NUNN, TERLANDA v. AMAZON.COM, LLC

CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedMay 11, 2026
Docket2025-80-4064
StatusPublished

This text of NUNN, TERLANDA v. AMAZON.COM, LLC (NUNN, TERLANDA v. AMAZON.COM, 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
NUNN, TERLANDA v. AMAZON.COM, LLC, (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2026).

Opinion

FILED May 11, 2026 09:03 AM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

TERLANDA NUNN, Docket No. 2025-80-4064 Employee, v. AMAZON.COM, LLC, State File No. 77917-2024 Employer, and AMERICAN ZURICH INS. CO., Judge Allen Phillips Carrier, and TROY HALEY, ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, SUBSEQUENT INJURY AND VOCATIONAL RECOVERY FUND.

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

At an expedited hearing on April 23, 2026, Ms. Nunn requested a panel of ENT physicians and additional temporary disability benefits. For the reasons below, the Court finds Amazon provided a valid panel of ENT physicians. The Court further denies her request for additional temporary disability benefits.

Claim History

On October 24, 2024, Ms. Nunn tripped and fell, striking her face. Amazon did not contest the incident and furnished treatment at an urgent-care clinic.

On November 12, a nurse practitioner diagnosed neck and back strains, a facial contusion, and dizziness. However, the notes record that Ms. Nunn’s complaints of head injury symptoms seemed “quite excessive.” She released Ms.

1 Nunn to return to work with restrictions, and at two more visits in November, she maintained the diagnoses and restrictions.

Amazon offered Ms. Nunn work within her restrictions, but she refused. She was terminated for violation of Amazon’s attendance policy.

Amazon then honored a neurology referral. On January 14, 2025, neurologist Dr. Alan Nadel recorded Ms. Nunn’s history of ongoing headaches and dizziness. She also complained of leg weakness. Dr. Nadel found nothing objective on his examination and questioned whether Ms. Nunn was “embellishing her symptoms.” However, Dr. Nadel believed Ms. Nunn would benefit from an ENT evaluation for her dizziness.

Despite his opinions regarding embellishment, Dr. Nadel placed Ms. Nunn off work, and Amazon began paying temporary disability benefits. Amazon continued paying through April 14, 2025, even though Dr. Nadel said Ms. Nunn could return to work as of February 26. Dr. Nadel also noted his continuing belief that Ms. Nunn was embellishing her symptoms.

Amazon furnished Ms. Nunn three panels of ENTs after some difficulty finding physicians who would accept workers’ compensation patients. Ultimately, a valid panel was assembled, but Ms. Nunn declined to choose a physician, stating among other concerns that some were located too far away. However, at trial, she agreed to accept a physician from the third panel.

Ms. Nunn said she has not worked since leaving Amazon because of her head injury symptoms and described marked physical debilitation from her injury.

Because she considers herself unable to work, Ms. Nunn wanted Amazon to pay temporary total disability benefits from the date of injury to present and ongoing.

Ms. Nunn also said Amazon had not paid all her medical bills, but she offered none as evidence. She also admitted on cross-examination that she had not provided any bills to Amazon.

For its part, Amazon agreed to schedule an appointment with an ENT but contended it had paid all temporary disability benefits to which Ms. Nunn was entitled. Specifically, Ms. Nunn acknowledged that she was released by Dr. Nadel on February 26, although she was paid through April. Ms. Nunn also admitted that Amazon offered restricted duty, but she did not return to work. She argued she 2 “didn’t refuse” to work but claimed her symptoms were so severe at the time she was placed on restricted duty that she “couldn’t walk.”

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

At this expedited hearing, Ms. Nunn must prove she is likely to prevail at trial regarding her request for additional temporary disability benefits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239 (d)(1) (2025).

The only issue is Ms. Nunn’s entitlement to temporary disability benefits from 1) the date of injury until Amazon’s first payment in January 2025, and 2) for the time after Amazon quit paying benefits in April 2025.

As to the date of injury, October 2024 to January 2025, Ms. Nunn admitted Amazon made an offer of restricted duty. She claimed she did not “refuse” the offer but rather that she could not perform the work. However, an employee’s subjective belief that she will be unable to perform assigned job duties, standing alone, is “not a reasonable basis upon which to award disability benefits.” Frye v. Vincent Printing Co., 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 34, at *18 (Aug. 2, 2016). Thus, without a medical opinion that she was unable to work, Ms. Nunn is not likely to show at trial that she is entitled to benefits from the date of injury through January 2025.

To recover benefits for the period after Amazon quit paying them in April, Ms. Nunn must prove: she became disabled from working due to a compensable injury; a causal connection between the injury and her inability to work; and the duration of disability. Lee v. Allied Universal, 2026 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 23, at *12 (Apr. 16, 2026).

Ms. Nunn offered no medical proof that she was disabled from working after April 2025. Instead, the only medical opinion in evidence is Dr. Nadel’s opinion that Ms. Nunn could return to work as of February 26, 2025. Ms. Nunn’s own opinion of her inability to work is insufficient proof. Anderson v. City of Knoxville Dept. of Rec., 2026 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 1, at *10 (Jan. 5, 2026). She is unlikely to prevail at trial on her entitlement to benefits for this timeframe as well.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Amazon shall immediately schedule an appointment with the chosen ENT physician

3 2. Ms. Nunn’s request for additional temporary disability benefits is denied.

3. Amazon shall continue to furnish Ms. Nunn with reasonable and necessary medical treatment causally related to her injury under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(1)(a).

4. The parties shall advise the Court within 30 days of any dispute regarding the panel selection for prompt adjudication. If none arises, a Status Hearing is set for Monday, August 10, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. Central Time. The parties must call 855-543-5038 to participate.

5. Unless appealed, compliance must occur within seven business days of entry of this order as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 239(d)(3).

ENTERED May 11, 2026.

____________________________________ JUDGE ALLEN PHILLIPS Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

APPENDIX

Exhibits:

1. Collective medical records 2. Petition for Benefit Determination

4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this order was sent as indicated on May 11, 2026.

Name Mail Email Service sent to: Terlanda Nunn, Employee X X

Allen Grant, Employer’s Attorney X agrant@hrslaw.com Timothy Kellum, SIVRF Attorney X timothy.kellum@tn.gov

____________________________________ 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.  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)
NUNN, TERLANDA v. AMAZON.COM, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nunn-terlanda-v-amazoncom-llc-tennworkcompcl-2026.