalo, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist, who became his authorized treating physician.

During the course of treatment, Moon began reporting symptoms of blurred vision. In response, Dr. Manalo completed a questionnaire in October 2025 indicating that, while he did not need to personally evaluate Moon further for this issue, he recommended that Moon be evaluated by a neuro-ophthalmologist. Based on this recommendation, Moon requested an expedited hearing seeking an order requiring his employer to provide a panel of neuro-ophthalmologists.

The employer denied the request, arguing that there was insufficient information linking Moon’s vision problems to his workplace injury. It also asserted that it had not received proper notice of the referral and suggested that Moon may have had pre-existing vision issues unrelated to the accident. The employer contended that, without clearer medical evidence establishing causation, it should not be required to provide the requested panel.

The trial court rejected these arguments and ordered the employer to provide a panel of neuro-ophthalmologists. In doing so, the court emphasized that medical determinations should be made by qualified physicians rather than by parties or their attorneys. It concluded that Dr. Manalo’s recommendation constituted a valid referral from an authorized treating physician and triggered a statutory presumption that the recommended evaluation was medically necessary. The court also referred the matter to the Bureau’s Compliance Program due to the employer’s failure to comply with this obligation, though it declined to award attorney’s fees at that stage.

Most importantly, the court held:

Employer’s arguments misconstrue Employee’s burden of proof at this stage of the litigation. Employee is not required to show that he is likely to succeed in proving that his vision issues are primarily caused by the accident or that any pre-existing vision issues are not the primary cause of his current complaints. Instead, Employee’s burden at this stage was to have suitable proof from which the court could conclude a referral had been made pursuant to section 204(a)(3)(H). The referral itself is presumed to be medically necessary, and it was Employer’s burden to offer sufficient proof to rebut that presumption. Beech v. G4S Secure Sols. (USA), Inc., No. 2020-05-0177, 2020 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 71, at *9 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Dec. 16, 2020).

On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Board clarified that, at this interlocutory stage, Moon was not required to prove that his blurred vision was caused primarily by the workplace accident. Instead, his burden was limited to demonstrating that an authorized treating physician had made a referral for additional evaluation. Under Tennessee law, such referrals are presumed to be medically necessary, and the burden shifts to the employer to rebut that presumption.

The Board found that the employer failed to meet this burden. Although it raised concerns about causation, lack of documentation, and possible pre-existing conditions, it presented no substantive evidence to overcome the statutory presumption in favor of the physician’s recommendation. The Board emphasized that questions about the ultimate cause of Moon’s vision problems could be addressed after the requested evaluation, not used to deny access to it.

In conclusion, the Appeals Board held that Moon was entitled to a panel of neuro-ophthalmologists based on the authorized physician’s referral. It affirmed the trial court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, reinforcing the principle that recommended medical evaluations are presumed necessary unless clearly rebutted by the employer.

Contact a Knoxville personal injury lawyer today — call (865) 691-2777.

The post Moon v. First Fleet Inc appeared first on Brown & Roberto, PLLC.