His second panel doctor recommended treatment – then took it back
A Tennessee court denied a FedEx worker's push for additional workers' comp benefits after doctors disconnected his worsening symptoms from a workplace back injury.
Judge Shaterra R. Marion of the Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims issued the ruling on April 17, 2026, finding that employee Dexter M. Elsberry was unlikely to succeed on the merits in his bid for further medical treatment and temporary disability benefits.
The case traces back to August 7, 2025, when Elsberry hurt his back while working at FedEx. Through the employer's panel process – a mechanism that gives injured workers a choice among pre-approved physicians – Elsberry selected Dr. James Escue. The diagnosis was a lumbar strain. Dr. Escue prescribed physical therapy and cleared Elsberry to return to work with restrictions. By the final visit, however, Dr. Escue noted that some of Elsberry's reported pain did not align with the diagnosis on file.
Over the following months, Elsberry sought care at two different hospitals. A month after the injury, a CT scan revealed mild degenerative disc disease and a disc bulge, and the treating doctor recommended Elsberry follow up with Dr. Escue. Six weeks after that, Elsberry visited another hospital with worsening back pain. An MRI showed a disc bulge but no acute abnormality. Despite Elsberry's request for back surgery, the doctor found no emergent indication requiring it.
FedEx then offered a second physician panel, and Elsberry chose Dr. John Brophy. At this stage, Elsberry was reporting pain in his back and buttocks that radiated into his legs. Dr. Brophy presented two options: a steroid injection or continued observation with activity modification and medication. Elsberry opted for the injection – but when a different physician at the clinic was set to administer it, he refused and demanded to see Dr. Brophy, citing additional questions and new symptoms of intermittent numbness in both legs.
That development proved pivotal. Dr. Brophy assessed the new symptoms and concluded they did not stem from the original work accident and could not be explained by what the MRI had shown. He recommended a home exercise program, referred Elsberry to his primary care physician, and released him to work without restrictions effective February 9, 2026, with a zero percent impairment rating at maximum medical improvement.
Elsberry contested the determination, arguing that the earlier recommendation for an injection undercut the decision to declare him at maximum medical improvement. He also argued he needed additional treatment. The court disagreed.
Under Tennessee law, an injured worker seeking medical benefits must show that a physician found, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the work injury contributed more than 50 percent in causing the current need for treatment, considering all causes. Elsberry could not meet that threshold. Although Dr. Brophy had initially recommended a steroid injection, he revised that opinion when Elsberry presented new symptoms the MRI could not account for.
The court applied the same reasoning to deny temporary disability benefits. Tennessee law ends those payments when a worker either returns to work or reaches maximum medical recovery. Since Dr. Brophy placed Elsberry at maximum medical improvement and Elsberry provided no contrary medical evidence, his entitlement to temporary disability benefits ended.
For HR professionals watching how employers navigate post-injury claims, the case underscores a recurring challenge: what happens when an employee's condition appears to worsen in ways the original diagnosis cannot account for. The panel physician process worked as designed here – FedEx offered two panels, and both selected physicians ultimately reached conclusions that did not support continued benefits. But the case also illustrates how a single unrebutted medical opinion can determine the outcome when the employee offers no competing evidence.
The case is Elsberry v. FedEx, Docket No. 2025-80-7100, State File No. 57381-2025 (Tenn. Ct. Workers' Comp. Claims, Apr. 17, 2026).
