VALENTINE, MARKUS v. VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.,

CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedApril 17, 2026
Docket2025-10-5856
StatusPublished

This text of VALENTINE, MARKUS v. VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., (VALENTINE, MARKUS v. VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.,) 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
VALENTINE, MARKUS v. VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.,, (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2026).

Opinion

FILED Apr 17, 2026 02:39 PM(ET) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

MARKUS VALENTINE, Docket No. 2025-10-5856 Employee, v. VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, State File No. 52744-2024 INC., Employer, And Judge Audrey Headrick AMERICAN ZURICH INS. CO., Carrier.

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

Mr. Valentine, who disputed the validity of panels offered, requested additional benefits that Volkswagen denied based on lack of medical causation. For the reasons below, the Court holds Mr. Valentine is not entitled to relief.

Claim History

On June 17, 2024, Mr. Valentine hurt his back by pushing racks with rollers containing heavy parts. Since he underwent a lumbar spine fusion in 2019, Volkswagen initially directed him to see his own physician. Mr. Valentine saw a nurse practitioner, who ordered a thoracic spine MRI. After receiving the MRI report, Mr. Valentine contacted Josh Heffinger, Head of Workers’ Compensation. Mr. Heffinger initiated the claim on June 25, and Mr. Valentine selected Dr. David Tutor, Volkswagen’s in-house doctor, from a panel.

Mr. Valentine saw various nurse practitioners, including Susan Gasque, at the in-house clinic. He received conservative care, including physical therapy, and restrictions. The nurse practitioners consistently diagnosed mid-back or thoracic- back pain. The records show no cervical complaints for pain, limited range of motion, or tenderness to palpation.

1 In early September, Mr. Valentine continued to report no improvement in his symptoms. NP Gasque referred him to orthopedist Dr. Rickey Hutcheson, and Dr. Tutor electronically signed off on the referral. Volkswagen neither objected to the direct referral nor offered a panel.

Dr. Hutcheson diagnosed thoracic spondylosis and a thoracic-back sprain. He ordered medication and physical therapy. He later ordered another thoracic-spine MRI due to Mr. Valentine’s complaints of worsening back pain. After reviewing the results, Dr. Hutcheson concluded that Mr. Valentine’s ongoing symptoms primarily arose from his thoracic spondylosis. The records show Mr. Valentine made no cervical complaints.

In October, Dr. Hutcheson placed Mr. Valentine at maximum medical improvement for the work-related thoracic-back sprain and released him to return to work full duty. He recommended that Mr. Valentine seek further treatment for his thoracic spondylosis under his personal insurance. Mr. Valentine requested a second opinion, but Dr. Hutcheson declined to recommend that.

Mr. Heffinger testified that Mr. Valentine contacted him multiple times regarding his dissatisfaction with Dr. Hutcheson’s diagnoses and treatment. Mr. Heffinger stated that Volkswagen offered Mr. Valentine a second opinion at his request. From the panel offered, only Dr. Jay Jolley agreed to see him.

In the meantime, Mr. Valentine sought treatment on his own with multiple doctors. He received conservative treatment for his thoracic condition. Mr. Valentine reported having neck pain for the last nine to ten months that radiated down his right arm.

Mr. Valentine saw Dr. Jolley on March 10, 2025, and reported cervical and thoracic pain. He disclosed he sought conservative treatment for both conditions with his own physicians. Dr. Jolley diagnosed a thoracic sprain, placed him at maximum medical improvement, and released him to return to work full duty.

Mr. Valentine ultimately underwent cervical surgery in April with his own doctor. Neither the authorized treating physicians nor his own doctors causally related his cervical condition and the need for surgery to the June 17, 2024 work injury.

Mr. Valentine stated that Volkswagen paid him when he worked restricted duty from June 17, 2024, to November 1, 2024. After returning to full duty, he 2 worked until November 18. Mr. Valentine received short-term disability until he took a voluntary buyout.

Mr. Valentine requested that the Court appoint a neutral physician and award him temporary disability benefits. He disputed the validity of the panels offered to him and the direct referral made to Dr. Hutcheson. Mr. Valentine also asked for temporary disability benefits from June 17, 2024, until March 17, 2026, when his own doctor released him to full duty.

Volkswagen accepted the compensability of Mr. Valentine’s thoracic-spine strain but objected to his requests, relying on Drs. Hutcheson’s and Jolley’s opinions. Likewise, it argued he is not entitled to temporary disability benefits because it accommodated Mr. Valentine’s restrictions until Dr. Hutcheson placed him at maximum medical improvement.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Mr. Valentine 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).

The threshold issue is whether Mr. Valentine showed, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that pushing heavy racks contributed more than 50% in causing the need for medical treatment for his thoracic spondylosis and cervical spine, considering all causes. Id. § 50-6-102(12). As the panel-selected physician, Dr. Hutcheson’s causation opinion is presumed correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. § 50-5-102(12)(E).

Dr. Hutcheson concluded the work-related thoracic-spine strain resolved. He diagnosed thoracic spondylosis, a degenerative condition, and concluded Mr. Valentine did not need further treatment for his work injury. Dr. Jolley agreed. Mr. Valentine presented no proof to rebut the presumption afforded to Dr. Hutcheson.

Next, the Court considers Mr. Valentine’s assertions regarding the validity of the panel offered. He argued it lacked validity because he never saw Dr. Tutor and instead only saw nurse practitioners. Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-01-.06(7) (2018) permits nurse practitioners to treat employees under the direction of a supervising physician, which includes making referrals to specialists. The mere fact that he did not see Dr. Tutor does not invalidate the panel. 3 When the panel-selected physician makes a referral to a specialist, the employer shall be deemed to have accepted the referral, unless the employer provides the employee with a panel of three or more independent reputable physicians within three business days. Id. § 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(ii). Volkswagen did not object to the referral, so the direct referral to Dr. Hutcheson is valid.

Volkswagen chose to offer Mr. Valentine a second-opinion panel at his request, but it was not required to do so. Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 204(a)(3)(C) states, “[w]hen the treating physician . . . refers the injured employee, the employee shall be entitled to have a second opinion on the issue of surgery and diagnosis . . . from a panel of two (2) physicians practicing in the same specialty as the physician who recommended the surgery.” (Emphasis added). The treating physician must recommend surgery before it triggers the entitlement to a second opinion on the issue of surgery and diagnosis. Petty v. Convention Prod. Rigging, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 95, at *21 (Dec. 29, 2016).

In this case, Dr. Hutcheson did not recommend surgery. Instead, he stated Mr. Valentine needed no additional treatment for the work-related thoracic-spine strain and released him. Volkswagen authorized Mr. Valentine to see Dr. Jolley. For that reason, the delay in receiving the second opinion does not entitle Mr. Valentine to another opinion.

Mr.

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)
VALENTINE, MARKUS v. VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.,, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valentine-markus-v-volkswagen-of-america-inc-tennworkcompcl-2026.