APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS | Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

Please enter some keywords to search.

COURT

COUNTY

AUTHORING JUDGE

ORIGINATING JUDGE

CASE NUMBER

DATE FILTER

SEARCH TITLE

SEARCH CASE SUMMARY

Alva Marie Reynolds v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 01S01-9509-CH-00172 This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting findings of fact and conclusions of law to the Supreme Court. Alva Marie Reynolds, the plaintiff- employee, appeals the decision of the Coffee County Chancery Court denying her relief on her worker's compensation claim. On appeal, the sole issue is whether the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff failed to carry the burden of proving that she sustained an injury arising out of her employment. The trial court found plaintiff 's injury was the result of a pre-existing idiopathic condition. On January 5, 1993, the plaintiff, who was at that time sixty-two years old, sustained an injury to her ankle when she fell at her place of employment, Wal- Mart. The plaintiff had worked at Wal-Mart in diverse capacities for eleven years before her accident, and at the time of her injury, she had been working in the fitting room area for a couple of years. In addition to monitoring the clothing which was brought in and out of the fitting room, she answered Wal-Mart's incoming calls, made announcements, and paged employees within the store. Regarding her fall, the plaintiff testified that, after being told to take a hurried break, she rushed out of the fitting room and fell at the point that the floor changed from carpet to tile. She testified that she had not previously experienced numbness in her legs nor had she ever fallen at work or home before this incident. The plaintiff worked the remainder of the day and did not see a doctor until the next day when her ankle was diagnosed as being broken. On cross-examination, the plaintiff acknowledged that in two depositions taken after the accident, she did not mention that she was in a hurry at the time that she fell. She explained that she did not remember this until later. However, in a deposition 2 Authoring Judge: Erry L. Smith, Special Judge Originating Judge:Hon. John W. Rollins, Judge	Coffee County	Workers Compensation Panel	10/25/96
02A01-9508-CV-00185 02A01-9508-CV-00185 Originating Judge:John Franklin Murchison	Madison County	Court of Appeals	10/25/96
02A01-9508-CV-00185 02A01-9508-CV-00185 Originating Judge:John Franklin Murchison	Madison County	Court of Appeals	10/25/96
01C01-9312-CR-00439 01C01-9312-CR-00439 Originating Judge:Walter C. Kurtz	Davidson County	Court of Criminal Appeals	10/24/96
01C01-9511-CR-00397 01C01-9511-CR-00397	Davidson County	Court of Criminal Appeals	10/24/96
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX		Court of Appeals	10/24/96
01C01-9601-CC-00018 01C01-9601-CC-00018	Maury County	Court of Criminal Appeals	10/24/96
03A01-9603-CH-00100 03A01-9603-CH-00100 Originating Judge:William H. Inman		Court of Appeals	10/24/96
02A01-9603-CH-00055 02A01-9603-CH-00055	Shelby County	Court of Appeals	10/24/96
01C01-9509-CC-00293 01C01-9509-CC-00293 Originating Judge:Cornelia A. Clark	Williamson County	Court of Criminal Appeals	10/24/96
03A01-9603-CH-00113 03A01-9603-CH-00113 Originating Judge:Inman		Court of Appeals	10/24/96
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Insurance Company and Schering-Plough Health Care Products, Inc. v. Willie Gwen Smith 02S01-9511-CV-00110 This worker's compensation appeal has been referred to the special worker's compensation appeals panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiffs filed suit seeking a determination that defendant is not entitled to workers' compensation benefits. They appeal from the trial court's finding that she is entitled to benefits. Authoring Judge: Cornelia A. Clark, Special Judge Originating Judge:Hon. D'Army Bailey,	Shelby County	Workers Compensation Panel	10/23/96
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX	Hamblen County	Court of Appeals	10/23/96
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX		Court of Appeals	10/23/96
Neva Jewel Milam v. Hca Health Systems, Inc. d/b/a Centennial Medical Center 01S01-9601-CH-00004 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 contends (1) the award of permanent partial disability benefits is inadequate and (2) the chancellor "erred as a matter of law by deciding, before any evidence had been heard or any witnesses testified, that the on-the-job accident had only a tangential relationship with" her injury. The employer seeks dismissal of the appeal because the claimant did not file a statement of the evidence and was not entitled to a copy of the transcript of the evidence. Because a transcript is part of the record on appeal, the issue raised by the employer must necessarily be considered first. Unlike some other jurisdictions, Tennessee does not provide official court stenographers for civil trials. Instead, it is customary in this state that the parties to civil litigation will engage a stenographer and pay a per diem for stenographic services. Those parties who participate in the per diem may, for an additional fee, order from the stenographer a transcript of the evidence for use on appeal in case of an adverse decision in the trial court. The stenographer does not customarily make the transcript available to a party who did not participate in payment of the per diem. It is a matter of contract among the parties to the litigation and the non-party stenographer; and a party who does not join in the engagement and payment of a stenographer has no contract right to require the stenographer to transcribe the record which is therefore unavailable until made available on terms satisfactory to both the stenographer and the party or parties who engaged the stenographer. See Beef N' Bird of America, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Company, 83 S.W.2d 234 (Tenn. App. 199). Instead, a non-participating party may prepare a narrative statement of the evidence for use on appeal. The procedure for including a statement of the evidence in the record on appeal is provided by Tenn. R. App. P. 24(c). We find no statement of the evidence in the record. In this case, the employer engaged the services of a stenographer - or court reporter - in the trial court and paid the full per diem. The claimant did not participate. When the chancellor issued his decision, however, she was dissatisfied with the outcome and decided to appeal. Instead of preparing a statement of the evidence, she applied to the trial court for an order requiring the employer to make a transcript available to her. The trial court granted the motion. Appellate rules do not require that a party who has assumed the burden of providing a court reporter at trial make available that reporter's work for a party who did not join in providing the reporter; and, in the absence of unusual circumstances, the rules do not permit a party to see how his case comes out before deciding whether to share in the reporter's fees. One who follows that course runs the risk of not having a verbatim record available. See Estate of 2 Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge Originating Judge:Hon. Robert S. Brandt,	Davidson County	Workers Compensation Panel	10/23/96
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Insurance Company and Schering-Plough Health Care Products, Inc. v. Willie Gwen Smith 02S01-9511-CV-00110 This worker's compensation appeal has been referred to the special worker's compensation appeals panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiffs filed suit seeking a determination that defendant is not entitled to workers' compensation benefits. They appeal from the trial court's finding that she is entitled to benefits. Authoring Judge: Cornelia A. Clark, Special Judge Originating Judge:Hon. D'Army Bailey,	Shelby County	Workers Compensation Panel	10/23/96
Geneva Hicks v. Emerson Motor Company 02S01-9602-CH-00022 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 contends the evidence preponderates against the findings of the trial court with respect to causation and permanency. The panel finds the preponderance of the evidence to be contrary to the finding of the trial court with respect to causation. The employee or claimant, Geneva Hicks, is 45 with an eleventh grade education. She has worked at a day care center, caring for small children, in a clothing factory and as a fruit packer. She has worked in various jobs for the employer, Emerson, since 198. She has suffered from hoarseness and shortness of breath at work since about 1992, for which she has seen numerous doctors. In the course of her work for Emerson, she was exposed to various fumes. The employer has attempted to accommodate her by transfer to different departments and by the use of fans. She finally commenced this action for workers' compensation benefits for a claimed occupational disease, which she labeled allergic bronchitis. She was referred by her attorney to Dr. A. Clyde Heflin, Jr., who saw her on several occasions and opined in his deposition testimony that she was possibly having asthmatic attacks at work. The doctor was given a list of chemicals and asked and answered as follows: Q. ...(A)t this point in time, do you have an opinion, based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty, as to what connection this lady's job place has as to her asthmatic condition? A. The list of substances that I've been supplied have numerous items which are -- and maybe we need to regress a second. The workplace environment, as far as causing asthma, you have to understand that asthma we now consider to be this hyper-reactive or irritable state of the lungs; and that is caused or generated by someone or a substance causing what we call an inflammatory condition or direct irritation of the lungs. So there is a long list of substances now known in the workplace that actually can induce asthma; and the classic one of these are TDI's, or diasocyanates, which are used in the plastics industry, for instance. The epoxy resins, which I don't see here specifically listed, but are often used in electrical manufacturing, can cause this as well. 2 Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge Originating Judge:Hon. George R. Ellis,	Gibson County	Workers Compensation Panel	10/23/96
Geneva Hicks v. Emerson Motor Company 02S01-9602-CH-00022 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 contends the evidence preponderates against the findings of the trial court with respect to causation and permanency. The panel finds the preponderance of the evidence to be contrary to the finding of the trial court with respect to causation. The employee or claimant, Geneva Hicks, is 45 with an eleventh grade education. She has worked at a day care center, caring for small children, in a clothing factory and as a fruit packer. She has worked in various jobs for the employer, Emerson, since 198. She has suffered from hoarseness and shortness of breath at work since about 1992, for which she has seen numerous doctors. In the course of her work for Emerson, she was exposed to various fumes. The employer has attempted to accommodate her by transfer to different departments and by the use of fans. She finally commenced this action for workers' compensation benefits for a claimed occupational disease, which she labeled allergic bronchitis. She was referred by her attorney to Dr. A. Clyde Heflin, Jr., who saw her on several occasions and opined in his deposition testimony that she was possibly having asthmatic attacks at work. The doctor was given a list of chemicals and asked and answered as follows: Q. ...(A)t this point in time, do you have an opinion, based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty, as to what connection this lady's job place has as to her asthmatic condition? A. The list of substances that I've been supplied have numerous items which are -- and maybe we need to regress a second. The workplace environment, as far as causing asthma, you have to understand that asthma we now consider to be this hyper-reactive or irritable state of the lungs; and that is caused or generated by someone or a substance causing what we call an inflammatory condition or direct irritation of the lungs. So there is a long list of substances now known in the workplace that actually can induce asthma; and the classic one of these are TDI's, or diasocyanates, which are used in the plastics industry, for instance. The epoxy resins, which I don't see here specifically listed, but are often used in electrical manufacturing, can cause this as well. 2 Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge Originating Judge:Hon. George R. Ellis,	Gibson County	Workers Compensation Panel	10/23/96
03A01-9603-CV-00110 03A01-9603-CV-00110 Originating Judge:Inman		Court of Appeals	10/23/96
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX		Court of Appeals	10/23/96
01S01-9610-CH-00211 01S01-9610-CH-00211		Supreme Court	10/23/96
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX		Court of Appeals	10/23/96
Darla Holt v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. 03S01-9601-CV-00003 This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court awarded plaintiff 3% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. Defendant challenges the permanency of the injury and the methodology used by the trial judge to reach his finding. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Plaintiff, 28, has a GED and has been trained as a certified nursing technician. Most of her work experience has been in this area. She was involved in a car accident in 1988 which eventually led to a total right hip replacement in July 1992 due to avascular necrosis. Plaintiff injured her back lifting a patient on November 7, 1993. Plaintiff was treated by Dr. Boyd D. Matthews, a chiropractor, who testified in this case by deposition. He opined that plaintiff had central disc protrusions at L4- L5 and L5-S1 based upon his examination, plaintiff's complaints and the results of various imaging studies. He assigned plaintiff a permanent impairment rating of 33% to the body as a whole. He arrived at this impairment rating by rating various impairment factors and compiling them under the AMA Guides. Dr. Robert H. Haralson, III, an orthopedic surgeon, examined the plaintiff at the request of the defendant and testified by deposition. He opined that, although plaintiff certainly had a back injury, she did not retain any permanent impairment. He acknowledged that plaintiff had protruding discs at L4 and L5; however, he opined that they did not impinge on plaintiff's nerves and that they pre- existed her back injury, based on his review of CT scans taken before and after the work- related injury. The trial judge discredited the testimony of Dr. Boyd D. Matthews. With Dr. Matthew's testimony discredited, there was no medical testimony upon which to base a medical impairment finding. The trial judge, in his ruling, found, based upon 2 Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers Originating Judge:Hon. John A. Turnbull,	Cumberland County	Workers Compensation Panel	10/23/96
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX		Court of Appeals	10/22/96
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX	Hawkins County	Court of Appeals	10/22/96