ELSBERRY, DEXTER M. v. FEDEX

CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedApril 17, 2026
Docket2025-80-7100
StatusPublished

This text of ELSBERRY, DEXTER M. v. FEDEX (ELSBERRY, DEXTER M. v. FEDEX) 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
ELSBERRY, DEXTER M. v. FEDEX, (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2026).

Opinion

FILED Apr 17, 2026 10:19 AM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

DEXTER M. ELSBERRY, Docket No. 2025-80-7100 Employee, v. FEDEX, State File No. 57381-2025 Employer, and INDEMNITY INS. CO. OF N. AM., Judge Shaterra R. Marion Carrier.

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

The Court held an expedited hearing on April 9, 2026. Mr. Elsberry sought medical and temporary disability benefits. FedEx contended that Mr. Elsberry already received all benefits due. For the reasons below, the Court holds that Mr. Elsberry is not likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in showing his entitlement to benefits.

Claim History

Mr. Elsberry injured his back on August 7, 2025, while working at FedEx. He chose Dr. James Escue from a panel. Dr. Escue diagnosed Mr. Elsberry with a lumbar strain, ordered physical therapy, and returned him to work with restrictions. At his final visit, Dr. Escue wrote that some of Mr. Elsberry’s pain complaints “do not match with his diagnosis.”

A month later, Mr. Elsberry went to the hospital, where a doctor ordered a CT scan. The scan showed mild degenerative disc disease and a disc bulge, and the doctor recommended Mr. Elsberry contact Dr. Escue.

Six weeks later, Mr. Elsberry went to another hospital with “worsening back pain.” An MRI showed a disc bulge but no acute abnormality. Mr. Elsberry wanted back surgery, but the doctor found no “emergent indication” that would require 1 surgery.

After these encounters, FedEx offered another panel, and Mr. Elsberry chose Dr. John Brophy. He told Dr. Brophy he had pain in his back and buttocks that extended into his legs. Dr. Brophy offered a steroid injection or continued observation with activity modification and medication.

Mr. Elsberry asked for the injection. He went to have the injection with a different doctor in the clinic. Mr. Elsberry refused the injection and demanded to see Dr. Brophy because he had additional questions and developed intermittent numbness in both legs since the last visit.

Dr. Brophy spoke with Mr. Elsberry and wrote that “based on his current complaints, which have increased in severity,” he did not think Mr. Elsberry’s lower- extremity symptoms resulted from his work accident and could not be explained by the disc abnormality shown on the MRI. He recommended that Mr. Elsberry manage his back pain “with a low-impact home endurance exercise program.”

Dr. Brophy told Mr. Elsberry to see his primary care physician and released him to work without restrictions effective February 9, 2026. Dr. Brophy confirmed in his final medical report that he placed Mr. Elsberry at maximum medical improvement with a 0% rating.

Mr. Elsberry argued that he needs additional treatment. He also said that because Dr. Brophy recommended injections, he should not have been placed at maximum medical improvement.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Mr. Elsberry must prove he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits on his 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).

To recover medical benefits, Mr. Elsberry must show a physician found to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that his work injury contributed more than 50% in causing his current need for medical treatment, considering all causes. Id. § 50-6-102(12).

2 Mr. Elsberry did not meet this requirement, as Dr. Brophy ultimately determined his work accident did not cause his current symptoms. Although Dr. Brophy recommended a steroid injection, he changed his opinion on the medical necessity of the injection when Mr. Elsberry relayed new symptoms that could not be explained by his MRI results. So, Mr. Elsberry is unlikely to show at a hearing on the merits that he is entitled to additional medical treatment.

The Court also denies Mr. Elsberry’s request for additional temporary disability benefits. These benefits “are terminated either by the ability to return to work or attainment of maximum recovery.” Jones v. Crencor Leasing and Sales, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 48, at *7 (Dec. 11, 2015).

Here, Dr. Brophy stated that Mr. Elsberry reached maximum medical improvement, and Mr. Elsberry gave no contrary proof. Therefore, his attainment of maximum medical improvement ended his right to temporary disability benefits. Mr. Elsberry is unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits on this request as well.

The Court sets a status conference for June 16, 2024, at 1:45 p.m. Central Time. The parties must call (866) 943-0014 to participate. Failure to call might result in a determination of the issues without the party’s participation.

IT IS ORDERED.

ENTERED April 17, 2026.

____________________________________ JUDGE SHATERRA R. MARION Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

3 APPENDIX

Exhibits:

1. Rule 72 Declaration of Mr. Elsberry 2. Car Title Loan Agreement 3. DCS Permanency Plan 4. [For Identification Only] Transcript of Audio Recording between Mr. Elsberry and Dr. Brophy 5. Emergency Room Visit #2 6. Chronology of Denial 7. Vehicle Repossession Records 8. AT&T Employment Email 9. Text messages between Mr. Elsberry and his coworker 10.Investigative Suspension Records 11.Panels Selecting Drs. Escue and Brophy 12.Medical Records filed by FedEx 13.Final Medical Report of Dr. Brophy 14.Rule 72 Declaration of Danielle Christoph

4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I sent a copy of this Order on April 17, 2026.

Regular Name Email Service sent to: Mail Dexter Elsberry, 7904 Briarwood Cove Employee X X Bartlett, TN 38002 elsberrydexter@gmail.com Stephen Miller, smiller@mckuhn.com Joseph Baker, X jbaker@mckuhn.com Employer’s Attorneys mdoherty@mckuhn.com

____________________________________ 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. ¾ 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. ¾ 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. If no court reporter was present at the hearing, you may request from the Court Clerk the audio recording of the hearing for a $25.00 fee.

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)
ELSBERRY, DEXTER M. v. FEDEX, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elsberry-dexter-m-v-fedex-tennworkcompcl-2026.