Hudson, Dylan K. v. Coca Cola North American

CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedMay 22, 2026
Docket2025-10-5104
StatusPublished

This text of Hudson, Dylan K. v. Coca Cola North American (Hudson, Dylan K. v. Coca Cola North American) 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
Hudson, Dylan K. v. Coca Cola North American, (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2026).

Opinion

FILED May 22, 2026 01:14 PM(ET) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

Dylan K. Hudson, Docket No. 2025-10-5104 Employee, v. Coca Cola North American, State File No. 9253-2024 Employer, And Ace American Insurance Company, Judge Audrey Headrick Carrier.

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER (Decision on the Record)

Mr. Hudson asked the Court to order Coca Cola to authorize left-hip treatment recommended by orthopedist Dr. Todd Grebner. Coca Cola denied the treatment, asserting that his left-hip condition did not arise primarily out of his employment. For the reasons below, the Court holds Mr. Hudson is not entitled to the requested treatment at this time.

Claim History

On January 22, 2024, Mr. Hudson, a truck driver, injured his right hip when he exited his truck and stepped down off a ladder. He immediately experienced groin and right-leg pain. Coca Cola accepted his claim and authorized treatment with Dr. Grebner, who ultimately performed a hip replacement in March 2025.

Dr. Grebner testified about Mr. Hudson’s bilateral hip avascular necrosis, which he identified as a preexisting condition. He explained that avascular necrosis is the death of bone tissue caused by the lack of blood supply. Dr. Grebner identified Mr. Hudson’s history of heavy drinking and smoking as factors that cause avascular necrosis. He causally related the aggravation of Mr. Hudson’s right-hip condition to the work injury, which accelerated and necessitated his hip replacement.

1 Dr. Grebner also testified about Mr. Hudson’s left-hip condition, which he first complained about in May 2025 after the right-hip replacement. He agreed that Mr. Hudson’s right-hip surgery increased the stress on his left hip during rehabilitation. Dr. Grebner said the rehabilitation “could have” aggravated the preexisting condition. Likewise, Dr. Grebner said the rehabilitation “possibly increased pain” with his left hip. Further, he said Mr. Hudson’s right-hip surgery “could bring [the need for a left-hip replacement] about faster.”

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Mr. Hudson must prove a likelihood of prevailing at a hearing on the merits that he is entitled to the requested 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).

Mr. Hudson must show, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that his work injury contributed more than 50% in causing the need for medical treatment for his left-hip condition, considering all causes. Id. § 50-6-102(12). Likewise, an aggravation of a preexisting condition is compensable only if “it can be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the aggravation arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment.” Id. Further, a compensable injury is one that “in the opinion of the physician, is more likely than not considering all causes, as opposed to speculation or possibility.” Id.

The 2013 Workers’ Compensation Reform Act “increased the burden to establish causation from ‘could be’ to ‘contributed more than 50%.’” Edwards v. Peoplease, LLC, No. W2024-01034-SC-R3-WC, 2025 Tenn. LEXIS 514, at *19-20 (Tenn. Dec. 22, 2025). Here, Dr. Grebner testified using language such as “could” and “possibly,” which only offered uncertainty and speculation. His opinions did not establish that Mr. Hudson’s work injury contributed more than 50% in causing his left-hip aggravation. Id. at *28. Therefore, based on the present testimony, Mr. Hudson is unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in his request for left-hip treatment.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. The Court denies Mr. Hudson’s request for benefits at this time.

2. The parties shall appear for a status hearing on Wednesday, July 29, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time. The parties must call 423-634-0164 or 855-383-0001 2 to participate. Failure to call might result in a determination of the issues without the party’s participation.

ENTERED May 22, 2026.

JUDGE AUDREY HEADRICK Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

3 APPENDIX

Exhibits:

1. Mr. Hudson’s Rule 72 Declaration 2. Medical questionnaire signed by Dr. Grebner on September 12, 2025 3. Dr. Grebner’s office note dated August 14, 2025 4. Dr. Grebner’s response to July 24, 2025 letter 5. Dr. Grebner’s deposition 6. Mr. Hudson’s deposition

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this order was sent as shown on May 22, 2026.

Name Mail Email Service sent to: Christopher Markel, X cmarkel@markelfirm.com Employee’s Attorney jdickey@markelfirm.com Doug Dooley, X Doug.dooley@leitnerfirm.com Gary Napolitan, X Gary.napolitan@leitnerfirm.com Wyatt Morrison, X Wyatt.morrison@leitnerfirm.com X Employer’s Attorneys Lisa.sizemore@leitnerfirm.com

____________________________________ PENNY SHRUM, COURT CLERK wc.courtclerk@tn.gov

4 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.  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.  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. If you choose to submit a transcript as part of your appeal, which the Appeals Board has emphasized is important for a meaningful review of the case, a licensed court reporter must prepare the transcript, and you must file it with the Court Clerk. The Court Clerk will prepare the record for submission to the Appeals Board, and you will receive notice once it has been submitted. For deadlines related to the filing of transcripts, statements of the evidence, and briefs on appeal, see the applicable rules on the Bureau’s website at https://www.tn.gov/wcappealsboard. (Click the “Read Rules” button.)

4. After the Workers’ Compensation Judge approves the record and the Court Clerk transmits it to the Appeals Board, a docketing notice will be sent to the parties. If neither party timely files an appeal with the Appeals Board, the Court Order becomes enforceable. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239

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)
Hudson, Dylan K. v. Coca Cola North American, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-dylan-k-v-coca-cola-north-american-tennworkcompcl-2026.