Jodie Willis vs. Alan Willis
W2000-01613-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford
Father petitioned the court for a reduction in his child support obligation based upon a significant variance between his former salary and his current salary. The trial court determined Father to be voluntarily underemployed. The trial court imputed Father's base salary as potential income but did not impute Father's overtime pay. As a result, the trial court reduced Father's child support obligation by ten dollars per week. We affirm the trial court's determination that Father was voluntarily underemployed; however, we reverse and remand the trial court's determination of Father's potential income.

State vs. Torrey Frazier
E2000-01364-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen
A Roane County grand jury indicted the defendant on one count of first degree premeditated murder. Following a jury trial, he stood convicted of second degree murder. For this offense he received a twenty-two year sentence as a violent offender. After unsuccessfully pursuing a motion for a new trial, the defendant brings the present appeal to this Court raising four issues. More specifically, he avers that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a tech-nine weapon not associated with the offense; (3) the trial court erred in permitting the State to question a defense witness concerning a pending statutory rape charge; and (4) the trial court erred by sentencing the defendant to twenty-two years. Upon review of these issues, we find that all lack merit or constitute harmless error. We, thus, affirm the conviction and sentence.

Colonial Baking Com Pany v. Clayton Barrett
M1999-02276-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Howell N. Peoples, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle, Chancellor
A court-approved settlement limited the employee to authorized, reasonable and necessary medical expenses resulting from the employee's injuries for a period of two years from the settlement. The employee appeals the trial court's denial of his Motion for Relief from Order seeking relief from the order approving the settlement, pursuant to Rule 6.2, of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm the trial court and dismiss the appeal.

State of Tennessee v. Lawrence Wyatt
W2000-01672-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roger A. Page

The defendant appeals from his convictions for conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery and facilitation of aggravated robbery. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Glenna Fink vs. Richard Fink
E2000-02468-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Telford E. Forgerty, Jr.
Glenna C. Fink ("Wife") filed a Complaint for Divorce against Richard H. Fink ("Husband") on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct and irreconcilable differences. Husband filed an Answer and Counter-Complaint seeking a divorce on the same grounds. The Trial Court awarded the divorce to Wife and dismissed Husband's Counter-Complaint. The parties agreed to the sale of the marital residence, and the Trial Court awarded Wife $14,000.00 in attorney's fees out of the sale of the proceeds, with the remaining proceeds from the sale to be split 55% to Wife and 45% to Husband. Wife was awarded the full interest in her retirement/disability benefits. The Trial Court also determined that certain sums which Husband claimed were marital property were actually a gift to the parties' minor daughter and the daughter was, therefore, entitled to keep these funds. The Trial Court further awarded Wife $450.00 per month as alimony in futuro. Husband filed a Motion pursuant to Rules 59.02 and 59.04 of the Tenn. R. Civ. P. challenging these determinations. The Trial Court denied Husband's motion, and Husband appeals. We affirm, award Wife attorney's fees incident to this appeal, and remand this matter to the Trial Court for a determination of the amount of reasonable attorney's fees incurred by Wife on appeal.

State of Tennessee v. Robert N. Rogers
E2000-00866-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

The defendant contends that the trial court erroneously ordered service of his original sentences upon the revocation of his probation. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Judy Hall Travis vs. Kenneth D. Travis, Jr.
E2000-01043-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
This appeal from the Hamblen County Chancery Court questions whether the Trial Court erred in finding that a portion of the value of the marital residence is the separate property of the Appellee, Kenneth D. Travis, Jr.,and whether the Trial Court abused its discretion by allowing Mr. Travis to claim the parties' minor children as dependents for federal income tax purposes, by failing to award the parties joint custody of their minor children, and in setting Mr. Travis's visitation schedule. We reverse in part, affirm in part and remand for further proceedings, if any, consistent with this opinion. We adjudge costs of the appeal against Judy Hall Travis and Kenneth D. Travis, Jr. equally.

Methodist Hospital of Dyersburg, Inc., v. Linda Ams
W2000-01569-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Loser, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Lee Moore, Judge
The employer-appellant contends the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive. As discussed below, the panel has concluded that the evidence preponderates against an award based on five times the undisputed medical impairment rating.

Kathy Riley v. The Travelers Insurance Company
W2000-01738-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Martha B. Brasfield, Chancellor
The employer's insurer, Travelers, insists the employee's injury did not arise out of the employment and that the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on 55 percent to the right leg is excessive. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the evidence fails to preponderate against the findings of the trial court.

Chad Conatser v. Metro Ready Mix,
M2005-00814-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Royce Taylor, Judge
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-6-225(e)(3), for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Plaintiff alleged a cervical injury apparently owing to two separate events, including an injury sustained while exercising on the job, and another injury occurring when the truck he was driving ran into a hole and bounced him upward, jamming his neck. A number of medical physicians found no basis for his complaint. A chiropractic physician, by a range of motion study, opined that he retained a 26 percent impairment. The trial court found that the Plaintiff retained percent disability as a result of his work related injury on July 22, 2, and we affirm. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed WILLIAM H. INMAN, SR. J., in which CORNELIA A. CLARK, J., and ROBERT E. CORLEW III, SP. J., joined. Robert L. Huskey, Manchester, Tennessee, attorney for Appellant, Chad Conatser. Bree A. Taylor, Nashville, Tennessee, attorney for Appellee, Metro Ready Mix and Lumberman's Underwriting Alliance. MEMORANDUM OPINION This complaint was filed on March 15, 21, alleging that the Plaintiff sustained a compensable injury to his neck and cervical spine on or about April 1, 2 during the course and scope of his employment as a truck driver. It appears that the Plaintiff first injured his neck while doing on-the-job exercises at a gym provided by the Employer. The Plaintiff was not treated for any injuries occurring as a result of this incident. Testimony revealed that while driving a ready-mix concrete truck on July 22, 2, the Plaintiff ran into a depression which jolted him vertically, with his head striking the roof of the cab resulting in a cervical injury1 of a disputed nature. A supervisor took the Plaintiff to the emergency room immediately following this incident, where he was treated and released. About six weeks after the described incident occurred, the Plaintiff sought medical attention from Dr. Thomas O'Brien, an employer-approved orthopedic specialist2. Dr. O'Brien sent the Plaintiff to physical therapy and placed him on light duty from October 23, 2 until November 1, 2, when he was released at maximum medical improvement. Dr. O'Brien opined that the Plaintiff retained a percent permanent partial impairment rating. He saw Dr. O'Brien a total of three times, and asked to see a different physician. He then saw Dr. J. Keith Nichols, also an orthopedic specialist, on two occasions. Dr. Nichols treated the Plaintiff with injections and physical therapy, but declined to impose any work restrictions on him. Dr. Nichols released the Plaintiff on December 5, 2, noting subjective complaints with no objective findings of abnormality. He released the Plaintiff at maximum medical improvement, gave him a permanent partial impairment rating of percent, and testified that he could continue in his normal job activities. Both doctors indicated that the Plaintiff's neurological exams were normal, and that any problem he was having would resolve over time. The Plaintiff continued to drive a concrete redi-mix truck, and began to have "little accidents" as he described, like backing into a guy wire and into a tree because he was unable to turn his head, owing to stiffness in his neck. He was fired on August 1, 21, apparently due to his inability to continue to drive a concrete truck safely. The Plaintiff, of his own volition, then saw Dr. Jeffrey McKinley, a chiropractor, on February 28, 21. He performed a range of motion study on the Plaintiff, using the Fourth Edition of the Guidelines, because he did not have the Fifth Edition, which was then current.3 Dr. McKinley testified that the Plaintiff never mentioned the July 2 or July 21 injuries during the course of his treatment, that his opinion was based exclusively on the April 1, 2 incident, and has nothing to do with subsequent injuries. He admitted that had he known about the subsequent injuries, it would have "had an impact". He last saw the Plaintiff on September 13, 21. Dr. McKinley opined 1 The Plaintiff filed another complaint, docket 2-32, which is not in the record. We are able to deduce, however, that he alleged back injuries sustained in an accident which occurred in July 21, four months after the complaint was filed in the case at bar. The cases were consolidated for trial. Judgment was entered in docket 2-32, dismissing the complaint and holding that the Plaintiff was not newly injured, and suffered no aggravation of a pre- existing injury. The judgment was not appealed. In point of fact, the Plaintiff testified that he was not injured, and the record does not explain why the suit was filed. See, Tenn. R. Civil P. Rule 11. 2 Although the Plaintiff contends that he was not afforded the opportunity to choose from a panel of physicians, his signature appears on a page listing three authorized physicians from which to choose, including Dr. O'Brien. 3 Dr. McKinley later compared the Fourth and Fifth Editions, and concluded that there is no difference in the ratings assigned based upon the range of motion model between the two editions of the AM A guides. -2-

Walter Hanselman, Jr. vs. Linda Hanselman
M1998-00919-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
This appeal involves a father's effort to reduce his child support and spousal support obligations. Approximately one year after the parties were divorced, the father filed a petition in the Hickman County Chancery Court seeking a downward modification of his support obligations because his income had declined due to his employer's cutbacks in the availability of overtime work. Following a bench trial, the trial court denied the father's petition because he had failed to establish a significant variance in his child support obligations and because he had failed to demonstrate that a substantial and material change in the parties' circumstances warranting a reduction in spousal support had occurred. We agree with the trial court's findings and affirm the judgment.

State of Tennessee v. Suzanne C. Douglas
M2000-01646-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Burch

The defendant appeals from her conviction for driving under the influence, contesting the sufficiency of the indictment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Tax The Costs on Appeal To The Appellant, James v. Doramus, on Behalf of Elizabeth Nicoll
M2000-01928-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Ben H. Cantrell

Patricia Baker vs. Tiffany Hooper, et al
E2000-01615-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Russell E. Simmons, Jr.
Plaintiff appeals the Court's modification of her non-competition agreement with defendants and the amount of damages awarded, as well as the Court's refusal to recuse. We affirm.

Lavonda Cable vs. Lowe's of Johnson City, Inc.
E2000-01075-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: G. Richard Johnson
Lowe's of Johnson City, Inc., filed a Rule 60 motion seeking to set aside a default judgment rendered against it on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. The Trial Court overruled the motion and Lowe's appeals. We affirm.

Millisa Martinez, Ind., & Ex Rel Aaron Chavez, et al vs. Charles Martinez, et al
E2000-01990-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
This case presents a question of first impression. We are asked to decide whether, and, if so, under what circumstances, a driver who motions to another driver intending to turn left in front of the signaling driver can be assigned fault in the event of a resulting accident. In the instant case, the trial court granted the signaling driver summary judgment, finding on the facts before it that there could be no liability. We find that summary judgment is not appropriate and accordingly vacate the trial court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.

In the Matter of Ray Allen Smith
E2000-00321-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Frank V. Williams, III
This is a suit by an inmate to have his last name changed to that of his mother's maiden name. Upon the incarcerated Petitioner not appearing when the case was called for trial, it was dismissed. We vacate and remand.

Daniel Taylor v. Donal Campbell, et al.
M2000-02843-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
On July 3, 2000, Appellant filed his civil complaint based upon punishment imposed for a disciplinary infraction while a prisoner at Turney Center in Only, Tennessee. On July 18, 2000, the trial judge, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint, and this appeal followed. We affirm the trial court.

Dr. Robert Emans v. Board of Regents
M2000-02187-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
The Claimant was appointed Dean of the College of Education of Tennessee State University in 1990, evidenced by a Notice of Appointment and Agreement of Employment. Four years later, he was terminated as Dean, and appointed to the tenured position of Professor, at a lesser salary. In this action he sought damages for breach of contract, inter alia. The Commission ruled that the Claimant, although lawfully terminated as Dean, was nevertheless entitled to receive the salary of a deanship.

Michael Martin vs. Roderick Scott, et al
M2000-02330-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
Michael D. Martin, an incarcerated state prisoner, filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding whereby he was convicted by the Prison Disciplinary Board of burglary and sentenced to ten days punitive segregation and a $4.00 fine. The Chancellor dismissed the petition and we affirm the Chancellor.

Arthur Armstrong, a/k/a Haki Al-Bey vs. Dept. of Correction, et al
M2000-02328-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
An inmate who was found guilty of three disciplinary infractions challenged those convictions by filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The trial court dismissed the Petition. We affirm the trial court.

David Britt vs. Donal Campbell, et al
M2000-01423-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen H. Lyle
A prison inmate escaped from custody and was recaptured. After a disciplinary hearing, the Department of Correction extended his Release Eligibility Date so that he would have to serve an additional 20% of his sentence before being considered for parole. The prisoner filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment, contending that the Department's action violated statutory and constitutional law. The trial court dismissed the Petition. We affirm.

Eddie Phifer v. Board of Parole
M2000-01509-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This is a pro se appeal from a denial of parole. Mr. Phifer alleges several problems surrounding his parole hearing that he claims violate his due process and equal protection rights and violate the ex post facto constitutional prohibition. Because a prisoner has no liberty interest in release on parole before the expiration of his sentence, due process protections do not attach to parole determinations. Because at the time of Mr. Phifer's crime and conviction, the law regarding parole gave total discretion to the Board and authorized denial if the Board found that parole would depreciate the seriousness of the crime committed, changes in Board procedure do not violate ex post facto prohibitions. Because the Board has provided a rational basis for denying in-person interviews for prisoners housed out of state, no equal protection violation was shown. Consequently, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

State of Tennessee v. Christopher Osborne
M2000-00802-CCA-R8-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter

A Williamson County jury convicted the defendant of attempted first degree murder and felony reckless endangerment. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of twenty-four years and two years, respectively, as a Range I standard offender. In this appeal, the defendant alleges (1) the attempted first degree murder presentment was defective; (2) the proof was insufficient to sustain his attempted first degree murder conviction; (3) the trial judge erroneously failed to satisfy his "thirteenth juror" role; and (4) his sentence is excessive. Upon review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgments and sentences imposed by the trial court.

Curley Howse vs. Donal Campbell, et al
M1999-01580-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
This is a pro se civil rights action brought by a prisoner challenging the conditions of his confinement and his treatment by employees of the Tennessee Department of Correction and the Northwest Correctional Center in Lake County. After the prisoner's suit was transferred from the Chancery Court for Davidson County to the Circuit Court for Davidson County, the various defendants filed separate motions to dismiss the case for improper venue. The trial court granted the motions and dismissed all the prisoner's claims. On this appeal, the prisoner asserts that his claims should not have been dismissed. We have determined that the prisoner has not properly perfected an appeal with regard to the dismissal of his claims against the Commissioner of Correction and three other employees and that the trial court correctly dismissed his claim against the medical director of the Northwest Correctional Center for improper venue. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the prisoner's complaint.