HANA, AMEL v. ROSS STORES, INC.

CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedJune 30, 2026
Docket2023-06-7146
StatusPublished

This text of HANA, AMEL v. ROSS STORES, INC. (HANA, AMEL v. ROSS STORES, 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
HANA, AMEL v. ROSS STORES, INC., (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2026).

Opinion

FILED Jun 30, 2026 11:52 AM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

AMEL HANA, Docket No. 2023-06-7146 Employee, v. ROSS STORES, INC., State File No. 37372 Employer, and ARCH INDEMNITY INS. CO., Judge Joshua D. Baker Carrier.

COMPENSATION ORDER

At a June 16, 2026 compensation hearing, Ms. Hana requested permanent partial disability, temporary disability, and future medical benefits. Because she retained 2% permanent impairment and returned to work for Ross, the Court grants an original award of permanent partial disability but denies increased benefits. Since she was not out of work long enough for temporary total disability, and Ross offered work within her restrictions, she is not entitled to temporary total or temporary partial disability benefits. However, she is entitled to future medical benefits.

Claim History

On May 15, 2023, shelving fell on Ms. Hana’s neck and upper back. Ross authorized treatment, and she returned to restricted duty seven days later.

Ms. Hana worked light duty for nearly three months, from May 23 until August 11. Her restrictions included “no lifting greater than 25 pounds” and instructions to “limit continuous bending[,] stooping[,] and twisting.” According to Ms. Hana’s testimony, she earned very little while on restrictions. This was because her manager sent her home when she complained of pain or refused to do tasks she said the doctor had forbidden, like moving her hands up and down and twisting.

1 On August 11, Dr. Christopher Kauffman released her to full duty. After reviewing MRIs of her lumbar and thoracic spine, he noted no acute injuries in those areas, observing only age-related degenerative changes. But an MRI of her cervical spine had shown a work-related disc herniation.

So, Ms. Hana saw Dr. Tarek Elalayli, who believed she had a work-related neck strain and had reached maximum recovery on March 14, 2024, with 2% impairment. He placed no permanent restrictions and noted she “underwent a cervical ESI without improvement,” but that the work injury showed “no indication for surgery” or further treatment.

When Ms. Hana challenged Dr. Kauffman about releasing her when she was still in pain, he referred her to Dr. Jeffrey Hazlewood. After examining her, Dr. Hazlewood completed a C-32 form stating she was at maximum recovery for work- related strains and contusions to her back and neck. He found she had no permanent impairment or need for work restrictions, and he also recommended no additional treatment.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Ms. Hana has the burden of proving every element of her claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2025).

Permanent Partial Disability

Dr. Elalayli’s 2% rating is the sole expert proof that Ms. Hana has a permanent impairment, as Dr. Hazlewood believed she had none. While Ms. Hana disagreed, she offered no contrary proof. So, the Court finds she has 2% impairment, and her original award of permanent partial disability benefits is $1,513.35 (2% of 450 weeks, or nine weeks, multiplied by the minimum compensation rate of $168.15). Id. § 50-6-207(3)(A).1

If an employee has not returned to work at equal or greater wages by the end of the initial compensation period, she may be entitled to increased benefits. Id. § 50-6-207(3)(B).

1 The wage statement listed Ms. Hana’s weekly compensation rate as $167.62. 2 Here, Ms. Hana acknowledged she returned to work and offered no proof she is earning less than she was before her accident. Thus, the Court denies increased benefits.

Temporary Disability Benefits

Under Workers’ Compensation Law, two types of temporary disability benefits compensate an employee who is disabled from working by a work injury— temporary total disability and temporary partial disability.

Temporary total disability applies when an employee is taken off work due to a work injury. Jones v. Crencor Leasing and Sales, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 48, at *7 (Dec. 11, 2015). However, under section 50-6-205(a), “No compensation shall be allowed for the first seven (7) days of disability resulting from the injury, excluding the day of injury[.]” Because she returned to work within seven days of her injury, Ms. Hana is not entitled to temporary total disability.

Temporary partial disability applies when an employee is not totally disabled from work but is restricted due to a work injury. Jones, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 48 at *7. When the treating physician has restricted an employee’s work before maximum recovery and the employer cannot accommodate those restrictions for a sufficient number of hours or pay, the injured worker may be eligible for temporary partial disability. Id. at *8.

Here, Ms. Hana testified that she could not work without pain, implying that the doctor’s restrictions were insufficient, not that Ross failed to accommodate them. At most, she said light duty required twisting or bending that the doctor prohibited. However, documentary evidence showed the doctor simply limited certain continuous movements. Due to insufficient proof that Ross failed to accommodate her restrictions, Ms. Hana is not entitled to temporary partial disability benefits.

It is ORDERED as follows:

1. Ross shall pay Ms. Hana permanent partial disability benefits of $1,513.35.

2. Increased permanent partial disability under section 50-6-207(B) is denied.

3. Ms. Hana’s claim for temporary disability benefits is denied.

4. Ross shall furnish reasonable, necessary, and work-related future medical 3 benefits with Ms. Hana’s authorized treating physicians under section 50-6- 204.

5. The Court taxes the $150.00 filing fee to Ross, to be paid to the Court Clerk under Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.06 (2026) within five business days, and for which execution might issue.

6. Ross shall file a Statistical Data Form (SD-2) with the Court Clerk within ten days of the date this order becomes final.

7. Unless appealed, this order becomes final 30 days after entry.

ENTERED June 30, 2026.

____________________________________ JUDGE JOSHUA D. BAKER Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

APPENDIX

Exhibits:

1. Wage Statement 2. Form C-32 of Dr. Tarek Elalayli, with attachments 3. Form C-32 of Dr. Jeffery Hazlewood, with attachments 4. Choice of Physicians forms 5. Dr. Christopher Kauffman’s restrictions for Ms. Hana dated June 23, 2024 6. Medical record from Dr. Christopher Kauffman dated June 23, 2024, and titled “Patient Care Summary”

4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this order was sent as shown on June 30, 2026.

Name Email Service sent to: Amel Hana, X Employee Gabi Jackson, X gjackson@manierherod.com Heather Douglas hdouglas@manierherod.com Employer’s Attorneys

____________________________________ 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.

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)
HANA, AMEL v. ROSS STORES, INC., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hana-amel-v-ross-stores-inc-tennworkcompcl-2026.