Nathan Wayne Smith v. Maremont Corporation
01S01-9703-CV-00077
Authoring Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jim Hamilton
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 Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging that he has suffered permanent partial disability as a result of an accident in the course and scope of his employment with the Defendant. The matter was heard by the trial court on May 1, 1993. The court awarded plaintiff 25% permanent partial impairment to the body as a whole. The trial court also awarded benefits paid in a lump sum. Within 3 days from the judgment of the trial court the plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment; the substance of plaintiff's motion to alter and amend was that the court should have awarded a greater percentage of permanent partial impairment based on the proof. Later, in l995 the motion to amend and alter the judgment was amended to contain allegations of newly discovered evidence; this new allegation was based on alleged new discovery of a cervical problem, a slipped disc; plaintiff alleged that this new injury related back to the original lumbar back injury. The trial Judge heard the motion to amend and the later filed amended motion alleging newly discovered evidence. The motion was denied in October, 1996. The court ruled that T.C.A._ 5-6-231 provides that lump sum payments are final and dismissed plaintiff's motion. This appeal presents two issues: (1) Whether the court erred in awarding 25% permanent partial disability, and (2) Whether the court erred in not granting plaintiff's motion for a hearing based upon newly discovered evidence. The panel affirms the trial court on both issues. However, the Panel remands the question of whether the newly discovered cervical disc problem, that led to a subsequent cervical surgery which is the focal point of the motion to alter and to amend, relates back to the original lumbar back injury which, in turn, would render the defendant liable for medical expenses. The proof discloses that Mr. Smith, the plaintiff, at the time of the trial was 51 years old, and possessed a high school education. He has a variety of job skills including previous employment as a carpenter, employment with a termite company, electrical and other diverse jobs. At the 2 time of the injury involved in this lawsuit he was employed with Maremont having worked there from June, 1967 to October, 1988. The plaintiff has been unemployed since 1988.

Smith Workers Compensation Panel

State vs. Clarence Washington
02C01-9703-CC-00097

Lauderdale Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Clarence Washington
02C01-9703-CC-00097

Lauderdale Court of Appeals

State vs. Torrance Johnson
02C01-9610-CR-00350

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Noah Noble
02C01-9701-CC-00060

Carroll Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Melvin Currie
02C01-9701-CC-00047

Haywood Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Richard Young
02C01-9703-CR-00130
Trial Court Judge: Carolyn Wade Blackett

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Estes Anderson
02C01-9704-CC-00141

Lake Court of Criminal Appeals

02C01-9611-CR-00384Cecil
02C01-9611-CR-00384Cecil
Trial Court Judge: Bernie Weinman

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

01C01-9607-CC-00308
01C01-9607-CC-00308

Trousdale Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Marcus Velez
01C01-9611-CC-00488
Trial Court Judge: John H. Gasaway, III

Montgomery Court of Criminal Appeals

Dillard vs. The Vanderbilt University
01A01-9706-CV-00265
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Brothers

Davidson Court of Appeals

Oolie vs. Qureshi
01A01-9706-CV-00240
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

Davidson Court of Appeals

Gordon McGee v. Carl Pippin, Helen Pippin, et al. - Concurring
01-A-01-9706-CH-00289
Authoring Judge: Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert E. Corlew, III

This is a suit by a stockholder of an insolvent corporation, against another stockholder, his wife and an employee, seeking judgment against them for  dissipation of assets of the corporation, recovery of money due from  debtors of the corporation and liquidation of the corporation for the benefit  of creditors. Although not designated such in the complaint, the suit appears to be a suit for a receivership. Matter of Liquidation of United American Bank in Knoxville. Tenn. 1987, 743 S.W.2d 911.

Rutherford Court of Appeals

Horton vs. Hughes
01A01-9601-CV-00045
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.

Davidson Court of Appeals

Tuttle vs. Tuttle
01A01-9512-CV-00546

Court of Appeals

01A01-9605-CH-00229
01A01-9605-CH-00229
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton

Maury Court of Appeals

State vs. Samuel Perry
02C01-9611-CR-00435
Trial Court Judge: Arthur T. Bennett

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

| State vs. Ricky Jackson
02C01-9702-CR-00081
Trial Court Judge: James C. Beasley, Jr.

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Michael Holmes
02C01-9703-CR-00106
Trial Court Judge: Chris B. Craft

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Demarco Bowdery, et al
02C01-9705-CR-00173
Trial Court Judge: Carolyn Wade Blackett

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Frank Bradford
02C01-9701-CR-00042

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

Charles Crews vs. Dexter Road Partners, et al
02A01-9603-CH-00045
Trial Court Judge: C. Neal Small

Shelby Court of Appeals

Ellen Marcus vs. Louis Marcus
02A01-9611-CV-00286
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers

Shelby Court of Appeals

01C01-9608-CR-00369
01C01-9608-CR-00369

Davidson Court of Criminal Appeals