BIVENS, SARAH v. ACADIA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, INC.

CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedJune 18, 2026
Docket2025-10-2951
StatusPublished

This text of BIVENS, SARAH v. ACADIA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, INC. (BIVENS, SARAH v. ACADIA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, INC.) 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
BIVENS, SARAH v. ACADIA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, INC., (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2026).

Opinion

FILED Jun 18, 2026 10:21 AM(ET) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

SARAH BIVENS, Docket No. 2025-10-2951 Employee, v. ACADIA HEALTHCARE State File No. 26887-2025 MANAGEMENT, INC., Employer, And Judge Audrey Headrick SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORP., Carrier.

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

Ms. Bivens requested benefits for injuries from a fall at work. Acadia denied the claim, asserting her injury was idiopathic. For the reasons below, the Court holds Ms. Bivens is not entitled to the requested benefits.

Claim History

Ms. Bivens, a receptionist, testified that on April 22, 2025, she “tripped” while walking down a hallway and carrying a water bottle because the “floor is tremendously uneven.” To put the fall into context, Ms. Bivens explained that the day was very stressful because it was the first day that Acadia, a Methadone clinic, implemented a new drug screen. She felt stressed because of uncertainty about how to relay the new information to the patients, and she was on her feet “a lot” that day.

Ms. Bivens recalled falling. She said her knee/foot did not give out, and she did not have any medical condition that caused the fall. Despite heavy rain that day, Ms. Bivens did not remember whether the floor was wet.

After the fall, Ms. Bivens received emergency treatment for a head injury from

1 striking it on the floor and a knee fracture that required surgery with hardware implantation. She was hospitalized for two and a half weeks.

Acadia denied Ms. Bivens’s claim a week after her fall, stating it was idiopathic. Ms. Bivens’s personal health insurance paid 80% of her treatment, leaving her with co-pays exceeding $10,000.00. During her recovery, she received payments from personal leave time and short-term disability benefits.

Shannon Doggette, Acadia’s Director of Workers’ Compensation Claims, submitted a video of Ms. Bivens’s fall. The video shows Ms. Bivens walking to the restroom at the end of a hallway. She exited the restroom and started walking towards her desk. Before reaching the end of the hallway, Ms. Bivens appears to trip. Her body lunged forward, causing her to land awkwardly on her knee and strike the back of her head on the floor.

Ms. Bivens testified that, after later returning to work using a walker and then a cane, she noticed the unevenness of the hallway floor.

Ms. Doggette testified that she never received any complaints about the flooring.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Ms. Bivens must prove she is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits regarding her request for benefits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2025); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015).

The threshold issue is whether Ms. Bivens suffered an idiopathic injury or a work injury. An idiopathic injury has an “unexplained origin or cause and generally does not arise out of the employment unless ‘some condition of the employment presents a peculiar or additional hazard.’” Frye v. Vincent Printing Co., 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 34, at *11 (Aug. 2, 2016) (internal citation omitted). “Cause” in this context “means that the accident originated in the hazards to which the employee was exposed as a result of performing his or her job duties.” Id. at *12.

Acadia asserted that it properly denied Ms. Bivens’s claim based on the video, which appears to show a fall occurring on level flooring with no contributing hazard. Relying on Wilhelm v. Krogers, 235 S.W.3d 122, 128-29 (Tenn. 2007), Acadia 2 argued that “Tennessee courts have consistently held that an employee may not recover for an injury occurring while walking unless there is an employment hazard, such as a puddle of water or a step, in addition to the injured employee’s ambulation.” The Court clarified that “some hazard, such as the presence of a liquid, hole, obstacle, or a vehicle, must exist.” Id. at 129.

Ms. Bivens argued about the traumatic nature of the fall, the stressful day, and the unevenness of the floor. She pointed out that no one rebutted her testimony that the floor was uneven. While true, the Court viewed the video of Ms. Bivens’s fall. The floor appears level with no hazard present. Other than asserting the floor was uneven, Ms. Bivens offered no detailed description of exactly how the floor was “uneven” or why it appeared smooth and level in the video.

The Court finds that Ms. Bivens identified a specific hazard of her employment that caused her injuries – an uneven floor. However, she offered no evidence of the floor’s unevenness. Instead, the video footage suggested Ms. Bivens tripped and fell on a level surface with no visible hazard. Without further evidence, she is unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in proving her entitlement to the requested benefits at this time.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. The Court denies Ms. Bivens’s request for benefits at this time.

2. The parties shall appear for a Status Hearing on Monday, August 24, 2026, at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time/9:30 a.m. Central Time. The parties must call 423- 634-0164 or 855-383-0001 to participate. Failure to call might result in a determination of the issues without the party’s participation.

ENTERED June 18, 2026.

JUDGE AUDREY HEADRICK Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

3 APPENDIX

Exhibits:

1. Rule 72 Declaration of Ms. Doggette 2. Video taken on April 22, 2025, USB drive filed under seal 3. Notice of Denial 4. Wage Statement 5. Stipulations

4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this order was sent as shown on June 18, 2026.

Name Email Service sent to: Adam Brock-Dagnan, X Adam.brockdagnan@forthepeople.com Employee’s Attorney Kelly.slagle@forthepeople.com Christopher.howell@forthepeople.com Kitty Boyte, X Kitty.boyte@petersonwhite.com Employer’s Attorney

____________________________________ PENNY SHRUM, COURT CLERK wc.courtclerk@tn.gov

5 Right to Appeal: If you disagree with the Court’s Order, you may appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. To do so, you must: 1. Complete the enclosed form entitled “Notice of Appeal” and file it with the Clerk of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims before the expiration of the deadline.  If the order being appealed is “expedited” (also called “interlocutory”), or if the order does not dispose of the case in its entirety, the notice of appeal must be filed within seven (7) business days of the date the order was filed.  If the order being appealed is a “Compensation Order,” or if it resolves all issues in the case, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty (30) calendar days of the date the Compensation Order was filed. When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must serve a copy on the opposing party (or attorney, if represented).

2. You must pay, via check, money order, or credit card, a $75.00 filing fee within ten calendar days after filing the Notice of Appeal. Payments can be made in-person at any Bureau office or by U.S. mail, hand-delivery, or other delivery service. In the alternative, you may file an Affidavit of Indigency (form available on the Bureau’s website or any Bureau office) seeking a waiver of the filing fee. You must file the fully-completed Affidavit of Indigency within ten calendar days of filing the Notice of Appeal. Failure to timely pay the filing fee or file the Affidavit of Indigency will result in dismissal of your appeal.

3. You are responsible for ensuring a complete record is presented on appeal.

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

Related

Wilhelm v. Krogers
235 S.W.3d 122 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
BIVENS, SARAH v. ACADIA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, INC., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bivens-sarah-v-acadia-healthcare-management-inc-tennworkcompcl-2026.