Larry R. Williams v. Scott Bolt & Screw Co., et al.
01S01-9604-CH-00077
Authoring Judge: Robert S. Brandt, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ellen Hobbs Lyle,
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 of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that a brown recluse spider bit him while he was at work on April 15, 1993. The trial court denied his claim. Because the evidence does not support the plaintiff's claim, the trial court decision is affirmed. The plaintiff testified that his left leg started itching at work at about 2: p.m. on April 15 or maybe April 19, he is not sure which. At any rate, in his deposition the plaintiff testified that the next thing he noticed was a sore knee the following morning, but he did not pay much attention to it. He testified differently at trial. The plaintiff and his live-in girlfriend both testified they saw a red mark on his knee when he undressed after work the afternoon the itching stared. In any event, the pain started the next morning. The plaintiff went to work and worked almost all day. The pain got bad toward quitting time, and the employer encouraged the plaintiff to see a doctor. He did, and eventually came under the care of two Vanderbilt doctors, Phillip Wolinsky, an orthopedic surgeon, and Bruce Shack, a plastic surgeon. Neither of them know whether a brown recluse spider bite caused the plaintiff's wound. But it was serious whatever caused it, and the plaintiff suffers permanent impairment as a result of it. The doctors' testimony contradicts the plaintiff's claim that a brown recluse spider bit him at work. Dr. Wolinsky does not know much about brown recluse spider bites, and what little he does know and shared in his deposition does not support the plaintiff's claim. According to Wolinsky, the literature referred to by the plaintiff's counsel indicates that while a bite may not cause any immediate pain, some localized pain develops within an hour or so. -2-

Randy Wilson v. Eaton Corporation
01S01-9605-CH-00107
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Tyrus H. Cobb,
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 judge awarded the plaintiff 5% permanent partial disability to the right hand. He refused to award temporary total disability benefits because plaintiff had lost no wages during his period of temporary total disability. Appellant challenges the trial court's findings that plaintiff sustained a work- related injury by accident to his right thumb in August 1992, that plaintiff gave notice of such an injury and that this claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. Appellee challenges the trial court's refusal to award temporary total disability benefits. Appellee also argues that the appellant should be estopped from pleading the affirmative defenses relied upon for failure to show proper and timely filing of the required notice of controversy. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Plaintiff, 4 at the time of trial, has his high school diploma. He has worked primarily in factories; he also worked as a patrolman for two-and-a-half years. He has worked for the appellant since 1984. He now works as a gear lab technician, which requires lifting and grasping of parts ranging from 3 to 4 pounds apiece. In August 1992 he developed a knot on the outside of his thumb and began having stiffness and pain in his thumb and difficulty grasping objects. A few weeks later, a part overturned in his hand and "snapped [his] thumb out." Plaintiff testified that he reported his injury the next day, August 21, 1992, to the plant nurse. She asked him if he had ever hurt his thumb before, and he told her the only time he had ever hurt it before would have been in 1988 when he had fallen. He testified that the nurse told him that she thought his problem with his thumb had something to do with his 1988 fall. In the 1988 fall, plaintiff hit his left hand against a railing and strained three of his fingers on his left hand; he also jammed the thumb on his right hand, but there is no record of a complaint about the 2

Premier Manufacturing, et al. v. Patricia Cothran
01S01-9605-CV-00102
Authoring Judge: Robert S. Brandt, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. William B. Cain,
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 of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found that the plaintiff failed to carry her burden of proving that she sustained a permanent disabling injury, a finding based upon assessing the credibility of the witnesses. Given the considerable deference we must give to the trial court's credibility determinations, McCaleb v. Saturn Corp., 91 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1995) and the presumption of correctness of the trial court's findings, Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2), we affirm the trial court's decision. The plaintiff worked for Premier Manufacturing Support Services, Inc., a contractor at the Spring Hill Saturn automobile assembly plant. The company performed a variety of services for Saturn, including cleaning the interiors of buildings and maintaining the grounds. The plaintiff worked at several inside and outside jobs before she sought and received a job driving cars off the assembly line. On January 14, 1994, the car the plaintiff was driving backed into a light pole. She was taken to a Columbia hospital where she was treated and released. The company sent the plaintiff to Dr. Larry Laughlin, an orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed her as having back and neck strain. He referred her to Pinnacle Rehabilitation for physical therapy. On the plaintiff's second visit to Laughlin, he conducted a test that indicated that the plaintiff was magnifying her symptoms. The finding of a MRI was normal. Pinnacle conducted a symptom magnification test on the plaintiff, and she scored a four out of five, which means positive for symptom magnification. Laughlin testified that he could not find any significant problems with the plaintiff and he found no permanent impairment. He placed no physical restrictions on her work. -2-

Elvin L. Blankenship and wife, Mary Blankenship, and Wayne Blankenship, v. Alvis Blankenship and wife, Dorothy Blankenship, and Charles Goodman and wife, Kathy Goodman
02A01-9603-CH-00051
Authoring Judge: Judge Heschel Pickens Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joe C. Morris

In this boundary line dispute the Trial Court appointed a surveyor who established a boundary line between the parties which ws adopted by the Trial Judge in the Decree in this case. Defendants has appealed, asserting the Trial Court erred in limiting their proof and in adopting the boundary established by the surveyor.

01A01-9607-CV-00317
01A01-9607-CV-00317
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall

01A01-9601-GS-00021
01A01-9601-GS-00021
Trial Court Judge: Barry R. Brown

01A01-9607-CV-00328
01A01-9607-CV-00328
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall

01A01-9607-CV-00337
01A01-9607-CV-00337
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

State vs. Marvin Mathews
02C01-9701-CC-00024

01C01-9411-CC-00378
01C01-9411-CC-00378
Trial Court Judge: William B. Cain

01C01-9507-CC-00234
01C01-9507-CC-00234

01C01-9510-CR-00335
01C01-9510-CR-00335
Trial Court Judge: Thomas H. Shriver

01C01-9510-CC-00326
01C01-9510-CC-00326
Trial Court Judge: James K. Clayton, Jr.

01C01-9604-CC-00138
01C01-9604-CC-00138
Trial Court Judge: Gerald L. Ewell, Sr.

01C01-9603-CC-00099
01C01-9603-CC-00099

01C01-9602-CR-00071
01C01-9602-CR-00071

01C01-9601-CR-00045
01C01-9601-CR-00045

On April 29, 1993. See State v. Teresa M. King, No. 01C01-9204-Cr-00146 (Tenn. Crim.
01C01-9610-CR-00449

Carl E. Jordan, v. Tennessee Board of Paroles, et al.
01A01-9607-CH-00347
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert S. Brandt

An inmate in the custody of the Department of Correction filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to challenge the Parole Board’s refusal to grant him parole. The Chancery Court dismissed the Petition for failure to comply with the time limitations for filing. We affirm the dismissal on the alternate ground of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

01A01-9606-CH-00278
01A01-9606-CH-00278
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

01A01-9606-CH-00279
01A01-9606-CH-00279
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

Seffernick vs. St. Thomas Hospital
01A01-9606-CV-00282

01A01-9606-CH-00256
01A01-9606-CH-00256
Trial Court Judge: Henry F. Todd

01A01-9606-CH-00256
01A01-9606-CH-00256

01A01-9605-CH-00222
01A01-9605-CH-00222
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White