Please enter some keywords to search.
| 03C01-9602-CC-00078
03C01-9602-CC-00078
|
Bradley County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/28/97 | |
| 03C01-9511-CC-00365
03C01-9511-CC-00365
|
Anderson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/28/97 | |
| 03C01-9601-CR-00021
03C01-9601-CR-00021
|
Knox County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/28/97 | |
| 01S01-9511-CH-00208
01S01-9511-CH-00208
Originating Judge:Cornelia A. Clark |
Bedford County | Supreme Court | 01/27/97 | |
| Ronald L. Shook v. Yates Construction Co., Inc., et al.
03S01-9602-CV-00011
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, Shook, contends the evidence preponderate against the trial judge's finding that his psychological condition did not arise out of his employment. The panel has concluded that the judgment should be affirmed. The claimant has a long history of mental illness, including severe depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and drug and alcohol abuse. He has been hospitalized and received out-patient care since his discharge from military
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Harold Wimberley, |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | 01/27/97 | |
| 01S01-9511-CH-00208
01S01-9511-CH-00208
Originating Judge:Cornelia A. Clark |
Bedford County | Supreme Court | 01/27/97 | |
| Huttchson vs. Cole
M1999-00204-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Originating Judge:Clara W. Byrd |
Wilson County | Court of Appeals | 01/27/97 | |
| Jerry T. Matheny v. Insurance Co. of North America
02S01-9604-CH-00034
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court inaccordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in not enlarging an award, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6- 241(a)(2). As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The injury in question occurred on September 5, 1992 to the claimant's neck. The claimant was treated by a physician who assigned a permanent impairment rating of eight percent to the body. The claimant returned to work at a wage equal to or greater than the wage he was receiving at the time of the injury and was awarded permanent partial disability benefits on the basis of two and one-half times the impairment rating, or twenty percent to the body as a whole, paid in a lump sum. The award was made on March 22, 1994. On May 9, 1994, the claimant suffered another injury to his neck at work. From that injury, superimposed upon two previous injuries, including the one in question, he was found to be one hundred percent permanently disabled and awarded benefits accordingly. Because of the disability resulting from the most recent injury, the claimant is unable to return to work. The claimant contends he is therefore entitled to have the previous award enlarged. For injuries arising after August 1, 1992, by Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-241(a)(1), in cases where an injured worker is entitled to permanent partial disability benefits to the body as a whole and the pre-injury employer returns the employee to employment at a wage equal to or greater than the wage the employee was receiving at the time of the injury, the maximum permanent partial disability award the employee may receive istwo and one-half times the medical impairment rating. By Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6- 241(a)(2), if the injured worker thereafter loses his or her pre-injury employment, the court may, upon proper application made within one year of the employee's loss of employment, and if such loss of employment is within four hundred weeks of the day the employee returned to work, enlarge the award to a maximum of six times such impairment rating, allowing the employer credit for permanent partial disability benefits already paid for the injury. The only reasonable interpretation of subsection (2) is that if the injured worker's later loss of employment is causally related to the injury for which an award has been made, the trial judge has the discretion to enlarge the award, if the application is timely made. Any other interpretation would be inconsistent with the long standing rule that an employer takes the employee as 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. J. Steven Stafford, |
Lake County | Workers Compensation Panel | 01/27/97 | |
| 02S01-9607-CH-00062
02S01-9607-CH-00062
|
Supreme Court | 01/27/97 | ||
| 02S01-9509-CV-00074
02S01-9509-CV-00074
|
Supreme Court | 01/27/97 | ||
| 01S01-9511-CH-00208
01S01-9511-CH-00208
Originating Judge:Cornelia A. Clark |
Bedford County | Supreme Court | 01/27/97 | |
| 01A01-9607-CV-00316
01A01-9607-CV-00316
Originating Judge:Robert E. Corlew, III |
Rutherford County | Court of Appeals | 01/24/97 | |
| 01A01-9606-CV-00251
01A01-9606-CV-00251
Originating Judge:Barbara N. Haynes |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 01/24/97 | |
| 01A01-9601-CV-00036
01A01-9601-CV-00036
Originating Judge:Bobby H. Capers |
Wilson County | Court of Appeals | 01/24/97 | |
| 01A01-9606-CV-00251
01A01-9606-CV-00251
Originating Judge:Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr. |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 01/24/97 | |
| Clifford J. Kapp v. Transway, Inc.
02S01-9606-CV-00054
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court inaccordance 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 contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee suffered a permanent injury arising out of the employment. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the award of permanent disability benefits should be reversed. The employee or claimant, Kapp, was employed by the employer, Transway, on September 29, 1994 as a truck driver. On that day, the claimant and a co-worker were unloading a tub from a trailer when the co-worker dropped his end, causing the claimant to fall to the floor. He received emergency care at a nearby hospital and was released the same day. Since that time, he has seen numerous doctors. Dr. Michael Smelser, a general practitioner,treated the claimant for pain on three occasions. He performed a neurological examination, which was normal. We find in the record no evidence that Dr. Smelser found any permanent injury or impairment. Dr. Joseph P. Rowland, a neurosurgeon, saw the claimant three or four times. Dr. Rowland conducted a thorough neurological examination and ordered scientific tests, the results of which were normal. Dr. Mark S. Harriman, an orthopedic surgeon, was unable to find any objective evidence of injury. He found no evidence of permanent medical impairment. Dr. Roy Page examined the claimant and found no abnormality. Dr. James H. Owens conducted an extensive examination and found no basis for the claimant's complaint of pain. The only doctor who found any permanent impairment was Dr. Stephen L. Gipson, a pain management doctor. On the basis of complaints of chronic back pain, this doctor assigned a permanent impairment rating of eleven percent to the whole body. All of the medical evidence was by deposition or written reports. The claimant has not returned to work. 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. C. Creed Mcginley, |
Decatur County | Workers Compensation Panel | 01/24/97 | |
| 01A01-9607-CH-00336
01A01-9607-CH-00336
Originating Judge:Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr. |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 01/24/97 | |
| Garland Powell vs. State
02C01-9612-CC-00483
|
Lauderdale County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/24/97 | |
| 01A01-9608-CH-00371
01A01-9608-CH-00371
Originating Judge:Robert S. Brandt |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 01/24/97 | |
| Janice Bruce v. Tecumseh Products Company
02S01-9604-CV-00042
This workers' compensation appeal has b een referred to the Special W ork ers ' C om pe ns atio n A pp ea ls Panel of the Supreme Co urt in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and rep orting of find ings of fa ct an d co nc lusio ns of law . This is an ap pe al by the de fen da nt/e m ploy er, Tec umseh Products Company, from a judgment in fav or o f th e p lain tiff/a pp elle e, Janice Bruce, awarding workers' compensation benefits based on 45% permanent partial disability to the body as a wh ole. The judgment also held the d efen da nt res po nsib le for m edical expenses incurred by plain tiff for the care and treatment provided by Dr. Terry O. Harrison an d D r. Ra y W . He ster, p hys ician s no t sele cted by th e d efe nd an t. The defendant presents three issues for review: 1. Did the trial co urt e rr in find ing th at th e lim itation of two and one-half (2-1/2) times the ana tomical rating set out in T. C .A . S ec tion 5 -6- 24 1(a )(1 ) did no t ap ply to th is cause? 2. Does the ev ide nc e p rep on de rat e a ga in s t the trial co urt's findin g tha t Plain tiff susta ined a forty-five (45% ) percent pe rm an en t pa rtial disa bility to the body as a whole? 3. Did the tria l cou rt err in finding that Tecumseh should be resp on sible fo r the m ed ical ex pe nse s incu rred b y Pla intiff for the care and treatm ent pro vided by D r. Terry O . Ha rrison an d D r. Ra y W . He ster? Be fore ad dre ssin g th e iss ue s, w e will discuss the evidence found in the record. The plain tiff is a lady th irty-one yea rs o f ag e a t th e tim e o f tria l. 2
Authoring Judge: F. Lloyd Tatum, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Creed Mcginley, |
Henry County | Workers Compensation Panel | 01/23/97 | |
| Vickie L. Parks v. Brother Industries, USA, Inc.
02S01-9605-CH-00046
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 injured employee or claimant, Parks, contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's award of permanent partial disability benefits based on fifteen percent to the right arm for her repetitive trauma injury, and in favor of one based on seventy-five percent to the right arm. The panel has concluded that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The claimant is forty-one years old and has a tenth grade education and a General Education Diploma. She gradually developed right carpal tunnel syndrome from repetitive use of her right hand and wrist in a typewriter production line. After being treated or examined by six different doctors, none of whom satisfactorily diagnosed and treated her condition, she saw Dr. James T. Galyon, who surgically repaired her right wrist, returned her to work after a period of recovery, and estimated her permanent impairment at five percent to the right hand and wrist or four percent to the right upper extremity. The claimant returned to work for the employer for a year and a half, but has since quit because of another injury to another member. She later saw Dr. Joseph Boals for an evaluation. Dr. Boals assigned a permanent impairment rating of ten percent to the right upper extremity and restricted her from any work which would require repetitive use of or heavy lifting with the right arm, but otherwise encouraged her to work. The trial court found fifteen percent permanent partial disability to the right arm. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of the trial court, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). Once the causation and permanency of an injury have been established by expert testimony, the trial judge may consider many pertinent factors, including age, job skills, education, training, duration of disability and job opportunities for the disabled, in addition to anatomical impairment, for the purpose of evaluating the extent of a claimant's permanent disability. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-241(a)(2). From our independent examination of the record and a consideration of those factors, to the extent they were established by the proof at trial, we do not find the evidence to preponderate against the findings of the trial judge. 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Neal Small, |
Shelby County | Workers Compensation Panel | 01/23/97 | |
| State vs. Rodney Bufford
02C01-9904-CC-00131
|
Lauderdale County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/23/97 | |
| Richard D. Roberts v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
02S01-9607-CV-00066
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 employer, Goodyear, contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings that (1) the employee or claimant, Roberts, did not knowingly and willfully misrepresent his physical condition in an employment application, (2) the claimant suffered a compensable injury by accident and (3) the claimant retains a twenty percent permanent partial disability of twenty percent to the body as a whole. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. From 197 until April, 1988, the claimant was employed by another employer, Carborundum, as an electrician. In April, 1988, Carborundum ceased its operations. The out-of-work claimant applied to Goodyear for a job and, in March of 1989, was called to Goodyear regarding available jobs in its production department. After an interview, he was hired subject to a medical evaluation. He completed a medical evaluation form, including the medical history portion, then was examined by a physician, in accordance with the employer's standard practice. The claimant was approved for hiring on March 13, 1989. In completing the personal medical history portion of the medical evaluation form, the claimant checked "no" in response to the question which asked whether he had any "Disorder of the musculo-skeletal system -- back trouble, knee trouble, painful or swollen joints, bone fracture, gout, arthritis, amputations, etc.?" In response to another question, however, he noted a previous broken hip and repair to his urethra during a previous injury at Carborundum, for which he asserted a claim for workers' compensation benefits in 1976. After that injury and surgery, the claimant complained from time to time about low back pain. In the pre-employment physical examination, the physician reviewed the claimant's personal medical history and questioned him regarding the broken hip and urethra repair, but did not ask about any back pain associated with the injury. None was related. The physician then conducted a physical examination of the claimant and approved him for work with no restrictions. The claimant was assigned to the production department. On April 7, 1989, while at work and changing a roll weighing approximately 12 pounds, the claimant injured his back. The injury was diagnosed as a ruptured disc and treated with open surgery. The operating surgeon assigned an eleven percent permanent whole person impairment, from appropriate guidelines. 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. W. Michael Maloan, |
Obion County | Workers Compensation Panel | 01/23/97 | |
| Eugene Smith vs. State
02C01-9701-CC-00018
|
Lake County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/23/97 | |
| Marilyn L. Green v. Carlos Eugene Green
02A01-9601-CH-00014
In this divorce action, the trial court awarded Marilyn Green (the “Wife”) a divorce from Carlos Green (the “Husband”) upon the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct. Pursuant to a property settlement agreement, the parties agreed to sell the marital home by auction, pay the remaining indebtedness on the home and divide the proceeds equally. The parties agreed that the Wife would receive a Mercury automobile, a Ford Thunderbird automobile, the furniture, household furnishings and real estate located in the Eaton community. The parties agreed that the Husband would receive the farming equipment, guns, saddles and two pickup trucks. The trial court divided the remainder of the parties’ property and awarded the wife a one-half interest in the Husband’s retirement income and awarded the Husband a one-half interest in the Wife’s retirement income. The court further awarded each party a one-fourth interest in a fifty-seven acre tract of land in the Eaton community and awarded each party a one-sixth interest in twenty acres of corn planted as of the date of the final divorce hearing. The court further ordered that the livestock owned by the parties be sold and the proceeds divided equally. The Husband has appealed the judgment of the trial court arguing that the trial court’s division of property was improper. For the reasons stated hereafter, we reverse the judgment of the trial court as to the Wife’s interest in a fifty-seven acre tract of land in the Eaton community and affirm as to the Wife’s interest in twenty acres of planted corn.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Originating Judge:Judge George R. Ellis |
Gibson County | Court of Appeals | 01/23/97 |