Ricky Summers vs. State
01C01-9608-CR-00332

Raymond Jackson vs. State
01C01-9608-CR-00368

Stevenson vs. Stevenson
01A01-9701-CV-00032

Williams vs. Comer
01A01-9701-CH-00008

Turner vs. Turner
01A01-9704-CV-00188
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson

Mitchell vs. Archibald & Metro. Gov't.
01A01-9706-CV-00264
Trial Court Judge: Michael Mondelli

Someday Baby, Inc. vs. Entertainment Int'l.
01A01-9705-CH-00228
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

Someday Baby, Inc. vs. Entertainment Int'l.
01A01-9705-CH-00228
Trial Court Judge: William C. Koch

Estis, et. al. vs. Kelley, et. al.
01A01-9709-CV-00513

By Our Supreme Court'S Recent Opinion In State v. Roger Dale Hill, Sr., No. 01S01-9701-
01C01-9707-CR-00313

Jackson vs. Corrections Corp. of America
01A01-9606-CH-00276

State vs. Tina Overstreet
01C01-9704-CR-00131
Trial Court Judge: Thomas H. Shriver

Luzadder, et. ux. vs. Fowler
01A01-9706-CH-00239
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey F. Stewart

El-Amin vs. Campbell
01A01-9707-CH-00361
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

Standard Fire Ins. vs. Chester-O-Donley & Assoc.
01A01-9508-CV-00382
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes

Sawyer vs. Girsham, et. al.
01A01-9604-CH-00176
Trial Court Judge: Robert S. Brandt

Besh vs. Coppick
01A01-9605-CH-00234
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

03C01-9703-CR-00090
03C01-9703-CR-00090
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Graham

Monroe Brown vs. State
01C01-9607-CR-00305

State vs. Jerry Duffey
01C01-9610-CC-00427
Trial Court Judge: William M. Barker

State vs. Alton Waller
01C01-9611-CC-00479
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris

State vs. Daniel Barnes
01C01-9702-CR-00070
Trial Court Judge: Thomas H. Shriver

Jeffrey Glenn Bogle v. Distribution & Auto Service, et al.
01S01-9706-CH-00128
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert E. Corlew, III,
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 suit and alleged he had sustained permanent impairment to his knees as the result of an injury in the course and scope of his employment with the defendant. The trial judge denied the plaintiff's claim for workers' compensation and dismissed his case. The plaintiff says he carried his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a work related injury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff was age 4 at the time of trial. He had a high school education and was trained in automobile body repair work. The plaintiff alleged his knees were injured when he fell off an automobile frame rack and landed on both knees on August 16, 1994. The plaintiff did not see a doctor about his knee problems until late 1994 or early 1995. The evidence of whether the injury to the plaintiff's knees was causally connected to his work with the defendant is based upon the testimony of the plaintiff and one doctor. The plaintiff testified that he considered the work related fall to be minor at first but that later he developed a gradually progressive serious problem in both knees. The plaintiff explained that he could not have known the seriousness of the fall until the onset of symptoms. Dr. Robert Russell, an orthopaedic surgeon, testified that it was not until after he performed arthroscopic surgery on the plaintiff's knees that he concluded the condition was "trauma related." Dr. Russell further testified that the plaintiff's injury was "consistent" with a fall to both knees, but he did not testify based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the plaintiff 's work related fall caused his knee problems. Dr. Russell assessed a 12 percent permanent partial impairment to each knee and restricted the plaintiff from climbing, squatting, and crawling. 2

Anne Crossett v. Babcock Industries, Inc., et al.
01S01-9701-CV-00001
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon.

Special Judge Hamilton v. Gayden, Jr.
01S01-9705-CV-00106
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. John Maddux,
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 injured his back on June 3, 1995 while in the course of his employment with the defendant. The trial judge found the plaintiff had sustained a 55 percent vocational impairment to the body as a whole. The defendant says the medical evidence submitted at trial was insufficient to show the plaintiff sustained a permanent injury and further says the award was excessive even if the plaintiff sustained permanent injury. The judgment of the trial judge is affirmed. Because there is no contest about the accident which injured the plaintiff, we need not discuss the facts thereof. MEDICAL EVIDENCE The only medical evidence in this case was the testimony of Dr. S. M. Smith, an orthopaedic surgeon. Dr. Smith first saw the plaintiff on August 31, 1995. He testified concerning his examination of the plaintiff and detailed specific findings, not necessary to set out, concerning the injury. When asked his opinion about the plaintiff's injury on the date of August 31, 1995, Dr. Smith said: I felt that he needed an MRI of his lumbar spine, along with an EMG and a nerve conduction study of both lower extremities to fully evaluate the back problem. I also felt that he may need a course of physical activity and possible surgical intervention based upon the findings of the MRI. And at that time, I didn't think I could give him an impairment rating, because his condition had not been fully evaluated.1 Dr. Smith saw the plaintiff on April 3, 1996 and again examined him. When asked about his condition at that time, Dr. Smith said: He continues to have problems with his back. His examination was completely unchanged. And I told him that since we cannot get any studies done, that I would go ahead and rate him based on the physical findings that he has now. And he has enough physical findings to make me think that he has nerve root impingement in the lumbar region. I think that he deserves an MRI to help better elucidate this problem. I would not feel comfortable sending him to PT without an MRI, because if he does have a ruptured disc, then this could make his condition worse. 1 The defendant would not pay for an MRI or EMG because they did not recognize the plaintiff's injury as compensable. The plaintiff could not afford the cost of the tests. 2