DAVIS, ARTHUR v. BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL - MEMPHIS

2026 TN WC 24
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedMarch 18, 2026
Docket2024-80-6993
StatusPublished

This text of 2026 TN WC 24 (DAVIS, ARTHUR v. BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL - MEMPHIS) 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
DAVIS, ARTHUR v. BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL - MEMPHIS, 2026 TN WC 24 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2026).

Opinion

FILED Mar 18, 2026 04:13 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

ARTHUR DAVIS, Docket No. 2024-80-6993 Employee, v. State File No. 66854-2024 BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL - MEMPHIS, Judge Allen Phillips Employer.

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

At a March 2, 2026 expedited hearing, Mr. Davis requested medical benefits for a shoulder injury and a heat stroke. Baptist contended neither injury arose out of his employment. Due to insufficient proof of work-related injuries, the Court denies Mr. Davis’s request at this time.

History of Claim

Mr. Davis worked for Baptist in environmental services. One of his duties was loading and rolling large waste bins to a dumpster. He said that on August 19, 2024, one of the two bins he was moving hit a dip in the grass near the dumpster, pulling his left shoulder.

When Mr. Davis returned inside, he began to feel dizzy and had difficulty standing. He went to Baptist’s emergency room where he was diagnosed with an ischemic stroke and hospitalized.1 He was later transferred to Baptist’s rehabilitation center.

1 An ischemic stroke is caused by a blood clot in an artery in the brain. Symptoms include sudden numbness and loss of coordination. https://www.stroke.org/en/about-stroke/types-of-stroke/ischemic-stroke-clots (Last visited March 17, 2026). 1 An August 19 emergency room record includes Mr. Davis’s history of nausea, dizziness, and an unsteady gait that started at work. No shoulder complaints were recorded.

Mr. Davis was transferred to Baptist’s rehabilitation facility on August 23, but complications required his readmission to the hospital eight days later. He received treatment for stroke-related symptoms and saw an orthopedist regarding his shoulder. An MRI showed a partial rotator cuff tear, and the orthopedist said Mr. Davis had no immediate need for surgery but might later see a specialist.

The records from that hospitalization also contain various versions of his injury history. He reported left shoulder pain of “sudden onset” with no history of trauma and was diagnosed with “acute” shoulder pain. When Mr. Davis underwent the orthopedic evaluation, he told the examiner that he “hit his shoulder.” Another note records that he hurt his shoulder when he fell in an elevator at work and another that he reported a slip and fall.

After his discharge, Mr. Davis returned to the rehabilitation facility and stayed there until late September. None of those records contain an opinion regarding the cause of Mr. Davis’s alleged injuries.

Jenny Seratt, who worked in Baptist’s employee health department in 2024, testified that she handled only FMLA claims and referred workers’ compensation claims to someone else. She was familiar with Mr. Davis because she handled several of his past FMLA claims.

According to her records, Mr. Davis reported by phone on August 20 that he had gone to the emergency room the day before and was diagnosed with a stroke. He did not know how long he would be off work, and Ms. Seratt explained the FMLA process. Mr. Davis opted to use his PTO time, and Ms. Seratt wrote: “He acknowledged all understanding and all questions [were] answered.” Several other entries from August document Mr. Davis’s progress in the rehabilitation hospital.

Then, on September 5, Ms. Seratt noted Mr. Davis called to say his “time off is WC” because “he was at work when it happened.” He said that while pulling a trash bin through the grass, he hit a dip and he felt a “stabbing pain shoot up his shoulders.” He went inside, felt dizzy, and then went to the emergency room. Ms. Seratt told him she would speak with her supervisor, Trent, for the next steps.

When Trent Riden, Baptist’s assistant director of employee health, learned of 2 Mr. Davis’s workers’ compensation claim, he obtained videos taken from cameras near the dumpsters. Baptist played those videos, and they show Mr. Davis moving the bins, pushing one in front of him while pulling another behind. He crosses a grassy area and a sidewalk, but the Court sees no dip or other obstruction, and Mr. Davis does not react as if something were amiss.

Baptist denied Mr. Davis’s claim on grounds that his injuries did not arise out of his employment. Mr. Davis continued to seek medical treatment on his own.

In October, he saw orthopedic surgeon Dr. John Lochemes, who recorded a history of a trash can going over a bump that caused Mr. Davis to hyperextend his left shoulder. He then had an ischemic stroke and “because of this, the left shoulder was not known about until later on.” Dr. Lochemes said the rotator cuff tear “may have been due to the mechanism of injury” and recommended a neurology evaluation because of Mr. Davis’s complaints of left-hand numbness.

Mr. Davis went to a neurology clinic where he reported his torn rotator cuff and stroke but gave no history of their cause. He remained off work and was concerned that he needed FMLA paperwork. The provider included a diagnosis of an incomplete rotator cuff tear “not specified as traumatic.”

In February 2025, Baptist obtained an evaluation of Mr. Davis’s shoulder from orthopedic surgeon Dr. Riley Jones. He documented Mr. Davis’s history of moving the bins and that “when he went over a dip in the grass and onto the sidewalk” he suffered an injury. Dr. Jones reviewed the videos and said there “appears to be a small bump without much or any trauma to the left shoulder and in fact he did not even stop at that time.” He looked at other records, including the ones documenting that Mr. Davis hit his shoulder or fell in an elevator.

After his evaluation, Dr. Jones said Mr. Davis’s shoulder injury did not meet the “51% requirement to be covered under Workmen’s Compensation.” In reaching his conclusion, Dr. Jones considered that the video showed Mr. Davis did not react “to the small bump,” that Mr. Davis said nothing about his shoulder until two weeks later, and that the medical records contain two other reported modes of injury.

Mr. Davis testified that August 19 was a hot day, and moving the bin was hard work. He maintained he hurt his shoulder and went to the emergency room with symptoms of a heat stroke. He argued Baptist knew he was at work when the stroke occurred and offered no other origin for it. He wanted reimbursement of approximately $100,000 of medical bills, and he wanted Baptist to furnish ongoing 3 medical treatment of both injuries.

Baptist argued Mr. Davis is not likely to prevail because he offered no proof that either injury was work-related.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

At this expedited hearing, Mr. Davis must show he would likely prevail at trial on his request for medical benefits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1).

Turning first to the shoulder, the video of Mr. Davis does not show him transversing a dip or any other obstacle. He did not reach for his shoulder or show any signs of physical distress. Further, none of the medical records contain an expert opinion connecting any shoulder condition to Mr. Davis’s work. Rather, the records contain inconsistent histories of the date and cause of his shoulder symptoms.

However, one record is clear: Dr. Jones said that the shoulder condition was not work-related.2 Dr. Jones found the video and medical records offered no support for Mr. Davis’s contention. The only contrary opinion is Dr. Lochemes’s statement that the injury “may have been” related, and that does not rise to the required connection of greater than 50%.

As to the stroke, Mr. Davis argued that Baptist had immediate actual notice of it and knew of no other origin except his work.

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

Related

§ 50-6-239
Tennessee § 50-6-239

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2026 TN WC 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-arthur-v-baptist-memorial-hospital-memphis-tennworkcompcl-2026.