Full Opinion

FILED Oct 21, 2026 04:22 PM(CT) TENNESSEE WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD Min Milnar Docket No. 2026-30-1227 v. State File No. 72678-2025 Knox County Appeal from the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims Lisa A. Lowe, Judge Affirmed and Remanded In this interlocutory appeal, the employee argues the trial court erred in excluding some of her filings as untimely. The employee sustained an injury to her finger while operating a meat slicer, and the employer provided authorized medical treatment, including a tetanus vaccination. The employee alleged suffering serious side effects from the vaccine, and the employer declined to provide treatment for those alleged conditions. The employee filed a petition for benefits and requested a hearing on the record, and the trial court issued a docketing notice that included certain filing deadlines for both parties. The employee attempted to file documentation twice after her deadline had passed, and the employer filed motions in limine to exclude those documents. The trial court granted both motions and excluded all of the documents filed by the employee after her deadline had passed. The employee has appealed both orders. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s orders and remand the case. Judge Meredith B. Weaver delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which Presiding Judge Timothy W. Conner and Judge Pele I. Godkin joined. Min Milnar, employee-appellant, pro se Evan E. Hauser, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, Knox County 1 Memorandum Opinion1 Min Milnar (“Employee”) was working for Knox County (“Employer”) at the Juvenile Service Center on April 23, 2025, when she injured her left middle finger on a meat slicer. Employer authorized medical treatment, including a tetanus vaccination as recommended by the authorized physician. Employee later alleged significant health conditions that she contended were primarily caused by the tetanus vaccine.2 When Employer declined to provide medical treatment for those alleged conditions, Employee filed a petition for benefit determination on February 23, 2026. A dispute certification notice was entered March 17, 2026, and Employee filed a request for a decision on the record. The trial court issued a docketing notice, which listed the documents already received for consideration, set filing deadlines for both parties to provide any supplemental information, and set a deadline for both parties to object to any filings. Specifically, the trial court instructed Employee to file any supplemental evidence for the court’s consideration by June 9, 2026, stating it would not consider any evidence filed after that date. Employer was given until June 23, 2026, to file any further evidence, and both parties’ objections were to be submitted by July 2. On June 23, 2026, two weeks after her evidentiary deadline, Employee filed a “Supplemental Statement to the Court Regarding the Tetanus Vaccine Reaction and Subsequent Left Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis,” with medical records attached as exhibits. That same day, Employer filed a motion in limine, arguing the statement and exhibits should be excluded as they were not filed timely. On July 2, Employee filed another document entitled “Employee’s Response in Objection and Opposition to Motion to Compel Discovery.”3 Employer filed a “renewed” motion in limine on July 6, 2026, asking the trial court to also exclude Employee’s July 2 filing. On July 10, the trial court granted Employer’s first motion in limine and excluded Employee’s June 23 filing. On July 11, Employee filed a response to Employer’s “renewed” motion in limine, arguing that the trial court should review all filings after the June 9 deadline “according to their nature and purpose,” rather than disregarding them as untimely evidence. On July 13, the trial court entered an order granting Employer’s second motion in limine and excluding the July 2 filing, finding it was filed after the deadline to 1 This decision is being filed pursuant to Tenn. Comp. R. and Regs. 0800-02-22-.03(1) (2023). 2 Due to the procedural posture of this case, no documents have been entered into evidence. Consequently, we have gleaned this factual information from the filings contained in the technical record. 3 During this time, there were also various discovery disputes pending before the trial court as reflected in a motion to compel filed by Employer on May 21, 2026. These issues are irrelevant to the present appeal. 2 submit additional evidence and that it did not contain any evidentiary objections. Employee has appealed both orders.4 Employee did not file a brief timely and has provided us with no meaningful legal argument to explain how she believes the trial court erred in declining to consider evidence not timely filed in compliance with the court’s directions. As stated by the Tennessee Supreme Court, “[i]t is not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her.” Sneed v. Bd. of Pro. Resp. of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010). On her notice of appeal, Employee asserts she did not receive notice of certain deadlines. However, we can find no instance in the record on appeal of Employee’s raising this allegation in the trial court. As we have previously observed, it is not the role of the Appeals Board to address a party’s issues in the first instance. See Buckner v. Eaton Corp., No. 2016-01-0303, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 84, at *12 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Nov. 9, 2016). A trial court has broad discretion to control the pace of litigation and address pre- trial motions, Valladares v. Transco Prods., Inc., Nos. 2015-01-0117 & -0118, 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 31, at *26 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. July 27, 2016), and the trial court has the discretion to exclude evidence when it is not filed in compliance with the court’s orders, see Carter v. Ricoh Am. Corp., No. 2015-06-0466, 2020 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 64, at *11 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Nov. 2, 2020). To the extent Employee contends that the trial court’s enforcement of its previously-set deadlines was an abuse of discretion, we disagree. An abuse of discretion is found if the trial court “applied incorrect legal standards, reached an illogical conclusion, based its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employ[ed] reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 358 (Tenn. 2008). We see no such abuse of discretion here.5 In short, the trial court set clear deadlines, and Employee failed to abide by them. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court and remand the case. Costs on appeal are waived. 4 After filing her notice of appeal of both orders, Employee attempted to file a motion “under seal” with the Clerk of the Appeals Board, which we dismissed because it was not served on Employer. Employee also filed a “Motion to Permanently Seal Entire Case File” with the trial court, and we remanded the case to the trial court for the purpose of addressing that motion in the first instance. The trial court issued an order denying Employee’s motion because it did not comply with the requirements for sealing court records as set forth in Henderson v. Henderson, W2025-00499-COA-R3-CV, 2026 Tenn. App. LEXIS 513 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sep. 1, 2026). That order has not been appealed. 5 Employee also filed a motion seeking an indefinite stay of the appeal while she travels abroad. All of Employee’s appellate deadlines had passed prior to the day she indicated she would be leaving, rendering the motion for a stay moot. Moreover, this request exceeds our statutory authority for granting extensions of time. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-217(d)(1) (2026). Accordingly, the motion for stay is denied. 3