Michael Lloyd Todd v. Bekaert Steel Wire Corporation,
W2001-03004-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr,. Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford, Chancellor
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. In this appeal, the employer insists the award of benefits based on 36 percent to the left arm is excessive. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (21 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed JOE C. LOSER, JR,. SP. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and JOE H. WALKER, III, SP. J., joined. Paul C. Peel, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellants, Bekaert Steel Wire Corporation and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company Jeffrey A. Garrety and Joseph R. Taggart, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellee, Michael Lloyd Todd MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee or claimant, Todd, initiated this civil action to recover workers' compensation benefits for an alleged work related injury to his left arm and elbow. When mediation failed to resolve the disagreement between the parties as to the extent of the claimant's permanent disability, a trial was held on October 22, 21. After weighing and evaluating disputed medical evidence, the trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on 36 percent to the arm. The employer, Bekaert Steel Wire Corporation, and its insurer have appealed. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2) (21 Supp.). The reviewing court is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

Jeff Gaston v. Rskco and Love's Country Stores, Inc.
W2001-02787-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: W. Michael William Michael Maloan, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-285 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings and fact and conclusions of law. The defendant employer contends the plaintiff employee failed to give proper notice of a back injury and the evidence preponderates against the trial court's award of twelve percent (12%) to the body as a whole. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1998 and Supp. 21) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed W. MICHAEL MALOAN, SP. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J. and JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., joined. B. Duane Willis, Jackson, Tennessee, for appellant, RSKCo and Love's Country Stores, Inc. Gayden Drew IV, Jackson, Tennessee, for appellee, Jeff Gaston MEMORANDUM OPINION The plaintiff, Jeff Gaston (Gaston), was thirty-seven (37) years old at the time of trial. He graduated from high school, obtained a bachelor's degree in organizational leadership and is pursuing a master's degree in business administration. Prior to working for Love's County Stores as a general manager of a Hardee's Restaurant in 1999, Gaston was a manager or food and beverage director for numerous restaurants. On May 27, 2, Gaston was carrying an urn of coffee when he slipped and fell to both knees. He sustained first and second degree burns to his face and received treatment at a local emergency room. Some two to four weeks later, Gaston developed numbness in his left leg. He notified his employer and in July 2 was referred to Dr. David Garey at the Jackson Clinic. On a December 8, 2 visit to Dr. Garey, he reported numbness in his right leg, but denied any back or hip pain. Dr. Garey referred Gaston to Dr. Joseph Rowland, a neurosurgeon at Semmes-Murphey Clinic in Jackson. Gaston saw Dr. Rowland on January 8, 21, with complaints of low back pain and numbness in his right hip and knee. He gave a history of a May 2 fall at work with back pain ever since. An MRI showed mild disc bulging at L4 and L5 but nothing requiring surgery. On his last visit of March 7, 21, Gaston continued to complain of back and right leg pain. Dr. Rowland referred Gaston to Dr. Edward Hockaday for a lumbar epidural steroid injection which was performed on February23, 21. Dr. Hockaday's impressions were "low back pain, right lower extremity pain and right lower extremity numbness secondary to lumbar neuritis with bulging disc at L4-L5 and bulging disc at L5-S1." Dr. Joseph Boals examined Gaston on June 14, 21, for an independent medical evaluation. Dr. Boals found a full range of motion in Gaston's back without spasm and a normal neurological examination. Dr. Boals diagnosed an acute lumbar strain and possible rupture at L5-S1 caused by Gaston's fall at work. Dr. Boals assigned a five percent (5%) permanent physical impairment to the body as a whole based on the AMA Guidelines and advised against prolonged walking, standing, stooping, squatting, climbing and repetitive flexion or extensive rotation of his back. Gaston testified he began having back pain in October 2 and he currently has almost constant pain in his back and numbness in his right leg. He lost his job with Love's County Stores due to reasons unrelated to his injury and he currently works for DET Distributing setting up advertising and delivering approximately two hundred (2) cases of beer a day. He is required to lift, bend, stoop, twist, squat and climb. After the October 2, 21 trial, the Chancellor awarded twelve percent (12%) permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The employer has appealed and raised two issues: the lack of notice of a back injury and the amount of the award. ANALYSIS The scope of review of issues of fact is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Lollar v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 767 S.W.2d 143 (Tenn. 1989). When a trial court has seen and heard witnesses, especially where issues of credibility and weight of oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded the trial court's factual findings. Humphrey v David Witherspoon, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 315 (Tenn. 1987). However, -2-

Randy Caldwell & Stevie W. Caldwell v. State of Tennessee
M2001-00334-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Charles D. Haston, Sr.

The petitioners, brothers, were tried and convicted, jointly, of first degree murder, aggravated arson, and conspiracy to commit arson against personal property. They filed petitions for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. After careful review, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court.

Anthony Hodges v. State of Tennessee
M2001-03068-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

The Defendant, Anthony Hodges, was convicted by a jury of first degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse. He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of life without parole and twenty-five years, respectively, to be served in the Department of Correction. The Defendant's convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Hodges, 7 S.W.3d 609 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). The Defendant subsequently petitioned for post-conviction relief, which the trial court denied. The Defendant now appeals, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and that his due process rights were violated by the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on second degree murder; by the State's employment of inconsistent theories of guilt at his and his co-defendant's separate trials; and by the denial of his right to testify. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Barry C. Melton v. State of Tennessee
E2001-02689-CCA-MR3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Rex Henry Ogle

The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, arguing: (1) his "best interest" plea was not entered voluntarily and intelligently; and (2) trial counsel was ineffective in representing him at sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Ricky Lee Netherton v. State of Tennessee
E2001-02989-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lillie Ann Sells

The petitioner, Ricky Lee Netherton, was convicted by a jury in the Criminal Court of Cumberland County of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced the petitioner as a violent offender to twenty-four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction to be served at one hundred percent (100%). Following an unsuccessful appeal of his conviction, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging, among other grounds, ineffective assistance of counsel. The petitioner now brings this appeal challenging the post-conviction court's denial of his petition. After reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Jerry Wayne Matlock v. Ltv Steel, Inc. and Insurance
W2001-02512-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Hon. C. Creed Mcginley, Judge
This worker's compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Worker's Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer questions the trial court's finding of permanent partial disability for injury to the back, neck and hand. The employer also questions the award of benefits to claimant's right hand for carpel tunnel syndrome, due to the lack of notice of the injury to employer. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the evidence supports the findings of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Andre D. Kimbrough
M2001-02149-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier

Defendant, Andre Kimbrough, appeals his conviction in the Davidson County Criminal Court for second degree murder. Defendant argues that the trial court erred by: 1) failing to act as a thirteenth juror; 2) permitting the State to impeach the Defendant using prior bad acts without giving proper notice to the Defendant; and 3) not applying certain mitigating factors in sentencing Defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Dana York
M2001-02956-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Charles Lee

The defendant was charged with twenty-four separate counts including one count of driving under the influence, nine counts of reckless endangerment involving a deadly weapon, one count of reckless driving, eight counts of aggravated assault, two counts of failure to give notice of an accident, two counts of evading arrest creating a risk of death, and one count of false imprisonment. Eight of the reckless endangerment and reckless driving counts merged with other charges. The defendant entered guilty pleas to the other sixteen counts. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirty years and six months. The defendant appealed the sentence as excessive, arguing that the trial court erred in calculating his total sentence. After review of the record, we affirm the judgments of conviction but remand for entry of corrected judgments.

State of Tennessee v. Jerome F. Sawyers
M2001-02878-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Walter C. Kurtz

The defendant, Jerome F. Sawyers, pled guilty on July 16, 2001, to possession of cocaine less than .5 grams for resale and felony possession of a firearm and was sentenced, respectively, to six years and two years as a Range I, standard offender, with both sentences to be served concurrently. A violation of probation warrant was issued on August 8, 2001, alleging that he had violated probation by being in possession of a weapon and failing to report to his probation officer as ordered. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation; and he timely appealed, arguing that the proof was insufficient that he had violated the terms of his probation. We conclude that the evidence supports the revocation of probation.

Rhandie Parker, et al., v. Wanda McDaniel, et al.
E2001-03110-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Judge O. Duane Slone

Shannon Dale Welch ("Welch") and Stacy Ann Brooks ("Brooks") were the only two occupants in an automobile traveling at a high rate of speed when it collided with a vehicle driven by Rhandie Parker ("Parker"). Parker's brother-in-law, Hershel D. Williams ("Williams"), was a passenger in his vehicle. As a result of the accident, Parker claimed $27,100 in property damage, medical expenses of $8,241.52, and personal injuries. Williams claimed medical expenses totaling $9,545.38 and personal injuries. Parker's wife, Janice Parker ("Ms. Parker"), asserted a claim for loss of consortium. A jury returned a verdict against Welch in favor of Parker for $35,000, and awarded Ms. Parker nothing. Williams was awarded $29,000. All three Plaintiffs appeal with the primary issue being the adequacy of the verdict. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Ruben Joseph Knight, Jr.
E2001-02874-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

The defendant, Ruben Joseph Knight, Jr., appeals the Blount County Circuit Court's revocation of his community corrections sentence. Following our review of the record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm.

Dorothy Rault Heideman v. Richard Lawrence Heideman
W2001-01486-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Karen R. Williams

State of Tennessee v. Jody Lane Orr
W2001-02075-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed McGinley
The Appellant, Jody Lane Orr, was convicted by a Carroll County jury of aggravated burglary, aggravated rape, and class E felony theft. He received an effective twenty-five-year sentence. On appeal, Orr raises the following issues for review: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress; (2) whether the State lost and/or mishandled a blood sample drawn by law enforcement after his arrest; (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts; and (4) whether his sentence was proper. After a review of the record, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Jody Lane Orr - Concurring
W2001-02075-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed McGinley
I concur with most of the majority opinion. I respectfully disagree with its conclusion that enhancement factor (5), regarding exceptional cruelty, does not apply. I believe that being duct taped, blindfolded, tied up, and made to wear a New Year’s party hat reflect mental abuse and degradation that goes above and beyond that inherently necessary for any aggravated rape. Although I do not believe that the weight of the two enhancement factors applied by the majority opinion should result in a maximum sentence of twenty-five years, I conclude that the sentence is appropriate because of the application of enhancement factor (5), as well.

State of Tennessee v. Adrian Lumpkin
W2002-00648-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carolyn Wade Blackett

The Defendant, Adrian Lumpkin, was indicted for aggravated assault. He pled guilty and agreed to a sentence of three years with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court granted the Defendant judicial diversion subject to several conditions. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by placing unreasonable conditions on its grant of judicial diversion. We conclude that the trial court had no legal authority to impose a term of incarceration as a condition of judicial diversion. However, with respect to the remaining conditions, we dismiss the Defendant's appeal because a defendant to whom judicial diversion was granted has no appeal as of right.

William Davis vs. Reliance Electric Industrial
E2002-00973-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull
Arbitrator awarded compensatory and punitive damages to plaintiff for retaliatory discharge. On appeal, we affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Paul Dennis Reid
M1999-00803-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cheryl A. Blackburn

In this capital case, the defendant, Paul Dennis Reid, Jr., was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery for killing two Captain D’s employees and robbing one of the employees. As to each conviction of first degree murder, the jury found in the sentencing hearing that the State had proven three aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt – (1) that the defendant was previously convicted of one or more felonies, other than the present charge, the statutory elements of which involve the use of violence to the person; (2) that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant or another; and (3) that the murder was knowingly committed, solicited, directed, or aided by the defendant while the defendant had a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit, or was fleeing after having a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit robbery. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2), (6), and (7) (1997). Finding that these aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury sentenced the defendant to death on each murder conviction. The trial court subsequently imposed a twenty-five-year sentence for the especially aggravated robbery conviction and ordered this sentence to be served consecutively to the two death sentences. On direct appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, the defendant mounted numerous challenges to both his convictions and sentences. After fully considering the defendant’s claims, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Thereafter, the case was docketed in this Court. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(a)(1) (1997). After carefully and fully reviewing the record and the relevant authority, the defendant’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Paul Dennis Reid - Concurring and Dissenting
M1999-00803-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cheryl A. Blackburn

I concur with the majority’s opinion affirming the conviction of the defendant. With regard to the imposition of the death sentences in this case, however, I cannot agree. My concerns, as expressed below, pertain to my continued dismay with the comparative proportionality review protocol imposed by the majority.

In Re: The Estate of Martha G. Spencer
M2001-02187-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: J. B. Cox
The origin of this appeal was a claim made against the Estate of Martha G. Spencer, by NHC Health Care of Lewisburg, a skilled nursing home, for services rendered her in the amount of $25,934.54. After a plenary trial the Chancellor dismissed the claim upon finding that NHC was estopped from pursuing its claim because of representations made that Ms. Spencer's expenses were covered by Medicare. NHC appeals. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. David L. Baker
M2001-02025-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge John J. Maddux

The defendant, David L. Baker, was convicted of driving under the influence, fourth offense, and sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with 210 days to be served in the county jail and the balance on supervised probation. He was ordered to pay a fine of $1100 and to complete an alcohol education safety program, and his driver's license was suspended for four years. He timely appealed, presenting as the single issue his claim that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the verdict. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

Mary F. Hall. v. Mary Rose Pippin.
M2000-01151-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Vernon Neal
The Defendants, Mary Rose Pippin and Dale Delaney appeal the Trial Court's dismissal of a Rule 60 motion, which attacked a previous determination by the Trial Court relative to their right to maintain a fence across a roadway over which the Plaintiffs, Mary F. Hall and Don K. Hall claim a private right-of-way. We affirm.

W2001-03088-COA-R3-CV
W2001-03088-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: James F. Russell

Shirley Daniel vs. James Daniel
W2002-01103-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: William Michael Maloan
This is an alimony case. At the time of the divorce, the parties had been married for almost thirty-one years. The husband was fifty-one years old, and the wife was forty-five years old. The husband owned his own backhoe/trackhoe company. The wife was a homemaker and raised the parties' three children. She has a sixth-grade education and earned her GED in 1997. Since the parties' separation, the wife had held five jobs but had not been able to maintain her employment. The parties agreed on the division of personal and real property, but disagreed over the value of the husband's business property. The trial court found that the husband made it difficult to ascertain the parties' financial situation. The trial court also found that the wife was economically disadvantaged and could not be rehabilitated. The wife was awarded alimony in futuro and attorney's fees. On appeal, the husband argues that the trial court erred in awarding the wife alimony in futuro and attorney's fees. We affirm, finding that the trial court did not err in concluding that the wife cannot be rehabilitated and in awarding alimony in futuro and attorney's fees.

Donna Seals vs. Larry Seals
E2002-00100-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Howell N. Peoples
Donna Lynn Seals ("Wife") and Larry Clyde Seals ("Husband") were divorced in 2001, after seventeen years of marriage. The parties have one minor child ("Child"). Wife was primarily a stay-at-home mother during the marriage. Husband is employed as a general superintendent by Williams Union Boiler. The Trial Court found Husband's earnings for 2001 to be $117,000 in regular wages plus $16,380 in per diem. The Trial Court awarded Wife the parties' home in Hamilton County as alimony in solido and further ordered Husband to pay rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $1,365 per month for forty-two consecutive months. The Trial Court also ordered Husband to pay $2,063 per month in child support, which is an upward deviation due to Husband's absence of overnight parenting time since December 2000. Husband filed a post-trial Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01 motion for findings of fact. The Trial Court addressed this motion and entered its Final Decree of Divorce in November 2001. Husband appeals. We affirm.