The Mirage Casino-Hotel vs. Pearsall
02A01-9608-CV-00198
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio

02A01-9608-CH-00196
02A01-9608-CH-00196
Trial Court Judge: C. Neal Small

Herchel Seagraves v. Plaza Machine and Tool
02S01-9612-CH-00104
Authoring Judge: Don R. Ash, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor

Ricky Mcfarland v. Champion Home Builders
02S01-9702-CV-00011
Authoring Judge: Don R. Ash, Special Judge

Dorothy Lewis vs. Julie Donoho
02A01-9708-CV-00201

02S01-9611-Ch-00101
02S01-9611-Ch-00101
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier

Taylor, et. al. vs. T&N Office Equipment
01A01-9609-CV-00411

Williams vs. Williams
01A01-9610-CV-00468
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull

Harris vs. Dominon Bank of Middle TN., et. al.
01A01-9609-CH-00444
Trial Court Judge: John H. Gasaway, III

Williams vs. Williams
01A01-9610-CV-00468

01A01-9612-CV-00563
01A01-9612-CV-00563
Trial Court Judge: Henry Denmark Bell

Washington vs. Department of Corrections
01A01-9506-CH-00276
Trial Court Judge: Robert S. Brandt

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

State vs. Blevins
03C01-9606-CC-00242
Trial Court Judge: Arden L. Hill

Jim Voss vs. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co., et al
02A01-9604-CV-00082
Trial Court Judge: W. B. Acree

Joseph Myers & Carl Klimek vs. Pickering Firm, Inc.
02A01-9605-CV-00124
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier

Willie & Bobbie Lomax vs. Headley Homes, et al
02A01-9607-CH-00163
Trial Court Judge: C. Neal Small

Gordon Burks vs. Belz-Wilson Properties, et al
02A01-9607-CV-00154
Trial Court Judge: Karen R. Williams

Horton vs. State
03C01-9604-CR-00161
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil

State vs. Whaley
03C01-9608-CR-00307
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer

Kay E. Blackwood, Jr. v. The Berkline Corp., et al.
01S01-9609-CV-00190
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. John A. Turnbull,
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. The appellants contend (1) the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive, (2) it was error for the trial judge to become a witness in the case and (3) the trial judge abused his discretion by commuting permanent partial benefits to a lump sum. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the award of permanent partial disability benefits should be modified and, as modified, paid in a lump sum, and the evidential remarks of the trial judge were harmless in light of our modification. The claimant, Kay Eugene Blackwood, Jr., is thirty-nine years old with a high school education and vocational training as an automobile mechanic and some college training as a minister of the gospel. He gradually developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome from the repetitive use of his hands at work for employer, Berkline. The employer referred him to Dr. James B. Talmage. The doctor diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and prescribed braces for both wrists. He restricted the claimant from repetitive work with his right hand and recommended wearing the braces while sleeping. The claimant was totally disabled for several weeks. The doctor assigned zero percent permanent impairment, but acknowledged some loss of grip strength and conceded that, on the basis of lost grip strength, the AMA Guidelines provided twenty percent permanent impairment to the right arm and ten percent to the left, using a method the doctor considered inappropriate. Dr. Talmage did not concede the loss of grip strength was permanent. Dr. Randy Gaw, a neurologist, diagnosed mild right carpal tunnel syndrome but found no evidence of "left median nerve mononeuropathy" or "generalized neuropathic or myopathic process involving the upper extremities." The claimant returned to work for the employer. Dr. S. M. Smith, who did not treat the claimant but evaluated him, diagnosed moderate carpal tunnel syndrome on the right and mild carpal tunnel syndrome on the left. He assigned twenty percent permanent impairment to the right hand and ten percent to the left. The trial court awarded, among other things, permanent partial disability benefits based on fifty percent to each arm, commuted to a lump sum. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). This tribunal is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Francine Kuntz
01S01-9609-CH-00187
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.,
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. This appeal presents us with an issue involving venue in a workers' compensation case. As discussed below, the panel concludes the judgment of the trial court, dismissing the case for improper venue, should be affirmed. The employer's insurer, Yasuda, commenced this action in Davidson County where, according to the complaint, its principal place of business is located. The employee moved, without supporting affidavits, to dismiss for improper venue. The trial court granted the motion without an evidential hearing.1 The relevant facts are undisputed. The employee is a resident of Robertson County; the corporate employer has its principal office in Sumner County, where the injury occurred; and the employer's insurer has its principal office in Davidson County. The trial judge dismissed the complaint for improper venue because, according to the employee's brief, the employee "may not have a different residence than (sic) the employer for the purpose of determining proper venue under the Workers' Compensation Law of Tennessee." Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court. Presley v. Bennett, 86 S.W.2d 857 (Tenn. 1993). In a significant number of past cases, our Supreme Court held that a workers' compensation action was a transitory one and that venue was to be determined by considering both the provision of the Workers' Compensation Act with respect to venue and the general rules relating to transitory actions. Those cases were overturned by that court's opinion in Five Star Express, Inc. v Davis, 866 S.W.2d 944 (Tenn. 1993), wherein it said in conclusion, ".... we now hold that venue in workers' compensation actions is to be determined solely by the workers' compensation venue statute -- section 5-6-225(c)(1) -- and any other authority indicating otherwise is hereby expressly overruled." The section provides as follows: (c)(1) The party filing the petition may, at such party's option, instead of filing the same before the county judge or chair, file the same as an original petition in either the circuit, criminal or chancery 1 The employee has filed a separate action for benefits in Robertson County. 2