CANDIE MARIE HERNANDEZ v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL. - Articles

All Content

CANDIE MARIE HERNANDEZ v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL.

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Feb 27, 2026

Court: TN Workers Comp Appeals Board

Attorneys 1: A. Allen Grant and Scott A. Morell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellant, Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

Attorneys 2: Brad C. Burnette, Clinton, Tennessee, for the employee-appellee, Candie Marie Hernandez.

Judge(s): CONNER

At issue in this interlocutory appeal is the scope of discovery in a workers’ compensation case. The employee alleged she suffered severe injuries after being exposed to carbon monoxide at work. The employer accepted the compensability of the accident and paid certain temporary disability and medical benefits, but it reserved the right to later assert defenses to the claim. The employee forwarded written discovery requests to the employer then, after receiving the employer’s responses, asserted that the employer failed or refused to provide relevant information in response to those requests. The employer objected that certain of the employee’s requests sought information irrelevant to the workers’ compensation claim, were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or that the information sought included trade secrets, proprietary information, or sensitive material that should be subject to a protective order. Following the filing of multiple motions to compel, a motion for sanctions, and multiple motions for a protective order, the trial court conducted a hearing, after which it: (1) denied the employer’s motion for a protective order; (2) granted the employee’s motion to compel discovery; and (3) held the employee’s motion for sanctions and a referral to the Bureau’s compliance unit in abeyance. The employer has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s order, find the employer’s appeal frivolous, and remand the case.

Attachments: