ALEXIS BASHAM v. SPB HOSPITALITY, LLC, D/B/A LOGAN’S ROADHOUSE, ET AL. - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Karen Belcher on Nov 2, 2023

Court: TN Workers Comp Appeals Board

Attorneys 1: Michael P. Fisher, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Alexis Basham

Attorneys 2: Taylor R. Pruitt, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, SPB Hospitality, LLC, d/b/a Logan’s Roadhouse

Judge(s): GODKIN

This is an appeal of the trial court’s order denying the employee’s motion to compel compliance with an earlier order for ongoing temporary disability benefits. While at work, the employee was physically assaulted by a customer who then struck the employee with a vehicle and dragged her several feet when attempting to leave the employer’s parking lot. The employee suffered an injury to her back and received workers’ compensation benefits. Upon reaching maximum medical improvement for her back injury, the employer stopped paying temporary disability benefits. Thereafter, the employer authorized a psychiatric evaluation, and the employee was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and restricted from work. The employee requested an expedited hearing to reinstate temporary total disability benefits, and the trial court determined that although the employee suffered physical injuries, her mental injury did not arise primarily from the physical injuries, rendering Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(1)(E) inapplicable. Accordingly, the court ordered the employer to pay past and ongoing temporary total disability benefits, and that order was not appealed. Subsequently, 104 weeks after the accident, the employer ceased payment of temporary benefits pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(1)(D)(ii), which limits such benefits to a maximum of 104 weeks “after the date of injury” for mental injuries “where there is no underlying physical injury.” The employee filed a motion to compel the employer’s compliance with the prior order, asserting she was entitled to continuing temporary benefits. The employer argued that the employee was conclusively presumed to be at maximum medical improvement pursuant to the applicable statute. In a decision on the record, the trial court denied the employee’s motion, and the employee has appealed. Upon careful consideration of the record and arguments of counsel, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

Attachments: