Tennessee Board Vacates Order Requiring Dollar General to Authorize MRI, Therapy

The Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board on Feb. 9 vacated and remanded a lower‑court order that had required Dollar General to authorize a lumbar MRI and physical therapy for Patricia Johnson, an employee who injured her back and leg in a September 2022 workplace fall. The board concluded the trial judge failed to apply the correct interlocutory evidentiary standard before awarding interim medical benefits.

Johnson initially received compensable medical care from Dollar General and later relocated to Mississippi. After “repeated delays and multiple motions,” she filed a motion in October 2025 seeking to compel authorization of the lumbar MRI and physical therapy ordered by her treating neurosurgeon. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims granted the motion following a telephonic hearing, ordered Dollar General to provide the treatment, and referred the matter to the Bureau’s compliance program for possible penalties.

Dollar General appealed, arguing multiple procedural and evidentiary errors. The employer contended the trial court improperly issued benefits at what it characterized as a procedural or status hearing, failed to provide adequate notice of relief sought, and mischaracterized the medical evidence. The Appeals Board rejected the employer’s notice argument, finding Dollar General “understood the purpose of the hearing and argued the merits.” Nevertheless, the panel found reversible error because the trial court did not expressly determine that Johnson was likely to prevail on the merits before ordering interlocutory medical relief.

Under Tennessee workers’ compensation practice, the board emphasized, a trial court may issue medical or temporary disability benefits before a final hearing only after deciding the employee is likely to prevail on the merits. Because the lower court did not make that explicit finding, the Appeals Board set aside the order requiring the MRI and physical therapy and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with the board’s instructions. The panel did not resolve whether the MRI or therapy are medically necessary; that question remains open for the trial court on remand.

For workers and claims handlers, the decision underscores the procedural gatekeeping that governs interim authorizations. Injured employees seeking prompt imaging or therapy can obtain interlocutory relief, but only if the trial judge makes a clear finding that the claimant is likely to prevail. Employers may still contest whether treatments are necessary, and compliance referrals tied to interlocutory orders may be reevaluated after remand.

Next steps include a renewed hearing in the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims where the judge must address the “likely to prevail” standard and any remaining disputes over medical necessity and possible Bureau penalties. The outcome will determine whether Johnson receives the MRI and therapy pending a final merits decision and could sharpen how courts handle interim medical requests in Tennessee workplace injury cases.