Full Opinion

FILED Oct 22, 2026 02:22 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS AT KNOXVILLE MICHAEL BRENDAN HODGE, Docket Nos. 2025-30-5257 Employee, 2025-30-5259 v. ALCOA, INC. and ARCONIC CORP., State File Nos. 4812-2024 Employers, 68507-2024 and AGRI GENERAL INS. CO. and AIU INS. CO., Judge Pamela B. Johnson Carriers. SECOND EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER Decision on the Record This is the second request for expedited hearing. In the first expedited hearing, the Court ordered Alcoa/Arconic to provide Michael Hodge authorized medical treatment with Dr. Hussein and Dr. Kouser for his occupational illnesses of cerebral meningioma, vision loss, and cognitive impairments. Alcoa/Arconic now seeks to terminate medical benefits, or alternatively, be allowed to offer panels of physicians. Mr. Hodge requests temporary total disability benefits. For the reasons below, the Court orders Alcoa/Arconic to offer Mr. Hodge a panel of primary care physicians and denies Mr. Hodge’s requested relief. Claim History From September 2002 until April 2016, Mr. Hodge worked for Alcoa/Arconic as a brick mason, rebuilding baking furnaces during the smelting process for manufacturing aluminum. This employment exposed Mr. Hodge to coal tar pitch and other toxins. In January 2024, Mr. Hodge filed a petition for benefit determination seeking 1 benefits for cognitive impairments identifying a December 27, 2023 injury date. He amended his petition in September 2024 and added a cerebral meningioma and vision loss listing an August 21, 2024 injury date. Mr. Hodge voluntarily dismissed his case in July 2025. The next month, Alcoa/Arconic filed reverse petitions for benefit determination seeking a dismissal on grounds that Mr. Hodge’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations and notice and/or did not arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. Mr. Hodge filed counter-petitions seeking medical monitoring for his occupational exposures. At the first expedited hearing, the Court held that Mr. Hodge was likely to prevail at a compensation hearing that his claim was not barred by the statute of limitations or lack of notice. He further established that he was entitled to treatment for his occupational illnesses of cerebral meningioma, vision loss, and cognitive impairments. In deciding, the Court relied on the unrefuted medical opinions of Drs. Mohammed Hussein and C.M. Salekin. Dr. Hussein determined that Mr. Hodge suffered a meningioma and cognitive deficits secondary to aluminum exposure at work. Dr. Hussein concluded that the employment, more likely than not, was primarily responsible for the injury or primarily responsible for the need for treatment. Dr. Salekin found that Mr. Hodge had a visual field defect, impaired memory, and poor attention, which he attributed to work exposures. Dr. Salekin also found that Mr. Hodge’s cognitive impairment and meningioma were caused by aluminum and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposure at work. The Court further reviewed the records from Mr. Hodge’s primary care physician, Dr. Hina Kouser. When she was asked to address causation, she responded, “I don’t have expertise or training to comment on this.” Having established care with Drs. Hussein and Kouser, the Court ordered Alcoa/Arconic to furnish ongoing treatment with both as the authorized treating physicians. Alcoa/Arconic appealed, and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed. In support of its request to terminate benefits or alternatively offer a physician panel, Alcoa/Arconic submitted a Rule 72 declaration from Dr. Kouser. She said the treatment to date was “primary care treatment, not treatment for any work-related injury.” She reiterated that she was “unable to say to a reasonable degree of medical 2 certainty that Mr. Hodge’s cerebral meningioma, vision loss, or cognitive impairments [were] in any way related to his employment.” She said she was willing to treat Mr. Hodge but not under workers’ compensation. Alcoa/Arconic also submitted a Rule 72 Declaration of Dr. David Hauge, who performed a records review. Dr. Hauge stated he removed hundreds of meningiomas while practicing as a neurosurgeon. He further stated: “I did not observe any noticeable correlation between exposures to the substances . . . the development of meningiomas . . . I am unable to say to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Mr. Hodge’s meningioma was related to any exposure he had while working for Alcoa.” Mr. Hodge countered Alcoa/Arconic’s submissions with a records review report and Rule 72 Declaration from Dr. Ernest P. Chiodo. Dr. Chiodo stated: [I]t is my opinion to a reasonable degree of medical and scientific certainty that the occupational exposures of Michael Hodge in this matter were the likely and predominate cause of his brain tumor in the form of a meningioma . . . Mr. Hodge would benefit from medical monitoring as a result of his increased risk of cancer as well as cognitive deficits including Alzheimer’s Disease due to his workplace exposures. Alcoa/Arconic alternatively argued that they should be allowed to provide physician panels instead of authorizing treatment with Dr. Kouser and Dr. Hussein. Dr. Kouser will not agree to treat Mr. Hodge under workers’ compensation. Dr. Hussein purportedly saw Mr. Hodge on August 10 but did not coordinate care through Alcoa/Arconic, despite their efforts to do so. Dr. Hussein has not released a treatment note from that visit or provided dates for a return visit. For his part, Mr. Hodge asked for an award of temporary total disability benefits from December 27, 2023, through July 2, 2025, at the maximum weekly compensation rate of $1,194 effective in December 2023. Alcoa/Arconic filed a wage statement with Mr. Hodge’s earnings from April 2015 to April 2016, the date last worked, showing an average weekly wage of $1,197 and a weekly compensation rate of $796.38. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law At the Expedited Hearing stage, Mr. Hodge must prove he is likely to prevail at a compensation hearing that he is entitled to the requested benefits. Tenn. Code 3 Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2025); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015). To recover medical benefits, Mr. Hodge must prove that his occupational illnesses, treated as an injury by accident, arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. He must show, by expert medical opinion, that his employment contributed more than 50% in causing the injury and need for treatment, considering all causes. Id. § 50-6-102(12)(A)-(D). Based on the opinions of Drs. Salekin and Hussein, Alcoa/Arconic was ordered to furnish ongoing treatment with Dr. Kouser and Dr. Hussein as the authorized treating physicians. Alcoa/Arconic now seek to terminate medical benefits based on Dr. Kouser’s and Dr. Hauge’s opinions. They contend that their opinions find no causation exists and support the denial of benefits. However, they misconstrue these expert opinions. Dr. Kouser did not state that Mr. Hodge’s employment did not primarily cause his illnesses. Instead, she said she was unable to make a causation determination, just as she said originally. Dr. Kouser previously responded to a causation questionnaire stating she did not have the expertise or training to comment. In her Rule 72 declaration, she reiterated that she was “unable to say to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that Mr. Hodge’s conditions were related to his employment. Similarly, Dr. Hauge said he did not “notice” any correlation between toxic exposures and Mr. Hodge’s development of the meningiomas. He too stated he was “unable to say to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that Mr. Hodge’s meningioma was related to any work exposure. An “inability to state” does not equate to an opinion that the occupational illnesses “did not primarily arise out of” the employment. Here, both Dr. Hussein and Dr. Salekin examined Mr. Hodge and determined that his occupational illnesses arose primarily out of his employment. Additionally, Dr. Chiodo, after a records review, reached a similar conclusion, stating Mr. Hodge’s occupational exposures were the likely and predominate cause of his meningioma. The opinions of Dr. Kouser and Dr. Hauge are insufficient to overcome the weight of the opinions of Dr. Hussein, Dr. Salekin, and Dr. Chiodo. Thus, the Court finds that Mr. Hodge is likely to prevail at a compensation hearing that he is entitled 4 to medical benefits for his occupational illnesses of cerebral meningioma, vision loss, and cognitive impairments. Alcoa/Arconic shall provide authorized treatment with Dr. Hussein for these occupational illnesses. Given Dr. Kouser’s refusal to treat under workers’ compensation, Alcoa/Arconic shall provide Mr. Hodge with a panel of primary care physicians to treat him. Regarding Mr. Hodge’s claim for temporary total disability benefits, a threshold issue is average weekly wage and the compensation rate. The dispute certification notice, filed on October 1, 2025, lists the compensation rate as an issue. Mr. Hodge bears the burden of proof. Id. § 50-6-239(c)(6). Mr. Hodge argued the wage rate should be based on his 2023 injury date, but he offered no sworn testimony or other documentary proof regarding his earnings, or those of a similarly-situated employee, for the 52 weeks preceding the date he alleged should be used as his injury date. In contrast, Alcoa/Arconic asserted the wage rate should be determined based on Mr. Hodge’s actual earnings for the 52 weeks preceding the date he last worked in 2016. In support of their argument, they submitted a wage statement. The Court finds Mr. Hodge has not satisfied his burden to show the correct compensation rate. At this time, he failed to show that he is likely to prevail at a compensation hearing that he is entitled to temporary disability benefits. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED: 1. Alcoa/Arconic shall continue to provide treatment for Mr. Hodge under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204. Dr. Hussein shall remain the authorized treating physician. Alcoa/Arconic shall additionally provide Mr. Hodge with a panel of primary care physicians to treat him. 2. Mr. Hodge’s request for temporary disability benefits is denied at this time. 3. The parties shall appear for a Status/Motion Hearing on February 8, 2027, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The parties must dial 855-543-5041 to participate. 4. Unless appealed, compliance must occur by seven business days of entry of this order as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239(d)(3). 5 ENTERED October 22, 2026. ____________________________________ JUDGE PAMELA B. JOHNSON Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims 6 APPENDIX The technical record consists of the pleadings and orders filed on the TNComp electronic filing system.1 The Court considered the following documents, which it marked as exhibits for ease of reference. Exhibits: 1. Dr. Salekin’s Form C-32 with attachments (previously filed as Exhibit 3 to First Expedited Hearing Order) 2. Dr. Hussein’s Form C-32 with attachments (previously filed as Exhibit 4 to First Expedited Hearing Order) 3. Dr. Kouser’s response to causation letter (included in Exhibit 4 to First Expedited Order) 4. Rule 72 Declaration of Dr. Hina Kouser2 5. Rule 72 Declaration of Dr. David Hauge3 6. Letter from Attorney Dunaway to Attorney Hranicky 7. Emails between Dr. Hussein’s office and Attorney Hranicky 8. Dr. Hussien’s June 3, 2026 Office Note 9. Wage Statement 10. Dr. Ernest P. Chiodo’s Report 11. Dr. Ernest P. Chiodo’s Rule 72 Declaration 12. Dr. Kouser’s September 18, 2026 Letter 1 Alcoa/Arconic filed a four-page, double-spaced motion to reconsider the award of medical benefits, which the court treated as a request for expedited hearing, and a nine-page, double-spaced prehearing statement. Alcoa/Arconic’s total page count, excluding exhibits, is 13. In contrast, Mr. Hodge filed a four-page, single-spaced response; a two-page single-spaced supplemental response; a four-page, single-spaced second supplemental response; a five-page, single-spaced third supplemental response; 29-page, double-spaced prehearing statement; and a 12-page, double- spaced supplement pre-hearing brief. Mr. Hodge’s total page count, excluding exhibits, is 56. Tennessee Compilation Rules and Regulations 0800-02-21-.20(3) (March 2026) limits briefs to ten pages. Mr. Hodge is warned that future filing abuses, including multiple responses and briefs exceeding the page limit, will be struck from the record. 2 Mr. Hodge objected to the admissibility of Dr. Kouser’s Rule 72 Declaration on grounds of lack of expertise or knowledge of the subject matter. The objection is overruled. 3 Mr. Hodge objected to the admissibility of Dr. Hauge’s Rule 72 Declaration on grounds of lack of expertise or knowledge of the subject matter. The objection is overruled. 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of this order was sent as shown on October 22, 2026. Name Email Service sent to: David H. Dunaway, X dhdunaway@aol.com Employee’s Attorney Tiffany S. Hranicky, X tbhranicky@mijs.com Employer’s Attorney ____________________________________ PENNY SHRUM, COURT CLERK wc.courtclerk@tn.gov 8 Right to Appeal: If you disagree with the Court’s Order, you may appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. To do so, you must: 1. Complete the enclosed form entitled “Notice of Appeal” and file it with the Clerk of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims before the expiration of the deadline. ¾ If the order being appealed is “expedited” (also called “interlocutory”), or if the order does not dispose of the case in its entirety, the notice of appeal must be filed within seven (7) business days of the date the order was filed. ¾ If the order being appealed is a “Compensation Order,” or if it resolves all issues in the case, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty (30) calendar days of the date the Compensation Order was filed. When filing the Notice of Appeal, you must serve a copy on the opposing party (or attorney, if represented). 2. You must pay, via check, money order, or credit card, a $75.00 filing fee within ten calendar days after filing the Notice of Appeal. Payments can be made in-person at any Bureau office or by U.S. mail, hand-delivery, or other delivery service. In the alternative, you may file an Affidavit of Indigency (form available on the Bureau’s website or any Bureau office) seeking a waiver of the filing fee. You must file the fully-completed Affidavit of Indigency within ten calendar days of filing the Notice of Appeal. Failure to timely pay the filing fee or file the Affidavit of Indigency will result in dismissal of your appeal. 3. You are responsible for ensuring a complete record is presented on appeal. If no court reporter was present at the hearing, you may request from the Court Clerk the audio recording of the hearing for a $25.00 fee. If you choose to submit a transcript as part of your appeal, which the Appeals Board has emphasized is important for a meaningful review of the case, a licensed court reporter must prepare the transcript, and you must file it with the Court Clerk. The Court Clerk will prepare the record for submission to the Appeals Board, and you will receive notice once it has been submitted. For deadlines related to the filing of transcripts, statements of the evidence, and briefs on appeal, see the applicable rules on the Bureau’s website at https://www.tn.gov/wcappealsboard. (Click the “Read Rules” button.) 4. After the Workers’ Compensation Judge approves the record and the Court Clerk transmits it to the Appeals Board, a docketing notice will be sent to the parties. If neither party timely files an appeal with the Appeals Board, the Court Order becomes enforceable. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(3) (expedited/interlocutory orders) and Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(7) (compensation orders). For self-represented litigants: Help from an Ombudsman is available at 800-332-2667. NOTICE OF APPEAL Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation www.tn.gov/workforce/injuries-at-work/ wc.courtclerk@tn.gov | 1-800-332-2667 Docket No.: ________________________ State File No.: ______________________ Date of Injury: _____________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Employee v. ___________________________________________________________________________ Employer Notice is given that ____________________________________________________________________ [List name(s) of all appealing party(ies). Use separate sheet if necessary.] appeals the following order(s) of the Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board;ĐŚĞĐŬŽŶĞŽƌŵŽƌĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞďŽdžĞƐĂŶĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞĚĂƚĞĨŝůĞͲ ƐƚĂŵƉĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚƉĂŐĞŽĨƚŚĞŽƌĚĞƌ;ƐͿďĞŝŶŐĂƉƉĞĂůĞĚͿ͗ ප Expedited Hearing Order filed on _______________ ප Motion Order filed on ___________________ ප Compensation Order filed on__________________ ප Other Order filed on_____________________ issued by Judge _________________________________________________________________________. Statement of the Issues on Appeal Provide a short and plain statement of the issues on appeal or basis for relief on appeal: ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ Parties Appellant(s) (Requesting Party): _________________________________________ ‫܆‬Employer ‫܆‬Employee Address: ________________________________________________________ Phone: ___________________ Email: __________________________________________________________ Attorney’s Name: ______________________________________________ BPR#: _______________________ Attorney’s Email: ______________________________________________ Phone: _______________________ Attorney’s Address: _________________________________________________________________________ * Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellant * LB-1099 rev. 01/20 Page 1 of 2 RDA 11082 Employee Name: _______________________________________ Docket No.: _____________________ Date of Inj.: _______________ Appellee(s) (Opposing Party): ___________________________________________ ‫܆‬Employer ‫܆‬Employee Appellee’s Address: ______________________________________________ Phone: ____________________ Email: _________________________________________________________ Attorney’s Name: _____________________________________________ BPR#: ________________________ Attorney’s Email: _____________________________________________ Phone: _______________________ Attorney’s Address: _________________________________________________________________________ * Attach an additional sheet for each additional Appellee * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, _____________________________________________________________, certify that I have forwarded a true and exact copy of this Notice of Appeal by First Class mail, postage prepaid, or in any manner as described in Tennessee Compilation Rules & Regulations, Chapter 0800-02-21, to all parties and/or their attorneys in this case on this the __________ day of ___________________________________, 20 ____. ______________________________________________ [Signature of appellant or attorney for appellant] LB-1099 rev. 01/20 Page 2 of 2 RDA 11082