SANGSTER, ARTAVIAS v. EAGLE DISTRIBUTING OF MEMPHIS, LLC,
Opinion
FILED Aug 07, 2026 09:07 AM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CLAIMS
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS AT MEMPHIS
ARTAVIAS SANGSTER, Docket No. 2025-80-5581 Employee, v. EAGLE DISTRIBUTING OF State File No. 56524-2025 MEMPHIS, LLC, Employer, and ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO., Judge Amber E. Luttrell Carrier.
EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING BENEFITS
The Court held an expedited hearing on Mr. Sangster’s request for benefits for an alleged ankle injury. The issue is whether he is likely to prove at trial a specific incident arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. For the reasons below, the Court finds he did not meet this burden and denies the request.
Claim History
Mr. Sangster worked for Eagle in the repack chip room. He alleged that on August 11, 2025, he injured his left ankle when he tripped over a bottle that fell out of the bottom of a box he was lifting. He “hobbled to the forklift” and kept working “another hour or so” until the end of his shift around noon. He did not report the injury that day because he thought it would improve.
The next day, Mr. Sangster texted a supervisor saying he hurt his “heel” the day before. Eagle’s human resources manager, Yvonne Blackmond, requested he come to the office.
Mr. Sangster met with Ms. Blackmond and reported he injured his ankle from stepping on a bottle. He completed a written accident report where he stated the time of injury was “11:34 a.m.” Mr. Sangster said Ms. Blackmond sent him to a clinic.
According to the records, Mr. Sangster saw a clinic physician the same day and reported injuring his ankle at “11:34 a.m.” He gave a slightly different history that the injury happened when he stepped back to avoid fallen bottles and rolled his ankle. He said he started limping but was able to finish the shift. The physician diagnosed an ankle strain.
Mr. Sangster gave inconsistent testimony regarding the time of his injury. As stated above, he testified that it happened “an hour or so” before his shift ended around noon. He also said on direct examination that his shift started at four a.m. and the injury could have happened at 8:00 or 9:00 a.m. On cross-examination, when confronted with his history in his medical record, Mr. Sangster admitted the injury happened as described at 11:34 a.m. On re-direct, he said he could have been wrong about the time.
Ms. Blackmond testified for Eagle and said that in her role she manages work injuries. At the meeting with Mr. Sangster the day after his alleged injury, he told her the injury occurred at 11:34 a.m. the day before, as he wrote in the accident report. Contrary to his testimony, she offered him a panel, and he chose the clinic. Ms. Blackmond observed that Mr. Sangster walked normally with no limp at the meeting.
She also testified about security camera videos she reviewed. Because Mr.
Sangster reported an injury at 11:34 a.m., she watched the footage from 10 a.m. to 12:20 p.m., when Mr. Sangster’s shift ended. The video showed no evidence of any injury described by Mr. Sangster. She also received no reports of anyone witnessing the injury. Based on her investigation, Eagle denied Mr. Sangster’s claim.
Eagle introduced the videos, which showed the warehouse between 10 a.m.
and 12:20 p.m. The parties agreed that the videos did not show Mr. Sangster’s injury. Mr. Sangster said his injury must have happened before 10 a.m. Eagle played a portion of the video beginning at 11:32 a.m., which showed Mr. Sangster driving a forklift, climbing on and off the forklift without difficulty, and walking around the warehouse with no visible limp.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
At an expedited hearing, Mr. Sangster must show that he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2025); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015).
Mr. Sangster must show his alleged injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment and was caused by a “specific incident or set of incidents[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(A) (Emphasis added).
The issue is whether Mr. Sangster offered sufficient evidence to establish the occurrence of a specific incident on August 11, 2025. The Court finds he did not.
Mr. Sangster described a specific incident when bottles fell through the bottom of a box, and he either stepped on one or stepped away from the bottles and rolled his ankle. However, his own testimony, Ms. Blackmond’s testimony, and the video cast significant doubt on that description.
The day after the alleged injury, Mr. Sangster reported to both Ms. Blackmond and the doctor that his injury occurred at 11:34 a.m. He filled out an accident report specifically listing 11:34 a.m. as the time of the injury. He also testified that after his injury, he was hobbling/limping but continued working “another hour or so” until his shift ended at 12:20, which is generally consistent with the reported time of injury. Yet, the security video from 10 a.m. to 12:20 p.m. showed no injury.
If the Court accepted his alternative theory — that he was possibly mistaken and the injury actually occurred before 10 a.m.— the video undermines that account because it showed him walking normally without a limp. He testified to limping after the injury and told the doctor he limped immediately after but completed his shift.
Ms. Blackmond testified credibly that she observed no limp when she met Mr.
Sangster the next day. She also gave him a panel, from which he selected the clinic, which contradicted Mr. Sangster’s testimony. These inconsistencies raise questions about the reliability of his testimony.
Thus, the Court holds Mr. Sangster did not provide sufficient evidence that he would likely prevail at trial about the occurrence of a specific incident.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:
1. Mr. Sangster’s request for benefits is denied.
2. The Court’s legal assistant, Tina Woods, will contact the parties to set a status hearing.
ENTERED August 7, 2026.
JUDGE AMBER E. LUTTRELL Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
APPENDIX
Exhibits:
1. Medical records index 2. Employer’s surveillance videos 3. Wage statement 4. Text message 5. Employee’s injury report
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this order was sent as shown on August 7, 2026.
Name Email Service sent to: Scott Kramer, X skramer@wenerlawfirm.com Employee’s Attorney Gerard Jabaley, X gjabaley@wimberlylawson.com Employer’s Attorney
PENNY SHRUM, COURT CLERK wc.courtclerk@tn.gov
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).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
SANGSTER, ARTAVIAS v. EAGLE DISTRIBUTING OF MEMPHIS, LLC, (SANGSTER, ARTAVIAS v. EAGLE DISTRIBUTING OF MEMPHIS, LLC,) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.