Please enter some keywords to search.
| State vs. John Childress
02C01-9605-CC-00154
Originating Judge:Joseph H. Walker, III |
Lauderdale County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/16/97 | |
| 01C01-9401-CC-00025
01C01-9401-CC-00025
Originating Judge:Donald P. Harris |
Perry County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/16/97 | |
| State vs. Mario Gutierrez
02C01-9502-CC-00043
|
Hardin County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/15/97 | |
| Georgia Keys vs. Memphis Carwash, Inc.
02A01-9605-CV-00113
Originating Judge:Kay S. Robilio |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 05/15/97 | |
| Brandy Thatcher, b/n/f vs. Bobby Wyatt, et al
02A01-9605-CH-00114
Originating Judge:George R. Ellis |
Haywood County | Court of Appeals | 05/15/97 | |
| State vs. Johnny Smith
02C01-9602-CR-00061
Originating Judge:James C. Beasley, Jr. |
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/15/97 | |
| Burgess & Carter vs. Mead Johnson
01A01-9609-CV-00436
Originating Judge:John W. Rollins |
Coffee County | Court of Appeals | 05/14/97 | |
| 03C01-9605-CC-00190
03C01-9605-CC-00190
Originating Judge:Rex Henry Ogle |
Cocke County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/14/97 | |
| Gentry vs. Gentry
01A01-9611-CH-00512
Originating Judge:Alex W. Darnell |
Montgomery County | Court of Appeals | 05/14/97 | |
| Portland Utilities Construction v. Chase Creek
M2002-02886-COA-R3-CV
A utilities contractor sued a subdivision developer for payment for work it performed on the subdivision's infrastructure. The court found that the developer was obligated to honor its contract by paying for work with a value of $313,829. The court also found that the developer was entitled to an offset of $55,955 for damages resulting from defects in the contractor's performance. The developer argues on appeal that the trial court erroneously declined to grant it additional offsets. We affirm the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Originating Judge:Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr. |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 05/14/97 | |
| Estate of Edward P. Russell, Deceased
01A01-9611-PB-00516
Tracy Moore, B/N/F/ Shirley Moore vs. James Prescott, II 02A01-9609-CV-00227 View
Originating Judge:John A. Turnbull |
Court of Appeals | 05/14/97 | ||
| State vs. Miller
03C01-9608-CR-00300
Originating Judge:R. Jerry Beck |
Sullivan County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/14/97 | |
| Nance vs. Nance
01A01-9611-CV-00515
Originating Judge:Muriel Robinson |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 05/14/97 | |
| Savco vs. Century
03A01-9611-CV-00360
|
Court of Appeals | 05/13/97 | ||
| Upper East Tenn. vs. Johnson
03A01-9701-CH-00011
|
Court of Appeals | 05/13/97 | ||
| State vs. Violet
03C01-9603-CC-00135
Originating Judge:Mayo L. Mashburn |
McMinn County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/13/97 | |
| State vs. Brown
03C01-9604-CC-00140
|
Hancock County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/13/97 | |
| Dianne B. Fowler v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co, et al.
01S01-9607-GS-00151
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. |
Warren County | Workers Compensation Panel | 05/13/97 | |
| Clarence Wayne Dunn v. Sequatchie Concrete Services, et al.
01S01-9606-CV-00121
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellant is seeking review of the findings of the trial court with respect to the following issues: (1) Whether the employee's claim against it is barred by Tenn Code Ann. section 5-6-23, a one-year statute of limitations1; (2) Whether the claim should be disallowed for the employee's failure to give timely written notice of his claim, as required by Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-21; (3) Whether the appellee was an employee of the RDF at the time of the injury; (4) Whether the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive; and (5) Whether the trial judge abused his discretion by commuting permanent partial disability benefits to a single lump sum. The employee contends the appeal is frivolous. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The employee or claimant, Dunn, is thirty-eight years old and has an eighth grade education. He has a commercial driver's license and has worked as a truck driver for some ten years. He gradually developed a ruptured disk in his lower back while driving a truck owned by the employer, RDF Transportation, Inc. After back surgery, he returned briefly to work for the appellant but resigned because the work exceeded his medical limitations. As to issues (1) through (4), this appeal turns on factual determinations. Appellate review is therefore de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6- 225(e)(2). This tribunal is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Lee Russell, |
Wayne County | Workers Compensation Panel | 05/13/97 | |
| Randy F. Shadden v. ITT Hartford Ins. Co., et al.
01S01-9607-CH-00148
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer's insurer, Hartford, argues (1) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee or claimant, Shadden, suffered a work related injury, (2) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's award of permanent total disability benefits and (3) the trial court erred in awarding medical expenses not disclosed in response to discovery requests and not "properly proven at trial." The Second Injury Fund (the Fund), which was made a party by an amended complaint, contends the evidence preponderates against the trial judge's finding that the claimant is permanently and totally disabled. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. As a result of a previous compensable injury in 1984, while working for another employer in another state, the claimant was awarded benefits equating to fifty-three percent to the body as a whole. In a vehicular accident in 1989, which was not work related, he suffered spinal injuries which necessitated the insertion of metal rods in his back. The rods were removed in 1994. The employer at all relevant times knew of his pre-existing disabilities. He continued to work with pain and received a number of awards for sales excellence. In January of 1995, he was sales manager for a company in Cookeville which sold copiers. There is conflicting evidence with respect to the exact date of the occurrence, but during the week of January 9, 1995, the claimant noticed a truck driver unloading a large copier, weighing over six hundred pounds, from a truck. He attempted to assist the driver with the unloading when something "popped" in his back and he felt immediate pain. He told a co-worker immediately about the occurrence and had her write it down. He also gave timely written notice. The co-worker testified she had seen the claimant with his hands on the copier, one hand on the side and one on the bottom. The same day, the claimant drove to Fentress County General Hospital's emergency room where he received a shot to relieve his pain. He may or may not have also played racquetball that afternoon, but there is no medical evidence that his new injury was from something other than the lifting incident. He also worked for a few days immediately following the injury but was soon forced to quit because of severe pain. The treating physician, Dr. Leonard Carroll, who was familiar with the claimant's medical history, testified the claimant suffered a new spinal cord injury causally related to the lifting incident and an exacerbation of the pre- existing conditions and that, as a result, he developed, in addition to severe low back pain, bladder incontinence and depression to the extent of being suicidal. 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Billy Joe White, |
Fentress County | Workers Compensation Panel | 05/13/97 | |
| Crum vs. Lawing
03A01-9610-CH-00320
|
Greene County | Court of Appeals | 05/13/97 | |
| Gozenbach vs. Gozenbach
03A01-9609-CV-00314
|
Court of Appeals | 05/13/97 | ||
| Patricia Dunn v. H.D. Lee Co.
01S01-9604-CH-00061
This case is before the Court upon motion for review pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-6-225(e)(5)(B), the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, and the Panel's Memorandum Opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law in dismissing as untimely plaintiff's claim for workers' compensation benefits.
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Originating Judge:PER CURIAM |
Lincoln County | Workers Compensation Panel | 05/13/97 | |
| Carrier Air Conditioning, et al. v. Henry Maguffin
01S01-9607-CV-00135
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employee or claimant, Maguffin, contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that he did not suffer an injury by accident. The panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The claimant was working for Carrier in August of 1993 when he sprained his wrist while operating an air gun, thereby aggravating a pre- existing fracture, or "non-union of the scaphoid bone." His wrist swelled and he felt immediate pain. He received first aid from the company nurse, but continued to work. Almost a year later, because of continuing complaints of pain, he was referred by the employer to an orthopedic surgeon. The doctor operated and returned the claimant to work with some restrictions. In his deposition, the doctor opined that the injury aggravated the pre-existing condition by increasing pain, but did not create any permanent anatomical change. The surgeon was properly paid by the employer. The trial court found that the claimant had not suffered an injury by accident as contemplated by the Workers' Compensation Act. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). Under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law, injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of employment which cause either disablement or death of the employee are compensable. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-12(a)(5). An accidental injury is one which cannot be reasonably anticipated, is unexpected and is precipitated by unusual combinations of fortuitous circumstances. See Fink v. Caudle, 856 S.W.2d 952 (Tenn. 1993), and cases cited therein. An employer takes its employee with all pre-existing conditions, and cannot escape liability when the employee, upon suffering a work related injury, incurs disability far greater than if he had not had the pre-existing condition; Rogers v. Shaw, 813 S.W.2d 397 (Tenn. 1991); but if work aggravates a pre-existing condition merely by increasing pain, there is no injury by accident. Townsend v. State, 826 S.W.2d 434 (Tenn. 1992). The undisputed medical proof from the operating surgeon is that this claimant's aggravation of a pre-existing condition merely increased his pain 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Gerald L. Ewell, Sr., |
Coffee County | Workers Compensation Panel | 05/13/97 | |
| Bunch vs. Bunch
03A01-9609-GS-00301
|
Court of Appeals | 05/13/97 |