BURKES, JERRY R. v. SYSCO CORPORATION

2025 TN WC 50
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedAugust 1, 2025
Docket2023-03-8195
StatusPublished

This text of 2025 TN WC 50 (BURKES, JERRY R. v. SYSCO CORPORATION) 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
BURKES, JERRY R. v. SYSCO CORPORATION, 2025 TN WC 50 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2025).

Opinion

FILED Aug 01, 2025 03:29 PM(ET) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

JERRY R. BURKES, ) Docket No. 2023-03-8195 Employee, ) v. ) SYSCO CORPORATION, ) State File No. 7260-2023 Employer, ) And ) ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE ) Judge Lisa A. Lowe COMPANY, ) Carrier. )

COMPENSATION ORDER

Jerry Burkes sustained a work-related left-knee injury. He previously settled his original award and now seeks additional permanent disability benefits. For the reasons below, the Court holds that Mr. Burkes is entitled to increased benefits.

History of Claim

On January 26, 2023, Mr. Burkes slipped and fell, injuring his left knee. Dr. Michael McCollum diagnosed partial medial and lateral meniscus tears and grade 3 osteoarthritis. Mr. Burkes underwent surgery and suffered from deep vein thrombosis afterward. Dr. McCollum gave him a 10% impairment rating.

Other than a short period where Dr. McCollum took Mr. Burkes off work completely, he assigned light-duty restrictions from February through August 2023. At the last visit on August 3, Dr. McCollum placed Mr. Burkes at maximum medical improvement but noted, “I am going to keep him at light duty for the time being.” He returned to work without restrictions on August 24. Mr. Burkes resigned his position sometime that August, but he was unsure whether it was during the light-duty or full-duty timeframe. Dr. McCollum’s records mention Mr. Burkes’s concerns about his ability to perform his job duties several times.

1 The Court approved the initial award settlement on February 29, 2024. The agreement established that Mr. Burkes suffered a compensable left-knee injury; his initial award was $30,316.72; his initial compensation period would expire on July 4, 2024; and Sysco will pay for reasonable, necessary, and related treatment.

After the expiration of Mr. Burkes’s initial compensation period, he filed a petition for benefit determination seeking additional permanent disability benefits.

At the hearing, Mr. Burkes testified that he knew that he could not perform his regular duties due to the physical nature of his job. Because of that, he felt he had to resign from his employment with Sysco. He ended up moving to North Carolina to be with family and ultimately secured a job with Coastal Enterprises, earning less than pre-injury. Sysco authorized treatment with Dr. Bradley in North Carolina, and he performed a second surgery. Mr. Burkes is currently unemployed.

Mr. Burkes said that he asked Dr. McCollum to complete a physician’s certification form to state that he was unable to return to his pre-injury employment, but Dr. McCollum did not respond.

Mr. Burkes testified that he was in pain for two and a half years because Dr. McCollum did not fix his knee and he had to have a second surgery. He explained how the injury has affected his activities and relationships with his wife and two sons. They testified as well about the changes in Mr. Burkes after the injury. He also said that he suffered from a hiatal hernia that he relates to the medication Dr. McCollum prescribed. Mr. Burkes asked the Court to award him extraordinary relief of 275 weeks of benefits.

Sysco argued that the only issue before the Court is Mr. Burkes’s entitlement to increased benefits. It asserted that Mr. Burkes voluntarily resigned his position, so he is not entitled to increased benefits. Sysco also pointed out that on his Coastal Enterprise application, he answered “no” that he had ever had a knee injury, “no” that he required accommodations, and wrote that he could comfortably lift 40 pounds.1 Further, it pointed out that Mr. Burkes is not eligible for extraordinary relief because he did not file a physician’s certification form, and he is not entitled to hernia benefits because it was not part of the underlying settlement.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Mr. Burkes has the burden of proof on all essential elements of his claim. Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *6 (Aug. 18, 2015). He must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to the requested benefits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2024). 1 Mr. Burkes explained that he answered those questions that way because he had to get a job to support his family. 2 Increased Benefits

Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(B) states that if, at the end of the initial period of compensation, the employee has not returned to work for any employer at an equal or greater rate of pay as before the injury, then the employee qualifies for a resulting award equal to 1.35 times the original award. A trial court can further increase the resulting award if, among other considerations, the employee is over age 40 when the initial period of compensation ended.

However, the statute also states that “under no circumstances shall an employee be entitled to additional benefits” when the “loss of employment is due to the employee’s voluntary resignation,” provided that the resignation “does not result from the work-related disability.” § 50-6-207(3)(D)(i).

Examining the circumstances of his resignation, the Court finds that it was a result of his work injury. On August 3, 2023, Dr. McCollum “kept [Mr. Burkes] on light duty for the time being.” Mr. Burkes knew that meant Dr. McCollum would ultimately return him to full-duty work in the future. Without seeing him again, Dr. McCollum released him to full-duty work on August 24, 2023. Mr. Burkes credibly testified about the pain and condition of his knee and his inability to return to full duty. The medical records reflect this was Mr. Burkes’s concern throughout treatment. Further, Mr. Burkes ultimately required a second surgery, since the first surgery did not alleviate his symptoms.

Therefore, Mr. Burkes is entitled to $18,796.33 in increased benefits for his inability to return to work at the same or better pay and being over age 40.

Extraordinary Benefits

If an employee qualifies for increased benefits, but the trial court finds the employee’s case to be “extraordinary” under section 50-6-242(a)(2) and concludes that limiting the injured worker to the increased benefits would be inequitable considering the totality of the circumstances, the trial court can award benefits not to exceed 275 weeks. However additional requirements exist for eligibility, including that the employee’s impairment rating is 10% or higher, and the authorized treating physician certifies on a form provided by the Bureau that the employee “no longer has the ability to perform the employee’s pre-injury occupation” due to “permanent restrictions on activity” caused by the work accident. Id.

Here, Mr. Burkes does not qualify for extraordinary benefits. Although Dr. McCollum assigned him a 10% permanent impairment rating and he is not employed, Dr. McCollum did not complete a physician certification form. Therefore, Mr. Burkes has not met the statutory requirements for extraordinary benefits and is not entitled to an award over increased benefits.

3 Post-hearing motion

After the compensation hearing, Mr. Burkes moved to supplement the record and submit post-hearing argument, and Sysco moved to strike.

Specifically, Mr. Burkes asked the Court to consider additional information about his hernia, indemnity benefits, sale of his home at a loss, and AMA Guides for gait derangement, among other information. Sysco moved to strike the motion because post- hearing briefs are only permitted with the judge’s advance approval. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-02-21-.20(2) (2023).

As the Court previously explained, since Mr.

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

Related

§ 50-6-239
Tennessee § 50-6-239(c)(6)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 TN WC 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burkes-jerry-r-v-sysco-corporation-tennworkcompcl-2025.