MTIRI, LOTFI v. v. ENCOMPASS HEALTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MEMPHIS

CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedApril 6, 2026
Docket2025-80-5154
StatusPublished

This text of MTIRI, LOTFI v. v. ENCOMPASS HEALTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MEMPHIS (MTIRI, LOTFI v. v. ENCOMPASS HEALTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MEMPHIS) 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
MTIRI, LOTFI v. v. ENCOMPASS HEALTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MEMPHIS, (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2026).

Opinion

FILED Apr 06, 2026 10:02 AM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

LOTFI MTIRI, Docket No. 2025-80-5154 Employee, v. ENCOMPASS HEALTH State File No. 6569-2025 REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MEMPHIS, Employer. Judge Shaterra R. Marion

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

The Court held an expedited hearing on March 19, 2026. Mr. Mtiri sought medical and temporary disability benefits for his work injury. Encompass contended that Mr. Mtiri did not give proper notice and did not prove his work caused his injuries. For the reasons below the Court holds that Mr. Mtiri is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits in showing he gave proper notice and his work accident caused his injuries.

Claim History

On December 26, 2024, Mr. Mtiri fell while climbing down a ladder at work. He clarified, when asked repeatedly during his credible testimony through an Arabic interpreter, that he “fell” from the last step of the ladder, but did not fall to the ground. He “fell” against a desk, banging his left hip.

Mr. Mtiri did not work the next two days, and he returned to work on December 29, but his supervisor did not work that day. He testified that he verbally informed his supervisor of his injury on December 30. He also stated he wore a belt to help support his back which his supervisor observed him using.

He continued to work until January 2, 2025. He had a fever and back pain and

1 asked to go to the hospital on January 6. Encompass sent him to a nurse on site where he tested positive for COVID 19. Encompass required him to test negative before he returned to work, and he tested negative the next day. During this time he did not know whether his back pain was from his injury or a COVID 19 symptom. However, his back pain became worse, and he again asked to go to the doctor. Mr. Mtiri received documents to see a doctor on January 29. He stated his supervisor delayed getting him the documents.

Ms. P.J. Burder, from Encompass, testified that to her knowledge Encompass directed Mr. Mtiri to seek treatment for COVID, and he did not disclose back problems separate from his COVID symptoms.

Encompass questioned Mr. Mtiri about other possible dates of notice. The first report of injury lists that Encompass received notice on January 23. Mr. Mtiri remained consistent that he did not give notice on that date. On the petition for benefit determination, he lists January 29, 2025, as the date he gave notice. Mr. Mtiri stated he put that date because his supervisor gave him the documents to go to a doctor on that date. Mr. Mtiri also mentioned in his affidavit that he informed his supervisor on January 6. Mr. Mtiri stated that was the day he wanted to go to the hospital, and they sent him to the nurse for the COVID test.

Mr. Mtiri testified that he did not report the injury his first day back, December 29, 2024, because while other workers were probably in the building, no one worked in his department. Ms. Burder testified that someone from human resources works seven days a week where employees can report work injuries.

Mr. Mtiri went to a clinic and then chose Dr. John Lochemes from a panel. On April 14, 2025, Dr. Lochemes stated that Mr. Mtiri sought treatment for a back and knee injury after falling from a ladder at work. He noted the symptoms in Mr. Mtiri’s back and knee are related to his work injury.

Dr. Lochemes ordered a left-knee MRI, which showed no significant meniscal tear. A lumbar MRI showed central canal stenosis, generalized disc bulging, and neural foraminal narrowing bilaterally. Dr. Lochemes ordered physical therapy, work conditioning that Mr. Mtiri did not receive, and an EMG that came back normal. He also recommended an injection, which Mr. Mtiri declined.

Dr. Lochemes referred Mr. Mtiri to spine surgeon Dr. Stephen Waggoner for his back injury. A lumbar x-ray showed no fracture and normal alignment. At a visit on July 10, Dr. Waggoner believed Mr. Mtiri to be at maximum medical 2 improvement. Encompass terminated Mr. Mtiri’s temporary total disability payments on July 15. Encompass asked if he was paid $453.36 per week in disability benefits, and Mr. Mtiri responded, “around this.”

Mr. Mtiri testified he had another appointment with Dr. Lochemes on July 23, and at that appointment Dr. Lochemes ordered a functional capacity exam for Mr. Mtiri that never took place. Mr. Mtiri testified that Dr. Lochemes needed the functional capacity exam before he could place Mr. Mtiri at maximum medical improvement.

Dr. Waggoner completed a medical questionnaire. He did not relate either Mr. Mtiri’s back pain or leg pain to his work injury.

Dr. Lochemes offered his opinion on causation three times. Encompass sent him a causation letter that he signed on November 4, 2025, Dr. Lochemes did not relate Mr. Mtiri’s back or left-leg pain to his work injury.

Mr. Mtiri sent a questionnaire, which Dr. Lochemes signed on December 17, with an amendment signed on February 17, 2026. Dr. Lochemes checked both yes and no for certain questions, and some responses are scribbled out. He wrote that he was waiting for a functional capacity exam in response to whether he took Mr. Mtiri completely off work, and in response to whether he recommended that Mr. Mtiri return to work with restrictions.

Encompass “attempted to clarify” Dr. Lochemes’s position by sending another questionnaire that he signed on March 4. He stated he treated Mr. Mtiri for hip, back, and knee strain contusion and weakness. When asked if Mr. Mtiri’s conditions were primarily caused by his work injury, Dr. Lochemes marked in between the “yes” and “no” boxes but wrote “we only treated & worked up work related symptoms.” In response to whether Mr. Mtiri currently needs treatment, Dr. Lochemes marked “yes” and next to it wrote “FCE” (functional capacity exam). He then wrote “after that[,] MMI.”

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

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

3 Notice

In general, the injured worker must “immediately upon the occurrence of an injury or as soon thereafter as is practicable, give or cause to be given to the employer who has no actual notice, written notice of the injury . . . within fifteen (15) days after the occurrence of the accident[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-201(a)(1).

A Supreme Court Panel affirmed an Appeals Board opinion that laid out the framework for evaluating notice and summarized the steps as follows:

[I]in cases involving the lack of timely written notice, the employee has the burden of proving that: (1) timely written notice was provided; (2) the employer had actual knowledge of the accident or injury; or (3) the employee has a reasonable excuse for the failure to provide timely written notice.

Ernstes v. Printpack, Inc., No. W2023-00863-SC-R3-WC, 2024 Tenn. LEXIS 1, at *13-14 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel Jan. 2, 2024).

On cross examination, Encompass repeatedly asked Mr. Mtiri about his injury and the sequence of events after his injury. Mr. Mtiri answered calmy and assuredly, and his recounting of the facts did not waver. See Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 694-695 (Tenn. 2014) (discussing indicia of witness credibility).

Mr.

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

Related

Terri Ann Kelly v. Willard Reed Kelly
445 S.W.3d 685 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
MTIRI, LOTFI v. v. ENCOMPASS HEALTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MEMPHIS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mtiri-lotfi-v-v-encompass-health-rehabilitation-hospital-of-memphis-tennworkcompcl-2026.