Louana Klopfenstein v. Windwood Health Rehab Ctr., E2000-02706-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Judge
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the SpecialWorkers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6- 225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., in which WILLIAM M. BARKER J., and WILLIAM H. INMAN, SR. J., joined. David M. Sanders, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Windwood Health Rehab Ctr., et al. Roger Ridenour, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Louana Klopfenstein. MEMORANDUM OPINION Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial courts in workers' compensation cases. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). Discussion The trial court found the plaintiff had suffered a seventy percent permanent partial disability to the right leg and held that Windwood Health Rehab Center was liable for compensation to the plaintiff. The defendant Windwood Health Rehab Center says the trial court erred in not finding the defendant Clinch River Home Health Inc. liable under the last injurious injury rule. We affirm the judgment of the trial court Facts On January 2, 1998, the plaintiff was working for the defendant Windwood when she fell in a shower while assisting a patient and suffered an injury to her right knee. Windwood did not contest the compensability of the injury. Windwood furnished medical care to the plaintiff. She was off from work for a "few weeks," returned to work for a "few weeks" without restriction and left the employment of Windwood after about "two weeks." The plaintiff went to work for the defendant Clinch River in March of 1998. The plaintiff testified that on February 12, 1999, she was giving a patient a bath in the patient's home which required that the patient be placed on a shower chair. According to the plaintiff she heard her knee pop and crack as she was performing this task. The plaintiff testified she went from the patient's home back to Clinch River and reported this incident to Linda Darland, a secretary/receptionist. The plaintiff testified she told Linda Darland that she was at work and her knee began to hurt and swell up. She testified Ms. Darland made a doctor appointment for her. She was treated by Dr. Malagan, who had treated her previously, until he referred her to Dr. Cletus J. McMahon, Jr., an orthopedic surgeon. Ms. Darland testified the plaintiff never told her that she had injured herself while working for Clinch River. She denied making an appointment for the plaintiff with a doctor. Ms. Darland testified the plaintiff would tell her that her knee hurt and that she believed it was caused by an accident at her previous employment. Ms. Darland said the plaintiff never told her she was hurt while working for Clinch River. Joyce Chattin, the director of nursing at Clinch River, testified the plaintiff came to her on February 12, 1999, and brought a note from a doctor that limited the plaintiff to lifting no more than thirty pounds. The plaintiff told Ms. Chattin not to worry that the cause of her problem happened at a place of previous employment. Pamela Sue Obenshain, executive director at Clinch River, testified she talked to the plaintiff after February 12, 1999, and that the plaintiff could not point to any specific incident while working for Clinch River which caused an injury to her right knee. The plaintiff told Ms. Obenshain she thought the work for Clinch River aggravated the previous injury. Medical Evidence Dr. Cletus J. McMahon, Jr. an orthopedic surgeon first saw the plaintiff on February 24, 1999, when she was referred to him by Dr. Malagon. After testing of the plaintiff's right knee, Dr. -2-
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Ed Davis vs. City of Milan W2001-00801-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Clayburn L. Peeples
Farmer sued city for damages resulting from a fire that destroyed his barn alleging that the city's utility division was negligent in installing a pole and wire on his property and was also negligent in failing to prevent an electrical surge that caused the failure in the wiring. The trial court granted summary judgment to city, and plaintiff appeals. We reverse.
The petitioner was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and sentenced to twelve years in confinement. His conviction was affirmed by this court on direct appeal. He then filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging, inter alia, that trial counsel was ineffective. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the petitioner appealed. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
The Appellant, Barry N. Waddell, proceeding pro se, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court found Waddell's petition was time-barred. On appeal, Waddell argues that: (1) his petition was timely filed, and (2) alternatively, if the petition was untimely filed, the statute of limitations was tolled under the holding of Dexter Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001). After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court dismissing the petition.
A Williamson County grand jury indicted the defendant on one count of possession of not less than ten pounds, one gram of marijuana nor more than seventy pounds of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver. Through counsel the defendant filed a motion to suppress any evidence or statements resulting from the allegedly unconstitutional search of the defendant's vehicle. When the motion to suppress was denied, the defendant waived his right to a trial by jury and pled guilty as charged. For this offense the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to two years, which would be suspended after the service of one hundred days, day for day; placed him on supervised probation for a period of four years; and fined him five thousand dollars. According to the Negotiated Plea Agreement form, there was also an agreement with the State that the defendant would later submit a certified question of law to this Court. Through this appeal the defendant asks us to consider two search related issues. However, the State asserts that the defendant did not properly reserve the certified questions, and, thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider them. Finding the State's position has merit, we, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
Williamson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Jamal Cooper v. State of Tennessee M2001-00593-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.
The petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for voluntary manslaughter, alleging that his guilty plea was involuntary and that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. In a timely appeal to this court, the petitioner raises the issue of whether the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of trial counsel. After a careful review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Kimberly Day v. John Day M2001-01624-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This is a post-divorce case. It is before the Court on the application of John Arthur Day ("Husband") seeking relief from the interlocutory order of the trial court denying his motion for summary judgment. Husband's summary judgment motion was filed in response to the Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(1) motion filed by his former wife, Kimberly Beard Day ("Wife"), in which she seeks relief from portions of the parties' judgment of divorce (sometimes referred to herein as "the judgment"), specifically the child support, division of property, and alimony provisions of the incorporated marital dissolution agreement. Husband's application to this Court was originally filed pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 10. Before his application was acted upon, he converted it to a request for relief pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 9. This change in approach followed the trial court's reversal of its earlier order denying him Rule 9 relief. We granted Husband's Rule 9 application. We find that the material facts are not in dispute and that those facts establish that Husband is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, we (1) reverse the trial court's order of April 24, 2001, denying Husband's motion for summary judgment and (2) dismiss Wife's Rule 60.02(1) motion.
The defendant, Randall Ray Mills, was convicted in the Marshall County Circuit Court of one count of rape of a child, three counts of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of casual exchange. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court merged all of the defendant's convictions of aggravated sexual battery into the conviction of rape of a child and sentenced the defendant to a total effective sentence of twenty years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Additionally, the State challenges the trial court's merger of the aggravated sexual battery convictions into the rape of a child conviction and further contends that the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court and remand for resentencing.
A Davidson County Grand Jury indicted the defendant for premeditated first degree murder. The defendant was convicted of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder and sentenced to 24 years as a violent offender. In this appeal, the defendant contends: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the trial court erroneously neglected to charge the jury on the lesser-included offenses of reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide; and (3) the defendant's sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude the failure to charge the lesser-included offenses of reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide was, at most, harmless error. The defendant's remaining allegations of error are without merit; thus, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Although I agree with Judge Welles that it is problematic to use voluntary manslaughter as the intermediate offense for the purposes of applying the Williams harmless error rule, I concur with Judge Riley in affirming the conviction, based on the facts of the present case and the defendant’s use of those facts in formulating a theory of defense. Given the facts, the defendant’s theory of defense, and the jury’s verdict of second-degree murder, I conclude that the failure to charge the included offenses lesser than voluntary manslaughter was harmless error.
I respectfully dissent from the majority's holding that the trial court’s erroneous failure to instruct the jury on reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide as lesser-included offenses of first degree murder is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Barbara Cochran vs. Jackie Cochran E2001-00848-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Rex Henry Ogle
This is a suit wherein the Plaintiff, Barbara K. Cochran, sues her former husband, Jackie D. Cochran, seeking specific performance of her claimed right of first refusal to purchase certain real estate. Thomas M. Crawford and his wife, who had purchased the property from Mr. Cochran, were also made parties Defendant. The Trial Court found that Mr. Cochran had met his obligation to give Ms. Cochran the right to purchase the property in accordance with her right of first refusal and that she had declined to accept the offer. We affirm.
The defendant, Daniel Ray Styles, was convicted of felony escape, aggravated assault, aggravated robbery, theft over $1,000, and aggravated criminal trespassing. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of fourteen years. On appeal, Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by failing to dismiss his case on the ground that his right to a speedy trial was violated; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to amend the indictments; (3) whether the indictment charging felony escape was facially void because it was unsigned; and (4) whether the trial court erred by failing to require the State to make an election between aggravated assault and aggravated robbery. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court regarding Defendant's convictions and sentences for aggravated robbery, felony escape, and aggravated criminal trespassing. However, we reverse and dismiss Defendant's convictions for aggravated assault and theft as violative of constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy.
The defendant, Edward Alan Scarbrough, failed to appear for a scheduled court date on September 21, 1999. Conditional forfeiture was taken on bail bonds in the total amount of $125,000.00. The surety for these bail bonds was International Fidelity Insurance Company, which was obligated through its agent, Gary's Bail Bonds, Inc. Defendant was not returned to custody until after the time period for final forfeiture had expired. International Fidelity Insurance Company filed a timely petition to be granted full exoneration. The trial court, after a hearing, granted partial exoneration and ordered International Fidelity Insurance Company to pay $55,000.00. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Knox
Court of Criminal Appeals
William R. Varner vs. City of KnoxviIle E2001-00329-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell
By way of a complaint for writ of certiorari, the plaintiff challenges the decision of the Knoxville City Council ("the City Council") to deny his application to rezone his .5 acre lot from low density residential to commercial for the expansion of a used car lot located on adjacent property. Following a bench trial, the court below dismissed the complaint. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Lane-Detman, L.L.C. , et al vs. Miller & Martin, et al E2001-00444-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry
In 1995, Lane-Detman, LLC, Clara Lane, and Darlene Lane-Detman ("Plaintiffs"), invested $600,000 in two businesses in which Samuel Cooper ("Cooper") had an ownership interest. This investment soured, and in December 1997, Plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against Cooper. Before Plaintiffs invested with Cooper, Plaintiffs' attorney, defendant W. Scott McGinness, Jr. ("Defendant McGinness"), performed a background search on Cooper at the request of Plaintiff Darlene Lane-Detman ("Plaintiff Lane-Detman"). In addition to other investigative efforts, Defendant McGinness had the co-defendant, Equifax Services, Inc. ("Defendant Equifax"), perform a background search on Cooper. Defendant Equifax's report revealed no questionable or negative history on Cooper. After Plaintiffs obtained their default judgment against Cooper, Plaintiffs hired other counsel to assist with collection of the judgment. In 1998, Plaintiffs' new counsel uncovered an abundance of questionable and negative history on Cooper. Thereafter, in 1999, Plaintiffs sued Defendant McGinness and his law firm, Miller & Martin ("Defendant Miller & Martin"), and Defendant Equifax. The Trial Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that Plaintiffs' claim against Defendant Equifax was barred by an exculpatory clause in the contract between Defendant Equifax and Defendant Miller & Martin and that Plaintiffs' claim against Defendants Miller & Martin and McGinness was barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Meagan Arnold vs. Charles Arnold E2001-00596-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: John K. Wilson
This is a suit by a minor brought by her mother, and also by her mother individually against the minor's grandfather, Charles Arnold and her father Randy Arnold. The child was injured when she placed her hand into the fan belt of a tractor which was stationary with the engine running. The Trial Court granted the father's motion for summary judgment and denied the grandfather's. We affirm.
The Defendant, Michael J. McCann, was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated criminal trespass on a habitation; two counts of assault; two counts of aggravated assault; one count of aggravated sexual battery; and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. After a hearing he was sentenced as a Range II multiple offender on the aggravated assaults, and as a Range I offender on the remaining convictions, to an effective sentence of thirty years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that his kidnapping convictions must be reversed and dismissed as violative of his due process rights under State v. Anthony; that the trial court erred in not requiring the State to elect between the proof presented in support of two sexual offenses charged; that the Defendant’s two assault convictions should have been merged into one of the aggravated assault convictions; that the prosecutor made improper and prejudicial remarks during closing argument; that his sentence is excessive; and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We reverse and dismiss one of the Defendant’s assault convictions. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Lewis
Court of Criminal Appeals
2000-02837-COA-R3-CV 2000-02837-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
Hamblen
Court of Appeals
Donna Sharon Presley vs. Clavin Herman Shadrick, et al . E2001-00015-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Patricia R. Hess
This is a custody and guardianship suit between petitioners, neither of whom is the biological or adoptive parent of the set of twins ("Children") who are at the center of this dispute. The parties in this appeal are, on one side, the Children's maternal great uncle and his wife, Calvin Herman Shadrick and Willie Mae Shadrick ("Shadricks"), and, on the other side, the children's paternal grandmother, Donna Sharon Presley ("Presley"). The trial court granted custody and guardianship of the Children to the Shadricks. Presley appeals. We affirm
Anderson
Court of Appeals
J.D. Hickman vs. TN Board of Paroles M2000-02846-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal involves a prisoner's efforts to obtain a mandatory parole date. After the general counsel for the Tennessee Board of Paroles informed him that he was ineligible for mandatory parole, the prisoner filed a common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking a declaration either that he is entitled to a mandatory parole date or that the Board had been employing the wrong legal standards with regard to his parole date and the parole dates of all other prisoners sentenced after 1989. In response to the Board's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion, the trial court dismissed the prisoner's petition because it was not timely filed and because the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1982 had prospectively repealed mandatory parole by implication. On this appeal, the prisoner asserts that his suit was timely filed and that the trial court erred by concluding that he was not entitled to a mandatory parole date. We have determined that the prisoner's complaint was timely; however, we have also determined that he is not entitled to a mandatory parole date.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Stacy Harris vs. 4215 Harding Road Homeowners Association M2000-02414-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
The appellant, a unit owner in a high-rise condominium, sued the Homeowners Association, claiming that her assessment for common expenses had been too high for the twenty years she had owned the unit. She sought reimbursement of the overpayment and an injunction against further assessments based on the percentage of her ownership stated in the Master Deed. The Chancery Court of Davidson County granted summary judgment to the Association and ordered the appellant to pay attorney's fees and costs. We affirm and remand the cause for the assessment of attorney's fees for the appeal.
A Carroll County jury convicted the appellant, Marion Lee Chapman, of one (1) count of driving under the influence of an intoxicant. The trial court sentenced the appellant to eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days, suspended after serving ten (10) days in confinement. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance on the day of trial. We hold that the appellant has waived this issue for failing to prepare an adequate record for this Court's review. In addition, we conclude that, based on the limited record before us, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a continuance. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Carroll
Court of Criminal Appeals
Jessie Anthony vs. Melbourne Holland W2001-00745-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Donald H. Allen
This is an appeal from a judgment by the trial court, sitting without a jury, that the defendant's negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. We hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the factual findings of the trial court. We therefore affirm.
Madison
Court of Appeals
Kevin Stumpenhorst vs. Jerry Blurton Jr. W2000-02977-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Roy B. Morgan, Jr.
This case arises from an automobile accident in which the Appellee was injured while a passenger in a truck driven by the Appellant's son. The Appellee filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Madison County against the Appellant and his son. The Appellant and his son filed an answer which specifically pled an affirmative defense of comparative negligence. The Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment against the Appellant and his son. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment against the Appellant and granted the motion for summary judgment against the Appellant's son. The Appellee filed a motion to strike the affirmative defense of comparative negligence. The trial court granted the motion to strike. Following a jury trial, the jury found that the Appellee's injuries were caused by the negligence of the Appellant's son and that the Appellee was entitled to recover $1,300,000.00 in damages. The jury found that the Appellant was liable under the family purpose doctrine. The Appellant filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for a new trial, or for a remittitur. The trial court denied the Appellant's motion. The Appellant appeals the decision of the Circuit Court of Madison County disallowing the Appellant to introduce evidence of the Appellee's comparative negligence. The Appellant also appeals the jury verdict finding the Appellant liable under the family purpose doctrine for $1,300,000.00 in damages. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse and remand this case for a new trial in accordance with this opinion.
