Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225 (2026)

Appeal if dissatisfied or aggrieved by decision to certify compensation order as final

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)
- (1) If a party is dissatisfied or aggrieved by a workers' compensation appeals board decision to certify a compensation order of the court of workers' compensation claims as final, then the party may appeal to the supreme court, where the cause shall be heard and determined as provided in the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.
- (2) Review of the court of workers' compensation claims' findings of fact are de novo upon the record of the court of workers' compensation claims, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.
- (3) The supreme court may, by order, refer workers' compensation cases to a panel known as the special workers' compensation appeals panel. This panel shall consist of three (3) judges designated by the chief justice, at least one (1) of whom shall be a member of the supreme court.
- (4) Any case that the supreme court by order or rule refers to the special workers' compensation appeals panel shall be briefed, and oral argument shall be heard pursuant to the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure as if the appeal were being heard by the entire supreme court.
- (5)
  - (A) The special workers' compensation appeals panel shall reduce to writing its findings and conclusions in all cases. The decision of the panel shall become the judgment of the supreme court thirty (30) days after it is issued unless:
    - (i) Any member of the supreme court files with the clerk a written request within the thirty-day period that the case be heard by the entire supreme court, in which event a final judgment will not be entered until the supreme court, after due consideration of the case, enters final judgment; or
    - (ii) Any party to the appeal files a motion requesting review by the entire supreme court within fifteen (15) days after issuance of the decision by the panel, in which event a final judgment will not be entered:
      - (a) Until the motion is denied; or
      - (b) If the motion is granted, until the supreme court enters final judgment after its consideration of the case.
  - (B) For purposes of this subsection (a), a decision of the panel shall be deemed to be issued on the day it is mailed to the parties, which date shall be noted on the decision by the clerk. Section 27-1-122 applies to all motions made pursuant to this subsection (a).

(b) Appeal of all cases under this chapter shall be expedited by:
- (1) Giving the cases priority over all cases on the appellate dockets; and
- (2) Allowing any case on appeal in the supreme court to be on motion of either party transferred to the bureau where the supreme court is then or will next be in session.

(c)
- (1) If the judgment or decree is appealed pursuant to subsection (a), interest on the judgment or decree shall be computed from the date that the judgment is entered by the court of workers' compensation claims at an annual rate as defined in § 47-14-121. For purposes of calculating the accrual of interest pursuant to this subdivision (c)(1), the average prime loan rate on the day the judgment or decree is entered by the trial court shall be used.
- (2) Total judgment awarded is computed by the total number of weeks multiplied by the benefit rate without any reduction.

(d) When a reviewing court determines pursuant to motion or sua sponte that the appeal of an employer or insurer is frivolous, or taken for purposes of delay, a penalty may be assessed by the court, without remand, against the appellant for a liquidated amount.

(e) When a reviewing court determines pursuant to motion or sua sponte that the appeal of an employee is frivolous, a penalty may be assessed by the court, without remand, against the appellant for a liquidated amount.

Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 715, s 2, eff. 7/1/2022.

Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 715, s 3, eff. 7/1/2022.

Acts 1919, ch. 123, § 32; Shan. Supp. § 3608a1821/2; Code 1932, § 6885; Acts 1941, ch. 90, § 9; C. Supp. 1950, § 6885; Acts 1969, ch. 311, § 1; 1981, ch. 449, § 2; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 50-1018; Acts 1985, ch. 393, §§ 14, 15, 23; 1988, ch. 630, §§ 1, 2; 1992, ch. 952, §§ 7, 8; 1996, ch. 944, § 16; 1997 , ch. 150, § 1; 1998, ch. 1024, § 14; 1999, ch. 336, §§ 1, 2; 1999, ch. 520, § 41; 2000, ch. 678, § 1; 2000, ch. 739, § 1; 2000, ch. 852, §§ 7, 8; 2001, ch. 117, § 1; 2004, ch. 962, §§ 16, 49; 2005, ch. 28, § 1; 2006, ch. 703, § 1; 2008 , ch. 1183, §§ 5, 6; 2012, ch. 1030, § 1; 2013 , ch. 289, § 60, eff. 7/1/2014, 2015 , ch. 341, § 15.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 381 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Lynch v. City of Jellico, 205 S.W.3d 384 (Tenn. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lynch v. City of Jellico, 205 S.W.3d 384 (Tenn. 2006). · cites it 18× “until the parties have exhausted the benefit review conference process_”); Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225 (a)(l) (“in case of a dispute over or failure to agree upon compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Law .”

Troy Mitchell v. Fayetteville Pub. Utils., 368 S.W.3d 442 (Tenn. 2012). · cites it 16× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225 (e); Judgment of the Trial Court is Reversed and Dismissed G ARY R.”

Lon Cloyd v. Hartco Flooring Co., 274 S.W.3d 638 (Tenn. 2008). · cites it 9× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225 (e) (2008) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed GARY R.”

McCarver v. Ins. Co. of the State of Pennsylvania, 208 S.W.3d 380 (Tenn. 2006). · cites it 16× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225 (a)(l) (1999).”

Walter Word v. Metro Air Servs., Inc., 377 S.W.3d 671 (Tenn. 2012). · cites it 10× “The plain words of the workers’ compensation statute expressly require exhaustion: “No claim for compensation under this chapter shall be filed with a court having jurisdiction to hear workers’ compensation matters, as provided in § 50-6-225, until the parties have exhausted the…”

Henderson v. SAIA, INC., 318 S.W.3d 328 (Tenn. 2010). · cites it 4× “This workers’ compensation appeal was initially referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3). After oral argument was conducted…”

Tobitt v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 59 S.W.3d 57 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 11× “Standard of Review The standard of review in a case such as this is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.”

Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 38 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 4× “The appeal was argued before the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225 (e)(3), but transferred to the full Supreme Court prior to the Panel issuing its decision.”

Christopher Furlough v. Spherion Atl. Workforce, LLC, 397 S.W.3d 114 (Tenn. 2013). · cites it 7× “Employer timely filed an appeal, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225 (e) (2008 & Supp.”

Seals v. England/Corsair Upholstery Mfg. Co., 984 S.W.2d 912 (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 6× “The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, upon reference for findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e) (Supp.1997), found that the evidence preponderated against the trial court's findings of permanent psychiatric injury and…”

Blake v. Plus Mark, Inc., 952 S.W.2d 413 (Tenn. 1997). · cites it 8× “The provisions of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-225 and Tenn.R.Civ.”

West Am. Ins. Co. v. Montgomery, 861 S.W.2d 230 (Tenn. 1993). · cites it 14× “T.C.A. § 50-6-225 must be considered in conjunction with other sections of the Workers’ Compensation Law.”

Show all 381 citing cases →

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(2)(e)(1) — 1 case

Wilkins v. Kellogg Co., 48 S.W.3d 148 (Tenn. 2001).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(3)(2) — 3 cases

Joan Douglas & Germantown REalty, Inc., D/B/A Coldwell Banker, v., Frank Tibbs & Afsameh M. Tibbs (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

Ramona C. Schrader v. A.L. Schrader (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

Kenneth Dale Nance v. Tina Louise Nance (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(a) — 1 case

West v. Vought Aircraft Indus., Inc., 256 S.W.3d 618 (Tenn. 2008).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(a)(1) — 8 cases

Sweeten v. Trade Envelopes, Inc., 938 S.W.2d 383 (Tenn. 1996).

Kilgore v. Nhc Healthcare, 134 S.W.3d 153 (Tenn. 2004).

Thomas, Kimberlee v. Duracell-Cleveland, 2024 TN WC App. 10 (Tenn. Work. Comp. App. Bd. 2024).

Burris, Stuart v. Amazon.com & WWL Veh. Servs. Americas, Inc., 2025 TN WC App. 19 (Tenn. Work. Comp. App. Bd. 2025).

Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Exch. v. William R. Hill (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(a)(2) — 3 cases

Lynch v. City of Jellico, 205 S.W.3d 384 (Tenn. 2006). “until the parties have exhausted the benefit review conference process_”); Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225 (a)(l) (“in case of a dispute over or failure to agree upon compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Law .”

Lanius v. Nashville Elec. Serv., 181 S.W.3d 661 (Tenn. 2005).

Bldg. Materials Corp. v. Britt, 211 S.W.3d 706 (Tenn. 2007).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(a)(2)(A) — 2 cases

Walter Word v. Metro Air Servs., Inc., 377 S.W.3d 671 (Tenn. 2012). “The plain words of the workers’ compensation statute expressly require exhaustion: “No claim for compensation under this chapter shall be filed with a court having jurisdiction to hear workers’ compensation matters, as provided in § 50-6-225, until the parties have exhausted the…”

West v. Vought Aircraft Indus., Inc., 256 S.W.3d 618 (Tenn. 2008).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(a)(5)(A)(ii) — 1 case

Ameenah House v. Amazon.Com, Inc. (Tenn. 2019).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(a)(l) — 6 cases

McCarver v. Ins. Co. of the State of Pennsylvania, 208 S.W.3d 380 (Tenn. 2006). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225 (a)(l) (1999).”

McCall v. Nat'l Health Corp., 100 S.W.3d 209 (Tenn. 2003).

William H. Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone North Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393 (Tenn. 2013).

Blake v. Plus Mark, Inc., 952 S.W.2d 413 (Tenn. 1997). “The provisions of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-225 and Tenn.R.Civ.”

Cutler-Hammer v. Crabtree, 54 S.W.3d 748 (Tenn. 2001).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(b) — 1 case

Syph, Deborah v. Choice Food Grp., Inc., 2016 TN WC App. 18 (Tenn. Work. Comp. App. Bd. 2016).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(c) — 3 cases

Bradford v. Travelers Indem. Co., 762 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1988).

Ferguson v. Ram Enter., Inc., 900 S.W.2d 19 (Tenn. 1995).

Watkins v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 666 F. Supp. 102 (S.D. Miss. 1987).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(c)(1) — 2 cases

Five Star Express, Inc. v. Davis, 866 S.W.2d 944 (Tenn. 1993).

Batey, Christopher v. Deliver This, Inc., 2018 TN WC App. 2 (Tenn. Work. Comp. App. Bd. 2018).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(c)(l) — 4 cases

Five Star Express, Inc. v. Davis, 866 S.W.2d 944 (Tenn. 1993).

Ferguson v. Ram Enter., Inc., 900 S.W.2d 19 (Tenn. 1995).

Lanius v. Nashville Elec. Serv., 181 S.W.3d 661 (Tenn. 2005).

Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v. Guerrero, 939 S.W.2d 574 (Tenn. 1997).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(d) — 1 case

Scruggs, Carla v. Amazon.com Servs., LLC, 2022 TN WC App. 43 (Tenn. Work. Comp. App. Bd. 2022).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e) — 95 cases

Thomas v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 812 S.W.2d 278 (Tenn. 1991).

Seals v. England/Corsair Upholstery Mfg. Co., 984 S.W.2d 912 (Tenn. 1999). “The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, upon reference for findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e) (Supp.1997), found that the evidence preponderated against the trial court's findings of permanent psychiatric injury and…”

Lindsey v. Trinity Commc'ns, Inc., 275 S.W.3d 411 (Tenn. 2009).

Roberts v. Lebanon Appliance Serv. Co., 779 S.W.2d 793 (Tenn. 1989).

Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452 (Tenn. 1988).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(1) — 2 cases

Seiber v. Reeves Logging, 284 S.W.3d 294 (Tenn. 2009).

Ferguson v. Ram Enter., Inc., 900 S.W.2d 19 (Tenn. 1995).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(1983) — 1 case

Beasley v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 699 S.W.2d 143 (Tenn. 1985).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(1999) — 1 case

Robert LeeGrand v. Trinity Universal Ins. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(2) — 123 cases

William H. Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone North Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393 (Tenn. 2013).

Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827 (Tenn. 2008).

Lang v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 170 S.W.3d 564 (Tenn. 2005).

Madden v. Holland Grp. of Tennessee, Inc., 277 S.W.3d 896 (Tenn. 2009).

Tobitt v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 59 S.W.3d 57 (Tenn. 2001). “Standard of Review The standard of review in a case such as this is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(2)(1999) — 1 case

McCann v. Hatchett, 19 S.W.3d 218 (Tenn. 2000).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(2)(2002) — 1 case

Guess v. Sharp Mfg. Co. of Am., 114 S.W.3d 480 (Tenn. 2003).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) — 59 cases

Troy Mitchell v. Fayetteville Pub. Utils., 368 S.W.3d 442 (Tenn. 2012). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225 (e); Judgment of the Trial Court is Reversed and Dismissed G ARY R.”

Henderson v. SAIA, INC., 318 S.W.3d 328 (Tenn. 2010). “This workers’ compensation appeal was initially referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3). After oral argument was conducted…”

Lon Cloyd v. Hartco Flooring Co., 274 S.W.3d 638 (Tenn. 2008). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225 (e) (2008) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed GARY R.”

Houser v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 36 S.W.3d 68 (Tenn. 2001).

McCaleb v. Saturn Corp., 910 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1995).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(5) — 13 cases

Hill v. Eagle Bend Mfg., Inc., 942 S.W.2d 483 (Tenn. 1997).

Collins v. Howmet Corp., 970 S.W.2d 941 (Tenn. 1998).

Perry v. Sentry Ins. Co., 938 S.W.2d 404 (Tenn. 1996).

Anderson v. Save-A-Lot, Ltd., 989 S.W.2d 277 (Tenn. 1999).

George v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 44 S.W.3d 481 (Tenn. 2001).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(5)(1999) — 1 case

McCann v. Hatchett, 19 S.W.3d 218 (Tenn. 2000).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(5)(A) — 5 cases

Wilkins v. Kellogg Co., 48 S.W.3d 148 (Tenn. 2001).

Blake v. Plus Mark, Inc., 952 S.W.2d 413 (Tenn. 1997). “The provisions of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-225 and Tenn.R.Civ.”

Miles v. Marshall C. Voss Health Care Ctr., 896 S.W.2d 773 (Tenn. 1995).

Deborah Williams v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., 978 S.W.2d 932 (Tenn. 1998).

Atchley v. Life Care Ctr. of Cleveland, 906 S.W.2d 428 (Tenn. 1995).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(5)(B) — 38 cases

Eadie v. Complete Co., Inc., 142 S.W.3d 288 (Tenn. 2004).

Allen v. City of Gatlinburg, 36 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. 2001).

Fink v. Caudle, 856 S.W.2d 952 (Tenn. 1993).

Hill v. Eagle Bend Mfg., Inc., 942 S.W.2d 483 (Tenn. 1997).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(l) — 4 cases

Corum v. Holston Health & Rehab. Ctr., 104 S.W.3d 451 (Tenn. 2003).

Lanius v. Nashville Elec. Serv., 181 S.W.3d 661 (Tenn. 2005).

Five Star Express, Inc. v. Davis, 866 S.W.2d 944 (Tenn. 1993).

Cha Yang v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 440 S.W.3d 593 (Tenn. 2014).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(f) — 1 case

Linda S. Reece v. Findlay Indus., Inc. & Harold Edward Tigue, Jr. v.Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co., 83 S.W.3d 713 (Tenn. 2002).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(f)(1) — 1 case

Mahoney v. Nationsbank of Tennessee, N.A., 158 S.W.3d 340 (Tenn. 2005).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(f)(l) — 1 case

Bryant v. Baptist Health Sys. Home Care, 213 S.W.3d 743 (Tenn. 2006).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(h) — 11 cases

West Am. Ins. Co. v. Montgomery, 861 S.W.2d 230 (Tenn. 1993). “T.C.A. § 50-6-225 must be considered in conjunction with other sections of the Workers’ Compensation Law.”

McClain v. Henry I. Siegel Co., 834 S.W.2d 295 (Tenn. 1992).

Underwood v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 782 S.W.2d 175 (Tenn. 1989).

Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 803 S.W.2d 672 (Tenn. 1991).

Lock v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 809 S.W.2d 483 (Tenn. 1991).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(h)(1) — 1 case

Eddlemon v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., 101 S.W.3d 57 (Tenn. 1999).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(h)(l) — 1 case

Eddlemon v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., 101 S.W.3d 57 (Tenn. 1999).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(i) — 2 cases

Wells v. Sentry Ins. Co., 834 S.W.2d 935 (Tenn. 1992).

Scruggs, Carla v. Amazon.com Servs., LLC, 2022 TN WC App. 43 (Tenn. Work. Comp. App. Bd. 2022).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(j) — 1 case

Lowder, William v. XPO Logistics Freight, Inc., 2019 TN WC App. 40 (Tenn. Work. Comp. App. Bd. 2019).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(k) — 2 cases

Vaughn v. Shelby Williams of Tennessee, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 132 (Tenn. 1991).

Boruff v. CNA Ins. Co., 795 S.W.2d 125 (Tenn. 1990).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(l) — 1 case

Walls, Bob v. United Tech. Corp., 2021 TN WC App. 69 (Tenn. Work. Comp. App. Bd. 2021).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.