The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear eight cases – four civil and four criminal – in oral arguments held February 4 and 5 in Nashville.
The civil cases:
- The Chattanooga-Hamilton Co. Hospital Authority d/b/a Erlanger Health Systems v. United Healthcare Plan of the River Valley, Inc. d/b/a Americhoice and TN Attorney General – Erlanger Hospital in Chattanooga filed suit against Americhoice claiming that the TennCare-managed health plan did not pay in full for services rendered in its emergency room. Americhoice, which did not have a contract with the hospital, said they were only responsible for the rates specified in the TennCare regulations. The hospital’s claims were dismissed by the trial court, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court will hear the appeal of Americhoice and the Tennessee Attorney General.
- Action Chiropractic Clinic, LLC v. Prentice Delon Hyler & Erie Ins. Exchange– This case involves a patient of Action Chiropractic Clinic of Nashville who assigned his rights to an insurance settlement over to the clinic, which was treating him for injuries caused in an automobile accident. Erie Insurance Exchange did not honor the assignment. Action Chiropractic Clinic sued, but the trial court ruled for Erie. The Court of Appeals agreed. The Supreme Court will consider whether such assignment of insurance proceeds is allowed.
- Richard Moreno v. City of Clarksville – Mr. Moreno filed a claim with the State Division of Claims Administration after a tree on state property fell on his car and injured him. The claim was then passed along to the Claims Commission and Mr. Moreno filed a complaint there. The state then alleged that the City of Clarksville was also to blame for the injury. When Mr. Moreno filed suit against the City of Clarksville, the city said the deadline for filing a complaint had passed. The trial court agreed, but the Court of Appeals said he had met the requirements by filing the original Claims Commission complaint on time. The Supreme Court will consider whether the requirements were indeed fulfilled.
- In re Estate of Sarah Margaret Wilkins – This case from Robertson County considers whether a son who had a health care power of attorney for his mother was required to submit to arbitration before proceeding with a lawsuit against the nursing home for abuse and neglect of his mother. The trial court said the arbitration was required, but the Court of Appeals disagreed. The Supreme Court will determine if the son was authorized to execute an arbitration agreement on behalf of his mother.
The criminal cases:
- Latickia Tashay Burgins v. State – The Knox County defendant was charged with possession of marijuana and released on bond. While on bond, she was charged with attempted first-degree murder, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, attempted especially aggravated robbery, attempted carjacking, and aggravated assault. The trial court revoked her bond for the marijuana charge. She appealed the bond revocation, claiming the law that allows for revocation is in violation of the Tennessee Constitution. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed, saying the “statute violates the constitutional guarantee of the right to bail under Article I, section 15 of the Tennessee Constitution.” The state has appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
- State v. Mechelle L. Montgomery – Ms. Montgomery challenged the evidence in a Williamson County driving under the influence case, saying she was unreasonably seized by the police officer and there was not probable cause to arrest her. The trial court ruled that Ms. Montgomery's detention was unreasonable because it was too lengthy.The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the trial court and the state now appeals to the Supreme Court.
- State v. Jerome Maurice Teats – The defendant, Mr. Teats, was convicted of aggravated robbery and kidnapping for his involvement in the crimes at a Nashville Shoney’s in 2009. He appealed the conviction, raising several issues, and the Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the convictions. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the defendant asks the Court to review whether the jury was properly instructed and whether a request to suppress a statement made by the defendant was properly denied.
- State v. Ricco R. Williams – This case is before the Supreme Court after having been considered in 2013 and then sent back to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a review of a kidnapping conviction. In this case, the felony for which Mr. Williams was convicted necessarily includes some period of confinement. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed two of Mr. Williams’ especiallyaggravated kidnapping charges, saying the kidnapping was a necessary part of the underlying felony. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court will consider whether the five additional kidnaping counts are supported by the evidence.
See the schedule of oral arguments.