WILLIAMS, ASHTON v. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.

2026 TN WC 6
CourtTennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
DecidedJanuary 27, 2026
Docket2025-20-3130
StatusPublished

This text of 2026 TN WC 6 (WILLIAMS, ASHTON v. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, 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
WILLIAMS, ASHTON v. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC., 2026 TN WC 6 (Tenn. Super. Ct. 2026).

Opinion

FILED Jan 27, 2026 12:45 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

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

ASHTON WILLIAMS, ) Docket No. 2025-20-3130 Employee, ) v. ) PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, ) INC., ) State File No. 9839-2025 Employer, ) And ) INDEMNITY INSURANCE ) COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, ) Judge Brian K. Addington Carrier. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER GRANTING MEDICAL BENEFITS

Ashton Williams sought an order requiring Performance Food Group to provide medical benefits. Performance argued that Mr. Williams did not prove he was injured at work. After an expedited hearing on January 22, 2026, the Court orders Performance to furnish medical benefits. Claim History Mr. Williams, an order puller, alleged an injury to his right shoulder at work occurring on January 29, 2025, when his shoulder started hurting after moving two cases of sauce. He reported the injury to his supervisor, who documented the report and noted that Mr. Williams refused medical treatment that day. When his shoulder still hurt the next day, Mr. Williams requested medical treatment, but the supervisor told him to treat on his own. Mr. Williams went to his doctor on January 31, but the medical staff refused to see him when he told them he was injured at work. They gave him light-duty restrictions until he could see a doctor under workers’ compensation. Mr. Williams gave this information to Performance, and it accommodated the restrictions.

1 Performance did not provide Mr. Williams a panel until February 12. He chose Healthstar Physicians. Performance did not schedule an appointment until March 3. At the appointment, the nurse practitioner noted, “Workers [sic] comp injury of right shoulder from 1/29, states he is unaware how the injury occurred just that he was working lifting heavy palettes before lunch, went to lunch and started having sharp pain in right shoulder that radiates down the arm.” He was placed on light duty for a week. During the follow-up appointment on March 10, she ordered an MRI. Performance fired Mr. Williams on March 13 for violating attendance rules. Mr. Williams underwent an MRI that showed a partial interstitial tearing of the infraspinatus tendon. At a follow-up visit, the nurse practitioner ordered six physical therapy visits. However, Performance did not approve the physical therapy and denied his claim on May 14. It determined that Mr. Williams changed his story, and it also sent Mr. Williams’s MRI results to Dr. Sheldon Feit in Carmel, Indiana, who determined the MRI showed a small chronic effusion. The note says, “The following consultative report is ‘an aging request’ on above patient based upon the initial interpretation provided. It is not mean to be utilized or interpreted for treatment purposes of the above patient.” During the hearing, Mr. Williams only requested medical benefits, which Performance asked the Court to deny. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law To obtain his requested benefits, Mr. Williams must show a likelihood of proving at a hearing on the merits that he is entitled to medical treatment. 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). Specifically, he must show he suffered an “injury by accident” that caused the need for medical treatment. Id. § 50-6-102(12). Further, an injury is “accidental” only if it “is caused by a specific incident, or set of incidents, arising primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence.” Id. § 50-6- 102(A). Mr. Williams testified that he reported his injury on the night it occurred, which his supervisor documented. Although he initially refused medical attention, he requested treatment the next day and continues to have pain. The Court finds his testimony credible. Performance, however, argued that Mr. Williams later changed his story, and the medical proof shows Mr. Williams was not injured at work. However, Mr. Williams consistently testified that he was injured at work lifting products. His testimony is

2 uncontroverted. The notation in the medical record from March 3 saying heavy palettes is a minor discrepancy over a month after the injury. Performance used this discrepancy and the report from its doctor in Indiana to deny his claim. However, the report says nothing about causation, but only that in the opinion of the out-of-state doctor, an MRI completed approximately three months after an injury shows a chronic condition. Based on the evidence, the Court finds that Mr. Williams is likely to succeed at a hearing on the merits in proving he was injured at work and is entitled to medical benefits. Performance denied additional treatment and argued that Mr. Williams has not offered an expert medical opinion that his injury was primarily caused by his work. That may be true at this point, but there has been no determination by an authorized physician about Mr. Williams’s injury because Performance denied this claim. Moreover, an injured worker is not required to prove medical causation as a prerequisite to an employer furnishing medical treatment. McCord, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6 at *9-10. Under these circumstances, Performance shall return Mr. Williams to the authorized practice for further assessment and treatment made reasonably necessary from his injury. Because Performance denied the claim, Mr. Williams sought medical treatment on his own with a physical therapist. An employer may risk being required to pay for unauthorized treatment if it does not provide the treatment made reasonably necessary by the work injury as required by section 50-6-204(a)(1)(A). Young v. Young Elec. Co., 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *16 (May 25, 2016). The Court is unable to order Performance to pay for his unauthorized treatment currently because no physician has given a causation opinion. Finally, the Court refers this case to the Compliance Program for investigation as to the imposition of penalties under section 50-6-118(a)(3) and (8) for its bad-faith denial and failure to timely provide medical treatment made reasonably necessary by the accident recommended by the authorized treating physician. THEREFORE, it is ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Performance Food Group, Inc. and its carrier must schedule an appointment with the authorized physician and furnish any reasonable and necessary medical treatment under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 204(a)(1)(A).

2. Mr. Williams’s request for payment of unauthorized medical bills is denied at this time.

3. The Court sets a status hearing on March 23, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern. The parties must dial 855-543-5044 to participate.

3 4. The case is referred to the Compliance Program for consideration of the imposition of penalties.

5. Unless interlocutory appeal of the expedited order is filed, compliance with this order must occur no later than seven business days from the date of entry of this order as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 239(d)(3).

ENTERED January 27, 2026.

Brian Addington ______________________________________ BRIAN K. ADDINGTON, JUDGE Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims

APPENDIX Exhibits: 1. Affidavit of Ashton Williams 2. First Report of Injury 3. Wage Statement and pay stubs 4. Declination of Treatment and Injury Statement 5. Transcript of recorded statement 6. Employee’s Choice of Physician 7. Correspondence from Corvel dated February 18, 2025 8. Mileage Reimbursement Request 9. Email correspondence 10. Modified job offers 11. Notice of denial 12. Termination Notice and attendance documents 13. Medical records (collective) a. Greeneville Family Medicine b. Healthstar Physicians c.

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

Related

§ 50-6
Tennessee § 50-6
§ 50-6-239
Tennessee § 50-6-239

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2026 TN WC 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-ashton-v-performance-food-group-inc-tennworkcompcl-2026.