Hicks, Clifford v. Fullen Dock and Warehouse, LLC

Opinion

FILED Aug 28, 2026 07:00 AM(CT) TENNESSEE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

APPEALS BOARD

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

Clifford Montrell Hicks Docket No. 2023-08-7416

v. State File No. 81108-2023

Fullen Dock and Warehouse, LLC, et al.

Appeal from the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims Shaterra R. Marion, Judge

Affirmed and Certified as Final

This is the second appeal in this case in which the employee fell onto a steel dock at work and reported pain in his neck, back, and shoulders. The employer accepted the compensability of the claim and provided benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. After he was released at maximum medical improvement, the employee filed a petition for workers’ compensation benefits with the Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court issued an order denying the requested benefits, which we affirmed on appeal. The trial court issued a scheduling order setting specific deadlines, but the employee failed to offer any additional proof prior to the expiration of the deadlines. The employer then filed a motion for summary judgment, to which the employee did not respond. He also did not appear for the hearing on the motion. The trial court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment, and the employee has appealed. Following our careful consideration of the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and certify its order granting summary judgment to the employer as final.

Judge Pele I. Godkin delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which Presiding Judge Timothy W. Conner and Judge Meredith B. Weaver joined.

Clifford Montrell Hicks, employee-appellant, pro se

Fredrick R. Baker and Donna Brown Wilkerson, Cookeville, Tennessee, for the employerappellee , Fullen Dock and Warehouse, LLC

2

Factual and Procedural Background

We previously discussed the facts and procedural history of this case in our prior decision:

Clifford Montrell Hicks (“Employee”) was working for Fullen Dock and Warehouse, LLC (“Employer”) on June 21, 2022, when he fell while attempting to connect hooks to cargo that needed to be lifted off of the boat. After the fall, a coworker took him directly to Methodist University Hospital, where he reported falling approximately 6 feet, with no loss of consciousness, and feeling pain in his neck, back, and shoulders. Employee underwent a CT scan of the head, cervical spine, and lumbar spine, all of which were read as normal. He was diagnosed with a back contusion and a scalp hematoma and was given instructions to rest, take Tylenol as needed for pain, and to follow up with his primary care provider in the next two days.

. . . Employer accepted the claim under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, which allows the employee to name a preference for a treating physician. Employee indicated he had no preference, and as such, Employer scheduled an appointment with Dr. Christopher Pokabla, an orthopedic specialist. Meanwhile, on August 4, 2022, Employee sought medical treatment on his own with Dr. Mohamad Moughrabieh for complaints of pain in his left shoulder and neck. Dr. Moughrabieh’s records reflect that Employee reported falling approximately twenty feet at work. He also reported suffering a loss of consciousness at the time of the fall. Dr. Moughrabieh prescribed a steroid and an antiinflammatory and also gave Employee injections in his left arm and left hip. He instructed Employee to follow up as needed.

Employee also went on his own to a “Minor Medical Center” at Methodist Healthcare on August 15, 2022, where he saw a nurse practitioner for pain in his left shoulder and neck. The nurse practitioner obtained X-rays of Employee’s neck and left shoulder, which were normal, and she prescribed a muscle relaxer and Ibuprofen. The week after that appointment, on August 22, 2022, Employer terminated Employee for excessive absences and tardiness.

On September 19, 2022, Employee went to his first authorized appointment with Dr. Pokabla at OrthoSouth in Memphis. He reported to Dr. Pokabla that he fell almost twenty feet and was unconscious for five minutes. Dr. Pokabla ordered X-rays of the cervical spine, lumbar spine, and left shoulder, which revealed no findings suggesting an acute injury. He referred Employee for an MRI of the cervical spine, lumbar spine, and left

3

shoulder, restricted Employee to light duty, and prescribed a narcotic pain reliever. The MRIs were completed on September 20, 2022, and Dr. Pokabla reviewed the results with Employee on October 24, 2022. Dr. Pokabla stated that the majority of the pathology was degenerative in nature. He then released Employee at maximum medical improvement and stated he could return to work full duty, although he did recommend Employee follow up with a spinal surgeon under his own private insurance. Dr. Pokabla completed a [Final Medical Report] the following day, assigning a 0% permanent medical impairment for Employee’s purported injuries.

Employee sought further medical care on his own with two more primary care physicians and an orthopedic physician over the following year. These records indicate diagnoses of arthralgia and shoulder sprain. In addition, a referral was made to a neurosurgeon. None of these records reflect any statements regarding causation of the varied diagnoses or the need for a neurosurgical referral.

Employee filed a petition for benefit determination in October 2023 and requested an expedited hearing for temporary disability and medical benefits. The trial court held an expedited hearing on August 20, 2024, at which Employee testified. Employer submitted into evidence the deposition of Dr. Pokabla, which Employee did not attend despite having notice of the deposition. Dr. Pokabla testified he saw no evidence of trauma in his initial examination or in the X-rays he obtained at Employee’s first appointment. He also testified the MRIs taken following that appointment correlated with the exam and X-rays in only documenting degenerative changes in the spine. Furthermore, Dr. Pokabla testified the work-related injury caused neither a permanent impairment nor the degenerative changes noted in the diagnostic testing. Finally, he testified that Employee needed no further medical treatment as a result of his work injury, and the only additional medical treatment Employee needs is treatment for his non-work-related degenerative arthritis.

Hicks v. Fullen Dock and Warehouse, LLC, No. 2023-08-7416, 2024 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 42, at *1-5 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Nov. 12, 2024) (footnote omitted). Based on the medical evidence presented at the expedited hearing, the trial court issued an order denying Employee’s request for benefits. Employee appealed, and we affirmed the trial court’s order, noting that Employee did not file a transcript of the expedited hearing, a statement of the evidence, or a brief. Further, Employee had presented no evidence at the hearing establishing that his alleged need for treatment was primarily caused by the work accident or that he had missed work as a result of his work injury such that he was entitled to temporary disability benefits.

4

On remand, the trial court entered a scheduling order setting out specific deadlines for each party to obtain and/or file additional proof. However, Employee took no depositions and submitted no additional proof before his deadlines for completing discovery and proof depositions of experts had expired. On March 18, 2026, Employer filed a motion for summary judgment. Employee did not file a response to Employer’s motion and did not appear for the hearing.1 On April 27, the trial court granted Employer’s motion, concluding that it had successfully negated an essential element of Employee’s claim, namely causation, with Dr. Pokabla’s testimony that Employee’s employment did not contribute more than 50% to his injury. Further, the court stated that Employee presented no medical evidence that his injury arose primarily out of or in the course and scope of his employment. Thus, the court concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to causation and that Employer was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. As a result, it dismissed Employee’s petition, and Employee has appealed.

Standard of Review

The grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment is a matter of law that we review de novo with no presumption that the trial court’s conclusions are correct. See Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 250 (Tenn. 2015). As such, we must “make a fresh determination of whether the requirements of Rule 56 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied.” Id. Moreover, a trial court has broad discretion to control the pace of litigation and set hearings to address pre-trial motions. Valladares v. Transco Products, Inc., Nos. 2015-01-0117 & -0118, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 31, at *26 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. July 27, 2016) (“a trial court has the necessary discretion to control the pace of litigation through the use of case supervision and docket management”); see also Smith v. Smith, No. E2017-01295- COA-R3-CV, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 59, at *20 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2019) (“trial courts have broad discretion to control their dockets”).

Analysis

On his notice of appeal, Employee asserts only that he is “in constant pain and it [is]

100% [Employer’s] fault.” However, Employee did not file a brief on appeal offering any legal theory as to how the trial court erred in granting Employer’s motion. As stated by the Tennessee Supreme Court, “[i]t is not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her.” Sneed v. Bd. of Pro. Resp. of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010). Indeed, were we to search the record for possible errors and raise issues and arguments for Employee, we

1 In its order, the trial court noted that Employee attempted to call in for the telephonic hearing the day prior, which was a Sunday. He also emailed requesting confirmation as to the date and time of the hearing and was informed of the correct date and time. The trial court waited five minutes after the scheduled time before starting the hearing, and Employee did not appear before the hearing was concluded.

5

would essentially be acting as his counsel, which the law clearly prohibits us from doing. Courts on appeal will not “dig through the record in an attempt to discover arguments or issues that [a party] may have made” because doing so “would place [the opposing party] in a distinct and likely insurmountable and unfair disadvantage.” Webb v. Sherrell, No. E2013-02724-COA-R3-CV, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2015).

Here, we have only an order granting Employer’s motion for summary judgment after Employee did not respond to the motion in writing or appear for the hearing and a notice of appeal filed by Employee alleging only that Employer is responsible for his pain. He has not identified any legal or factual errors he alleges the trial court made. Thus, we discern no error with the trial court’s conclusion that Employer negated an essential element of Employee’s claim and was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the court’s order granting summary judgment and certify it as final. Costs on appeal are waived.