CompFox AI Summary
Nakesha Strunk filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking a second medical opinion after injuring her low back at work. Aramark Nissan Smyrna accepted the claim, and Ms. Strunk initially treated with Dr. Michael Moran, who referred her to physiatry. She then selected Dr. Jeffrey Hazlewood as her authorized treating provider, who later placed her at Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) with a 0% permanent partial disability rating and recommended detoxification, also noting potential malingering. Ms. Strunk contended a disparity in diagnoses and Dr. Hazlewood's conduct, arguing she was entitled to a second opinion under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(1)(C). The Court denied her request, finding that neither physician recommended surgery, and the relevant statutes do not entitle an employee to a second opinion on impairment, diagnosis, or pain management treatment.
Strunk, Nakesha v. Aramark 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
Nakesha Strunk filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking a second medical opinion after injuring her low back at work. Aramark Nissan Smyrna accepted the claim, and Ms. Strunk initially treated with Dr. Michael Moran, who referred her to physiatry. She then selected Dr. Jeffrey Hazlewood as her authorized treating provider, who later placed her at Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) with a 0% permanent partial disability rating and recommended detoxification, also noting potential malingering. Ms. Strunk contended a disparity in diagnoses and Dr. Hazlewood's conduct, arguing she was entitled to a second opinion under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(1)(C). The Court denied her request, finding that neither physician recommended surgery, and the relevant statutes do not entitle an employee to a second opinion on impairment, diagnosis, or pain management treatment.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.