CompFox AI Summary
This expedited hearing order addresses a dispute over medical benefits for employee Maury Endsley, who suffered a work-related low back injury. His authorized treating physician (ATP), Dr. Klekamp, performed surgery and later recommended a second-opinion consultation regarding potential fusion surgery with Dr. James Fish, though Dr. Klekamp himself did not deem the surgery necessary. While Benchmark Contractors, LLC, the employer, authorized the initial visit to Dr. Fish and an MRI, it subsequently refused to authorize a crucial follow-up visit required for Dr. Fish to complete his second-opinion evaluation. Mr. Endsley sought an expedited hearing to compel authorization for this return visit, arguing it was necessary to complete the statutory requirement for a second opinion. The Court ruled in favor of Mr. Endsley, concluding that Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(3)(C) mandates a complete second opinion when a treating physician refers for one, and Benchmark's refusal constituted incomplete compliance with its statutory duty, thus ordering them to authorize the return visit to Dr. Fish.
Endsley, Maury v. Benchmark Contractors, LLC is a workers' compensation case decided in Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This expedited hearing order addresses a dispute over medical benefits for employee Maury Endsley, who suffered a work-related low back injury. His authorized treating physician (ATP), Dr. Klekamp, performed surgery and later recommended a second-opinion consultation regarding potential fusion surgery with Dr. James Fish, though Dr. Klekamp himself did not deem the surgery necessary. While Benchmark Contractors, LLC, the employer, authorized the initial visit to Dr. Fish and an MRI, it subsequently refused to authorize a crucial follow-up visit required for Dr. Fish to complete his second-opinion evaluation. Mr. Endsley sought an expedited hearing to compel authorization for this return visit, arguing it was necessary to complete the statutory requirement for a second opinion. The Court ruled in favor of Mr. Endsley, concluding that Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(3)(C) mandates a complete second opinion when a treating physician refers for one, and Benchmark's refusal constituted incomplete compliance with its statutory duty, thus ordering them to authorize the return visit to Dr. Fish.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.