BIANCO, MIRIAM v. ACADEMY OF MARYLAND FARMS

CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedApril 17, 2026
Docket2025-60-7253
StatusPublished

This text of BIANCO, MIRIAM v. ACADEMY OF MARYLAND FARMS (BIANCO, MIRIAM v. ACADEMY OF MARYLAND FARMS) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
BIANCO, MIRIAM v. ACADEMY OF MARYLAND FARMS, (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2026).

Opinion

FILED Apr 17, 2026 12:10 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS AT NASHVILLE

MIRIAM BIANCO, Docket No. 2025-60-7253 Employee, v. ACADEMY OF MARYLAND FARMS, State File No. 24482-2024 Employer, and STATE AUTO MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Judge Joshua D. Baker Carrier.

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

At an expedited hearing on March 31, 2026, Ms. Bianco requested physician panels for treatment of her right knee and lower back. She also requested temporary disability benefits. For the reasons below, the Court finds Academy of Maryland Farms provided valid panels of physicians and holds she must choose physicians from those panels. The Court additionally denies her request for temporary benefits.

Claim History

In this accepted claim, Ms. Bianco fell on her right side at work on April 8, 2024.

She testified that her supervisor sent her to an urgent-care clinic by writing the address down and handing it to her. Ms. Bianco denied receiving a panel. From there, she said the insurance adjuster directed her to medical appointments.

After receiving an orthopedic referral from the clinic, Ms. Bianco saw Dr. Lucas Richie for 14 months, until he released her at maximum recovery in September 2025. During treatment, she mostly saw physician’s assistant Lacie Baker.

1 After an MRI, Dr. Richie diagnosed a right-knee meniscus tear and recommended surgery. However, Ms. Bianco preferred conservative treatment and underwent physical therapy for her knee and back.

While she was completing physical therapy, Dr. Richie imposed restrictions, and Ms. Bianco received temporary partial disability from February 27 through August 25, 2025.

When she finished physical therapy, Dr. Richie recommended knee surgery and made a referral to a spine specialist. In late July, Ms. Baker wrote, “The patient does not wish to move forward with [knee] surgery at this time and will follow-up on an as-needed basis.” She recommended Ms. Bianco “finish PT with her back and then return to work without restrictions” on August 25, 2025.

Ms. Bianco expressed doubt about working without restrictions given her back pain. Ms. Baker wrote, “[Ms. Bianco] is concerned that she is not going to be able to lift the babies and toddlers without having severe pain although she has not tried[.] . . . We will refer her to a spine surgeon for complete evaluation on her back.”

On September 12, 2025, Dr. Richie released Ms. Bianco at maximum recovery and assigned 2% impairment for her back injury and 1% impairment for her right-knee injury. Ms. Bianco disagreed and filed her petition, asserting she had not reached maximum recovery, had an “invalid release issued by a [physician’s assistant],” had her temporary disability benefits improperly terminated on September 5, and had not received a panel for either her knee or back.

At trial, Ms. Bianco said she began working for a new employer on December 2 and wanted temporary benefits from September 5 through that date. She acknowledged receiving two panels a few months after filing her petition, but she declined to choose a doctor because Dr. Richie was a choice on one of the panels.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

To receive benefits at an expedited hearing, Ms. Bianco must prove she is likely to prevail on her request for benefits at a final hearing. McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015).

2 Panel of Physicians

Ms. Bianco requested new panels of physicians. The Court denies this request.

Workers’ Compensation Law details the process for selecting a treating physician from a panel.

First, Employers are required to designate “three (3) or more independent reputable physicians . . . from which the injured employee shall select one (1) to be the treating physician.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(i) (2025). Those physicians must be independent, reputable, and “qualified, willing, and able to treat timely.” Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-01-.06(1) (2018). If a physician on the panel refuses to treat the employee, the employee may either select another physician or demand a new panel. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(3)(G).

Second, the “employee shall select a physician[,] . . . sign and date the completed form, and return the form to the employer.” If not, “the employee’s receipt of treatment from any physician provided in the panel after the date the panel was provided shall constitute acceptance of the panel and selection of the physician from whom the employee received treatment as the treating physician[.]” Id. § 50- 6-204(a)(3)(D)(i)-(ii).

Here, Ms. Bianco testified, unrefuted, that she never received an initial panel and did not choose Dr. Richie.1 She maintained she finally received the panel after he treated her for an extended time, essentially asserting that the employer chose the physician for her because she saw Dr. Richie and he was later included on a panel. Ms. Bianco received two more panels, one for her back and one for her knee, after she filed her petition. She refused to choose a doctor from either panel because the knee panel included Dr. Richie, whom she deemed “non-objective.”2 She presented no evidence that Dr. Richie refused to treat her or is unqualified. Thus, the Court finds his inclusion on the panel was proper despite her concerns. Since the knee panel is valid and she did not object to the doctors included on the back panel, the Court holds that Ms. Bianco must choose from those panels. After

1 The Academy of Maryland Farms offered an adjuster’s Rule 72 declaration suggesting Ms. Bianco chose the clinic and Dr. Richie from panels but just did not sign or return those panels. However, the declaration was inadmissible because the declarant’s name and the signature did not match. 2 Neither panel was introduced into evidence. 3 Ms. Bianco selects physicians and signs and dates the completed forms, the Academy of Maryland Farms shall schedule appointments. Temporary Disability

Ms. Bianco also requests temporary benefits from September 5 through December 2, 2025, when she started her new job. The Court denies her request.

When a treating physician has released an injured worker to return to work with restrictions before maximum recovery, and the employer cannot accommodate the restrictions, the injured worker may be eligible for temporary partial disability. Heard v. Carrier Corp., 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 16, at *5 (Apr. 20, 2018). However, Ms. Bianco had no work restrictions on August 25 and reached maximum recovery on September 12. Given this evidence, she is unlikely to prevail on her request for temporary disability benefits at trial.

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Ms. Bianco shall select physicians from the panels of knee and back specialists that the Academy of Maryland Farms provided. She shall sign and date the completed forms and return them. The Academy of Maryland Farms shall then schedule appointments. 2. Ms. Bianco’s request for temporary disability benefits is denied. 3. A status hearing is set for Monday, August 3, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. Central Time. You must call 615-741-2113 or 855-874-0474 to participate. ENTERED April 17, 2026.

_________________________________ JUDGE JOSHUA D. BAKER Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

4 Exhibits

1. Affidavit of Ms. Miriam Bianco 2. Medical records filed by Employer 3. Final Medical Report and office note of Dr. Lucas Richie dated September 15, 2025 4. Notice of Change or Termination 5.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 50-6-204
Tennessee § 50-6-204
§ 50-6-239
Tennessee § 50-6-239

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
BIANCO, MIRIAM v. ACADEMY OF MARYLAND FARMS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bianco-miriam-v-academy-of-maryland-farms-tennworkcompcl-2026.