Comp board says truck driver failed to prove injury

The Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board on Thursday reversed a trial court’s  award of medical and temporary disability benefits to a commercial truck driver who claimed he suffered a spinal injury when the cab of his truck shook violently over a ninety-minute period as he attempted to park at a truck stop.

The court, in remanding Rainey, David v. U.S. Xpress, Inc. back to lower court on the grounds that the driver, David Rainey, failed to prove that the truck’s system had malfunctioned in March 2025 as he described it in March 2025 and that he had been injured as he testified. He had been an employee for under a month, according to the ruling, and had suffered a previous work injury.

U.S. Express initially accepted the claim as compensable based on the authorized physician’s opinion and provided medical and temporary disability benefits and later retained an orthopedist to perform a medical records review, which concluded Mr. Rainey had reached maximum medical improvement. Consequently, the employer ceased paying temporary disability benefits. U.S. Express also reviewed data from the truck’s vehicle monitoring systems, and, “because those reports did not reflect the alleged event as described by the employee,” it denied any further benefits, which included a doctor’s recommendation that Mr. Rainey needed surgery because of an injury the doctor had considered work-related, according to the record.

After an expedited hearing, the trial court found the employee was likely to prevail at trial in showing that his cervical spine condition arose primarily out of the event he had described. It also determined that the authorized treating physician offered the most probable explanation of the primary cause of the need for surgery, and it awarded additional medical and temporary disability benefits.

The appeals board weighed evidence that included documentation from an examining physician who opined that Mr. Rainey “suffered from degenerative conditions in his cervical spine and the alleged work incident did not contribute more than (50%) in causing the need for surgery.” U.S. Express also submitted as evidence the data from the truck’s tracking system that did not show the shaking had occurred as described.

Mr. Rainey’s evidence included testimony from another truck driver who said he had witnessed the truck shaking and that he had to help Mr. Rainey park the vehicle.

The appeals board cited “various inconsistencies” in Mr. Rainey’s testimony and report of injuries to his neck and spine, and that the trial court relied too heavily on his testimony alone in awarding benefits.

“Considering the proof available to the trial court, we conclude there is clear and convincing evidence that the court’s assessment of Employee’s credibility was erroneous at this stage of the case,” the board wrote.