A profile he denied owning helped seal the outcome at his hearing
A welder claimed his injured hand left him unable to work. A Tennessee court didn't buy it, and his own texts told a different story.
David Simmons was welding for Konrad Construction on August 11, 2025, when a co-worker dropped a bundle of steel on his right hand. The accident cut his middle and ring fingers. His supervisor drove him to a clinic, where a physician's assistant stitched the wounds and set temporary limits: no heavy lifting and nothing that might reopen the cuts, until a follow-up.
Eleven days later, a doctor removed the stitches. The records from that visit noted no active problems, gave Simmons basic wound-care instructions, and, in a detail that mattered later, assigned no work restrictions.
On September 3, Konrad's chief people officer, Nicholas Keller, texted Simmons that his welding contract was ending and he would be laid off. Simmons replied that he had a new welding job lined up elsewhere, and asked to keep working with the construction crew until it began. The company agreed. He worked through September 12 at his normal pay.
Soon after, Simmons filed for workers' compensation. He wanted ongoing medical care and temporary disability benefits, partly for reduced hours and partly for what he described as a current inability to work.
That last claim is where his case fell apart.
At an expedited hearing on March 10, 2026, Simmons testified that his injuries kept him from finding other work. Yet he had texted Keller about a new welding job. And a LinkedIn page under a shortened version of his name, carrying his photo, listed him as a welder from September 2025 to the present. Simmons denied the page was his.
The trial court did not find him believable. It described his testimony as unconvincing and off-putting, riddled with inconsistencies. The court found it hard to credit that he had denied receiving a text he had clearly answered. It also noted that the nickname on the LinkedIn page matched how he identified himself in the email address on his own benefits petition.
The employer's witnesses reinforced the point. Simmons's supervisor said he had helped Simmons secure paid time off for his lost hours. Keller confirmed there was no light-duty work to offer, but that Simmons had still been allowed to work with the construction crew after his layoff, at his usual wage.
The court denied temporary disability benefits. It found no evidence of any work restrictions tied to the accident once the stitches were out. It did keep medical treatment open with the authorized physician for the finger injuries. Simmons appealed.
On June 2, 2026, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed and sent the case back for further proceedings. One factor loomed large: neither side filed a transcript of the hearing. Without one, the board had to presume the trial court's findings were supported by the evidence. It also deferred to the judge who had seen Simmons testify firsthand. The board found nothing to show the trial court got it wrong.
For HR leaders, the takeaway is not about legal doctrine. It is about records. Konrad prevailed on documentation – text messages, medical notes showing no restrictions, an accommodation offered and accepted, and payroll proof of post-layoff work. When a worker's account and the contemporaneous record point in opposite directions, the record usually carries the day. Clear injury documentation, consistent return-to-work communication, and saved messages are not just good practice. They are what an employer leans on when a claim reaches a hearing.
The case is David Simmons v. Konrad Construction, et al., Docket No. 2025-80-6051, decided by the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board on June 2, 2026.
