HERNANDEZ, YONNY PEREZ V. PR MARINE CONSTR., LLC

CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedApril 8, 2026
Docket2025-80-3406
StatusPublished

This text of HERNANDEZ, YONNY PEREZ V. PR MARINE CONSTR., LLC (HERNANDEZ, YONNY PEREZ V. PR MARINE CONSTR., LLC) 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
HERNANDEZ, YONNY PEREZ V. PR MARINE CONSTR., LLC, (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2026).

Opinion

FILED Apr 08, 2026 12:19 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

YONNY PEREZ HERNANDEZ, Docket No. 2025-80-3406 Employee, v. PR MARINE CONSTR., LLC, State File No. 860151-2025 Employer, and STONETRUST COM. INS. CO., Judge Shaterra R. Marion Carrier.

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

The Court held an expedited hearing on March 30, 2026. Mr. Hernandez sought medical benefits for his work injury. PR Marine contended that Mr. Hernandez did not present medical proof that his work injury caused his current symptoms and that he should not receive benefits due to his legal status and current location in Mexico. For the reasons below, the Court holds that Mr. Hernandez is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in showing he is entitled to medical benefits for his work injury. Claim History

On July 17, 2023, Mr. Hernandez was helping carry a large post with four other people. The post fell on him, and he remembers nothing else until a helicopter arrived to take him to the hospital. According to him, the pole “split him open.” Mr. Hernandez suffered injuries to his back and jaw. The hospital wired his jaw shut and performed surgery on his back, inserting hardware. After being released, Mr. Hernandez attended four follow-up appointments.

1 Mr. Hernandez testified that after those appointments, he asked PR Marine for additional treatment but never received it. He moved to Texas about six months after his injury. On September 3, 2024, he was deported to Mexico for being in the United States illegally. Mr. Hernandez testified he never received a panel from PR Marine, either in the six months he lived in Memphis after his injury, during his time in Texas, or after he returned to Mexico. PR Marine argued that it reached an agreement with Mr. Hernandez’s attorney for Mr. Hernandez to see a doctor shortly before his deportation, but neither party submitted evidence of these agreements. Mr. Hernandez received checks from PR Marine after his work injury, but those checks ended when he was deported. He stated he has trouble lifting more than 15 kilograms and cannot sit or stand for long periods without pain. He can feel the hardware in his back whenever he lie on a hard surface. PR Marine argued that Mr. Hernandez offered no medical proof to relate his current symptoms to his work injury. It also argued that treating Mr. Hernandez in Mexico would be difficult, because it would be hard to find a credentialed physician, and the physician might be unable to assign restrictions or unwilling to be paid under the fee schedule. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Mr. Hernandez 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). Generally, an employee must offer an expert medical opinion to prove his work caused his injuries. Id. § 50-6-102(12). However, that is not the case when the “[e]mployee’s injury was so ‘obvious’ that no expert medical evidence was required to prove causation.” Willis v. All Staff, No. M2016-01143-SC-R3-WC, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 455, at *13 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel May 22, 2017). Additionally, the Appeals Board held that an employee may still be entitled to a panel of physicians even when he offered no medical proof that his work injury caused her symptoms. McCord, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6 at *17-18. The Appeals Board relied on the employee’s testimony, the exhibits, and the record as a whole in determining that the employee was entitled to a panel without medical proof. Id.; see also Lewis v. Molly Maid, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 19, at *8-9 (Apr. 20, 2016) (when employee offered unrebutted proof of a work incident, “while this evidence was insufficient to establish the compensability of her claim by

2 a preponderance of the evidence, it was sufficient to support an order compelling Employer to provide a panel of physicians.”). Here, Mr. Hernandez testified that the pole “split him open.” A helicopter airlifted him to a hospital, where he had his jaw wired shut and back surgery with the insertion of hardware. PR Marine accepted the claim from the beginning. The Court holds that although Mr. Hernandez gave no medical proof to show causation, his injury was obvious, and his testimony and the record support a finding that his work injury caused the symptoms in his back and jaw. PR Marine’s contention that it does not owe Mr. Hernandez benefits because he was not in the country legally and does not currently live in the country is not supported by Tennessee law. It argued that Mr. Hernandez’s legal status is similar to that of an incarcerated criminal and pointed to an American Law Review Article and a Kentucky court, which both stated that incarcerated criminals could not receive workers’ compensation benefits. Noralyn O. Harlow, Annotation, Workers’ Compensation: Incarceration as Terminating Benefits, 54 A.L.R.4th 241, 253-57 (1987); Whitehead v. Johnson Supply Co., No. 93-CA-0610-WC, 1994 Ky. App. LEXIS 3 (Ky. Ct. App. 1994). However, these authorities are merely persuasive, and Mr. Hernandez is not an incarcerated criminal. A Tennessee “employee” includes every person “whether lawfully or unlawfully employed.” Id. § 50-6-102(10)(A). Further, employers must provide a panel of physicians when an injured employee expresses a need for medical care. Id. § 50-6-204(a)(3)(A). Employers must offer a new panel when an employee changes his community of residence and seeks a new panel. Id. § 50-6- 204(a)(3)(F). Words in a statute must be given their plain and ordinary meaning in the context in which they are used. Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLC, 411 S.W.3d 405, 420 (Tenn. 2013). Moreover, courts must avoid a construction that unduly restricts or expands the meaning of the language used, as every word is presumed to have meaning and purpose. Id. Nothing in the Tennessee workers’ compensation statute denies medical benefits to someone based on their legal status or residency. The Court is not persuaded by PR Marine’s argument that it might be difficult to find a doctor for Mr. Hernandez in Mexico. PR Marine offered no evidence that it made attempts to find a doctor in Mexico; it solely advanced hypothetical arguments that it might be difficult to find a credentialed doctor. Further, logistical difficulties do not relieve an employer of its duty to furnish medical treatment. The Court therefore holds that Mr. Hernandez is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in showing that his work injury caused his current symptoms and grants his request for medical benefits. 3 IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Mr. Hernandez’s request for medical benefits is granted. PR Marine shall provide Mr. Hernandez with medical treatment made reasonably necessary by his July 17, 2023 injury under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204

2. The Court sets a status conference for June 26, 2026, at 9:45 a.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.

3. Unless interlocutory appeal of this Expedited Hearing Order is filed, compliance with this Order must occur by seven business days of entry of this Order as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(3).

ENTERED April 8, 2026.

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

APPENDIX

Exhibits:

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

Related

Velda J. Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLC
411 S.W.3d 405 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
HERNANDEZ, YONNY PEREZ V. PR MARINE CONSTR., LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-yonny-perez-v-pr-marine-constr-llc-tennworkcompcl-2026.