BOOKER, VEATRICE v. US FARATHANE CORP.

CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedMay 29, 2026
Docket2022-70-0638
StatusPublished

This text of BOOKER, VEATRICE v. US FARATHANE CORP. (BOOKER, VEATRICE v. US FARATHANE CORP.) 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
BOOKER, VEATRICE v. US FARATHANE CORP., (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2026).

Opinion

FILED May 29, 2026 09:09 AM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

VEATRICE BOOKER, Docket No. 2022-70-0638 Employee, v. State File No. 111982-2019 US FARATHANE CORP., Employer. Judge Amber E. Luttrell

COMPENSATION ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In US Farathane’s motion, the issue is whether Ms. Booker presented sufficient evidence of a causal connection between her current cervical condition and need for treatment and her work injury, which is an essential element of her claim. For the reasons below, the Court holds she did not present the necessary evidence, and US Farathane is entitled to summary judgment.

Claim History

Ms. Booker filed a petition seeking treatment for a cervical condition under a 2024 compensation order. The Court awarded future medical benefits for a 2019 neck injury diagnosed as cervical myofascial pain.1 She was not awarded permanent disability benefits.

US Farathane does not dispute that Ms. Booker is entitled to medical benefits for work-related cervical myofascial pain. Rather, it contests Ms. Booker’s current request for treatment as her authorized treating physician, Dr. John Brophy, concluded that her cervical condition and need for treatment does not primarily arise out of her original injury.

US Farathane filed this motion for summary judgment. Ms. Booker did not

1 The Court also awarded future medical benefits for lumbar myofascial pain and shoulder pain, but the sole issue before the Court at this time concerns her neck condition. 1 respond to its statement of undisputed material facts as required under Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56. However, she filed an affidavit and a C-32 of her personal physician, Dr. John Janovich.

US Farathane filed statements of undisputed material facts with citations to the record. Because Ms. Booker did not respond, the facts alleged in the statement are unrebutted. The Court summarizes the relevant facts as follows:

• Ms. Booker filed a petition seeking medical benefits under a 2024 compensation order. Ms. Booker saw Dr. Brophy in July 2025 under her private health insurance. • Dr. Brophy testified that three cervical injections from Dr. Janovich were not related to Ms. Booker’s November 5, 2019 work injury. • Dr. Brophy reviewed a June 2025 MRI and testified it showed either degenerative or congenital changes, not changes related to her work injury. • Dr. Brophy testified there was “no clinical evidence of cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy.” • Dr. Brophy ordered a cervical CT scan and said it showed no evidence of disc herniation, ruptured disc, nerve root compression, or spinal cord compression. • Dr. Brophy diagnosed Ms. Booker with “chronic cervical and trapezius pain associated with ossification of the posterial longitudinal ligament from C5 through C7 without clinical evidence of radiculopathy or myelopathy.” • Dr. Brophy stated that Ms. Booker’s diagnosis and his treatment of her in 2025 was unrelated to her 2019 work injury. • Ms. Booker filed a C-32 of Dr. Janovich.

Us Farathane contends summary judgment is appropriate because it negated an essential element of Ms. Booker’s claim through Dr. Brophy’s testimony.

In the C-32, Dr. Janovich checked that he was her “treating physician.” He wrote, “3-year service this provider; fell 11-2019 at work with treatment elsewhere. MRI indicated change from previous.” Dr. Janovich responded to the question “what was the injury” by writing “fell at work.”

2 Analysis

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 (2025).

As the moving party, US Farathane must either: (1) submit affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of Ms. Booker’s claim, or (2) demonstrate that her evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of her claim. Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-16-101 (2025); Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 264 (Tenn. 2015).

Dr. Brophy, Ms. Booker’s authorized treating physician, unequivocally stated that Ms. Booker’s current diagnosis for which he treated her is chronic cervical and trapezius pain associated with ossification of the posterial longitudinal ligament from C5 through C7, which is unrelated to her 2019 work injury. He explained that this condition is degenerative or congenital and pre-existed her work injury. Based on this testimony, US met its burden of negating an essential element – causation.

Because US Farathane met its burden, the burden shifts to Ms. Booker to produce specific facts supported by citations to the record showing that a genuine issue of fact concerning causation exists for trial. Rye, 477 S.W.3d at 265. In an attempt to do so, she offered a C-32 from Dr. Janovich, which fails to address causation for her current cervical condition or even identify a diagnosis. Thus, the C-32 fails to create a genuine issue of fact for trial. Therefore, Ms. Booker did not meet her burden, and summary judgment is appropriate.

While US Farathane is entitled to summary judgment as to Ms. Booker’s current request for cervical treatment, Ms. Booker remains entitled to reasonable and necessary future medical benefits for her work-related cervical myofascial pain under the 2024 compensation order.

Finally, US Farathane also argues it is entitled to summary judgment under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel for any request for permanent disability based on Dr. Janovich’s 25% rating assigned in his C-32. However, in Ms. Booker’s May 3, 2025 petition, she did not allege entitlement to permanent disability. She only requested “medical care as required under a Court order.” At the motion hearing, Ms. Booker also confirmed she only obtained a C-32 from Dr. 3 Janovich to support her request for medical benefits. Because Ms. Booker did not request permanent disability benefits, the issue is not before the Court. IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. US Farathane’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and Ms. Booker’s petition is dismissed with prejudice.

2. Unless appealed, this order shall be final 30 days after entry.

3. The Court taxes the $150.00 filing fee to US Farathane or its carrier under Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.06 (2026), payable to the Clerk within five days of this order becoming final.

4. US Farathane shall prepare and submit the SD-2 with the Clerk within ten days of the date of judgment.

ENTERED May 29, 2026.

___________________________________ JUDGE AMBER E. LUTTRELL Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this order was sent as shown on May 29, 2026.

Name USPS Email Service sent to: Veatrice Booker, X X Employee

John Burleson, X jburleson@raineykizer.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.

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

Related

Michelle RYE Et Al. v. WOMEN’S CARE CENTER OF MEMPHIS, MPLLC Et Al.
477 S.W.3d 235 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
BOOKER, VEATRICE v. US FARATHANE CORP., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/booker-veatrice-v-us-farathane-corp-tennworkcompcl-2026.