Diana J. Neese v. Shoney's Inc.
M2002-01277-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: James L. Weatherford, Sr.J.
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull, Judge
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' 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. In this case, the trial court found that the employee had sustained a 75% vocational disability to each extremityfor bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome caused by her work activity. The employer argues that this award is excessive and preponderates against the evidence. For the reasons set out in this opinion, We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed JAMES L. WEATHERFORD, SR.J., in which FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, C.J., and JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP.J., joined. Mark A. Baugh, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Shoney's Inc. Kelly R. Williams, Livingston, Tennessee, for the appellee, Diana J. Neese. MEMORANDUM OPINION Ms. Diana Neese was 51 years old at the time of trial. She has a ninth grade education, but later earned her GED in 1984. She lives in rural Tennessee near the border of Clay County and Overton County, although she has a Hilham, Tennessee street address. She has worked primarily as a cook for retirement centers and a public school system since she started working in 196. She has worked as a backline cook for several fast food restaurants. She has also worked as a cashier, an assembly line worker, and child care worker. In August of 1999, Ms. Neese began working at Shoney's in Cookeville as a salad bar attendant. In this job, she was responsible for maintaining the salad bar by carrying out trays of food, big pots of soup, bowls, and plates. In February of 2, Ms. Neese started experiencing problems with her hands: "My hands and arms were hurting, going numb and tingling, and I kept dropping things." She stated she had never had any problems with her hands or wrists prior to February of 2. On March 22, 2, she saw her primary care physician, Dr. Mauricio, complaining of numbness in her arms, which started at her elbow. Dr. Mauricio, then referred her to Dr. Robert Nelson. On April 17, 2, Dr. Nelson diagnosed Ms. Neese with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. On April 28, 2, Ms. Neese informed Mr. Jimmy Price, manager at Shoney's, that she had carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Nelson performed surgery on her right wrist on May 31, 2 and operated on her left wrist on June 3, 2. On November 7, 2, Ms. Janet K. Patterson, physical therapist administered Ms. Neese's functional capacity evaluation. Ms. Patterson indicated that Ms. Neese would not use her fingers for fine motor tasks, would take frequent rests and would not use her arms for reaching more than 3 seconds at a time during the test. According to Ms. Patterson, test results indicated 1) inconsistent or sub-maximal effort on grip strength and push tests; and 2) that her heart rate did not correlate with reported levels of pain. On November 16, 2, Dr. Nelson released Ms. Neese to return to work light- duty and assigned restrictions of no lifting over 1 to 12 pounds and no repetitive lifting of 5 to 7 pounds on a regular basis, and no repetitive motions with her hands. Ms. Neese returned to Dr. Nelson on January 2, 2, still complaining of some pain in her hands with weakness and numbness. Dr. Nelson found she had reached maximum medical improvement and assigned the same restrictions on a permanent basis. Dr. Nelson found that Ms. Neese has sustained a 3% permanent partial impairment to each hand. Dr. Nelson indicated there are different factors that relate to the level of pain you can expect from patients after a bilateral carpal tunnel release. He listed one factor as what the surgeon finds at the time of surgery----"[F]or instance, in her case where I described that the median nerve as it was coming underneath that ligament, it was really adherent or adhered to the ligament, ... I had to do what is called a neurolysis, which means that you have to take a nerve once you kind of separate it off the ligament and actually try to release pressure on the individual fibers of the nerve. In her case that was necessary. Sometimes that is not necessary. So, all of that has to do with the prognosis of what you expect the future to be for that particular patient." As to Ms. Neese's prognosis, Dr. Nelson stated ".... essentially on both sides [of] the median nerve I found that she had quite a bit of compression on the nerve. So, from that standpoint, I felt that she may not recover as much as some do that have that type of surgery. So, I was a little bit -2-

Willie Jason Christopher v. Plumley Marugo Limited
W2002-02007-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: Robert L. Childers, Sp.J.
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn, Judge
The appellant presents the following issue for review: Whether the trial court erred in finding that the expert medical testimony established that the plaintiff's injury and/or medical impairment arose out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant.

John William Jones v. Conagra Grocery Products
W2002-01947-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: Allen W. Wallace, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis, Chancellor
The trial court determined that: (1) the employee is 1% disabled and that he is limited by Tenn. Code Ann. 5-6-27(4)(A)(i) to 26 weeks of benefits; and (2) the employer is entitled to a reduction for the Social Security payments made on behalf of the employee totaling $25,296.. The employer was ordered to continue to be liable for employee's medical treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in accordance with the workers' compensation law. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Jeffery P. Beckham
W2002-02444-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed McGinley

A Hardin County jury convicted the defendant, Jeffery P. Beckham, of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to five years incarceration as a Range I standard offender. On appeal, the defendant contends (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction; (2) his sentence is excessive; and (3) the trial court erred in denying probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Charles Wayne Sawyer
M2001-01062-CCA-R9-CO
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Charles Lee

A Marshall County grand jury indicted the defendant, Charles Wayne Sawyer, for aggravated sexual battery. The defendant filed a motion to suppress a statement that he allegedly made to the police without first being advised of his rights under Miranda. He made the alleged statement in response to a police officer's reading of the affidavit of complaint supporting his arrest warrant. The trial court, after conducting an evidentiary hearing, granted the defendant's motion to suppress his statement, finding that the reading of the affidavit was the functional equivalent of interrogation and therefore should have been prefaced by an admonishment of the defendant's constitutional rights. The state, with the trial court's permission, filed an interlocutory appeal, and pursuant to the state's Rule 9 application, this Court agreed to review the state's appeal. After reviewing the evidentiary hearing and other materials presented to this Court, we find that the trial court properly suppressed the defendant's statement and therefore affirm the judgment below.

State of Tennessee v. William Paul Eblen
E2002-01221-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Richard R. Baumgartner

The Defendant, William Paul Eblen, was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated rape and one count of aggravated kidnapping. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to two concurrent terms of twenty-four years for the rapes, and to a concurrent term of eleven years for the kidnapping, all to be served in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence; alleges that the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct during closing argument; and complains that the trial court erred in overruling his petition for writ of error coram nobis. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Denicia Wills v. Russell Wills
M2002-02167-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: C. L. Rogers
This case involves an appeal from an order of the trial court modifying the father's child support obligation and denying the father's request for change of custody. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

In Re: Martha Blanks Maxwell
M2002-01654-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Sr.
The niece of an elderly woman who suffered a stroke, followed by memory loss and confusion, petitioned the court to be appointed as her aunt's conservator. The trial court granted the petition as well as the conservator's plan to have her aunt moved to an assisted living environment. There, the woman's condition improved, and the guardian ad litem moved the court to consider whether it was advisable to revoke the conservatorship and allow her to return to her own home. After a hearing, the court terminated the conservatorship. The former conservator appeals, and we affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Aaron Blake Franz
M2002-01855-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. S. Daniel

After several opportunities to comply with the conditions of his probation, the trial court ordered the appellant, Aaron Blake Franz, to serve thirty months in confinement, the original sentence imposed for the appellant's burglary conviction. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court was without jurisdiction to revoke his probation because the revocation warrant was filed after the first extension of the probationary period expired. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Rita Davis v. State of Tennessee
M2002-02446-CCA-R3-PC-
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Charles Lee

Petitioner, Rita Davis, appeals the trial court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner entered an open plea of guilty to felony failure to appear, a charge apparently stemming from another case in which Petitioner was charged with possession of a schedule II narcotic for resale, a Class B felony. Petitioner was convicted by a jury on the drug possession charge, and on August 18, 1999, she was sentenced on both convictions. Petitioner filed a pro se petition for relief from her conviction and sentence in the failure to appear case. The trial court denied post-conviction relief, but granted a delayed appeal. Petitioner appealed, and this Court affirmed Petitioner’s sentence, but reversed the denial of post-conviction relief, remanding the case for dismissal of the petition without prejudice. Petitioner filed another post-conviction petition, alleging that she received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that her plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the petition. In this direct appeal, Petitioner challenges the trial court’s denial of her petition. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

State of Tennessee v. Everet L. McNeil
W2002-02999-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Arthur T. Bennett

The Defendant, Everet L. McNeil, entered guilty pleas to possession with intent to sell less than .5 grams of cocaine, simple possession of marijuana, and simple possession of cocaine. The Shelby County trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective three-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennesse v. David L. Johnson
W2002-00935-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge William B. Acree

A jury convicted the appellant of two counts of attempted first degree murder. The trial court imposed concurrent twenty-five-year sentences on each count. On appeal, the appellant argues (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and (2) his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. William Timothy Carter and Virginia Darean Carter
W2002-00947-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed Mcginley

This is a State appeal. The grand jury indicted the Defendants, William Timothy Carter and Virginia Darlean Carter, on several counts relating to the manufacture and possession of various drugs and the possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court granted the Defendants' motion to suppress evidence based upon an illegal residential search. On appeal, the State contends the trial court erred in granting the Defendants' motion to suppress. We conclude that even if the officers made an unlawful entry into the residence, the evidence was subsequently seized pursuant to a valid search warrant which was not based upon any observations made during the alleged unlawful entry. Because the independent source doctrine applies, the seizure of evidence was proper. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Steven D. Tarter
E2002-02389-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

The appellant, Steven D. Tarter, pled guilty in the Sullivan County Criminal Court to multiple offenses and received a total effective sentence of four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Alden Joe Daniel, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
E2002-02838-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carroll L. Ross

Petitioner, Alden Joe Daniel, Jr., appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In his initial brief filed with the assistance of retained counsel, Petitioner argues that the trial court erred in finding that Petitioner’s plea of guilty was voluntary and knowing and in finding that Petitioner’s trial counsel rendered effective assistance of counsel during the interval between Petitioner’s first and second trial and during plea negotiations. After the filing of his initial brief, this Court granted Petitioner’s counsel leave to withdraw as counsel and denied Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of substitute counsel. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider post-judgment facts pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and a pro se supplemental brief. In his brief, Petitioner alleges that his post-conviction counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court based its findings on erroneous facts. Petitioner requests that this Court remand the matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing as to factual matters not presented at Petitioner’s post-conviction proceeding. For the reasons discussed herein, we deny Petitioner’s motion to consider post-judgment facts and affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief.

Andrew Lee Moats v. State of Tennessee
E2003-00402-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ray L. Jenkins

A Knox County jury convicted the Petitioner of first degree murder, and the trial court imposed a life sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the conviction, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied the Defendant's application for permission to appeal. The Petitioner then sought post-conviction relief, alleging that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and this appeal ensued. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petition.

State of Tennessee v. Douglas Lee Overall
W2002-01954-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph H. Walker, III

The defendant, Douglas Lee Overall, was convicted by a Tipton County Circuit Court jury of aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony; aggravated assault, a Class C felony; and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of twelve years for the aggravated kidnapping conviction, twelve years for the aggravated assault conviction, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the possession of drug paraphernalia conviction. The defendant appeals, claiming that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Armand Salvatore vs. Baron Corp.
E2002-01978-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
Following the termination of his employment, Armand M. Salvatore sued two corporations and six limited partnerships, as well as Miles E. Cullom, Jr., who was a stockholder, director, and president of the corporations, and who was also a limited partner in each of the limited partnerships, for salary, fees, and commissions allegedly due him under the terms of a written employment agreement. He also sued the defendant Cullom for statutory treble damages in tort for interference with his employment contract. Following a bench trial, the court below held that Salvatore, at the time of his termination, was employed under a renewed one-year employment contract. Pursuant to this holding, the trial court awarded him the remainder of his base salary for the second year of his employment. Salvatore appeals, contending that the trial court erred when it failed to award him salary for two additional years, fees, commissions, and treble damages. The defendants, on the other hand, claim that Salvatore is not entitled to the salary awarded to him by the trial court. We modify the trial court's judgment to increase Salvatore's award by $20,500. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Betty Bryant vs. Roy Bryant
E2002-02201-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: John D. Mcafee
In this divorce case, the trial court dissolved a marriage of over 36 years; divided the parties' marital property; and denied the request of Betty J. Bryant ("Wife") for attorney's fees. Wife appeals, arguing that the division of marital property is not equitable. Her argument is predicated primarily upon the assertion that her spouse, Roy C. Bryant ("Husband"), dissipated the marital assets as a result of his gambling activities. In addition, Wife contends that the trial court erred in refusing to award her attorney's fees. We affirm.

John Doe 1 v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Nashville
M2001-01780-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
This appeal involves claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress through outrageous conduct. John Doe 1, his mother, and John Doe 2 seek to hold the Roman Catholic Diocese of Nashville liable for injuries caused by the alleged outrageous conduct of the Diocese in its dealings with Edward McKeown, a former priest, who sexually molested John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 a number of years after his affiliation with the Diocese ended. The trial court granted the Diocese's summary judgment motion, finding the Does had failed as a matter of law to satisfy the threshold requirements for stating a claim for the tort of outrageous conduct. The plaintiffs appeal that decision. Because we find the summary judgment motion was properly granted, we affirm the trial court.

Lori Bates v. Joseph Bates
M2002-02037-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce, involving issues of appreciation involving Husband's property, award of attorney fees, and division of marital property and debt. Husband appeals. We affirm as modified herein and remand for such further proceedings as may be necessary.

Trinity Industries v. McKinnon Bridge
M2002-02713-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
In this case, appellant-contractor for construction of a bridge entered into a contract with appellee-subcontractor for the fabrication and delivery of structural steel. By virtue of an indemnity clause in the contract, the trial court held the contractor liable to the subcontractor for the amounts expended by the subcontractor in settlement of a lawsuit filed against it and for the expenses incurred in the defense of the lawsuit. Contractor appeals. We affirm.

Roger Harris v. State of Tennessee
E2001-00782-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lynn W. Brown
This case has been returned to active status for consideration of the post conviction issues, after the supreme court denied the petitioner’s delayed appeal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule. 28 §(9)(D). The petitioner appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. We affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief.

State of Tennessee v. Jaye Wesley Mitts
E2002-00016-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge E. Shayne Sexton

The State appeals contending the trial court erred in allowing the defendant to receive jail credit from an unrelated charge against the 150-day mandatory minimum sentence he received in his plea to sixth offense D.U.I. Also, the State alleges error in the trial court modifying the defendant's payment plan for paying fines and costs to less than the defendant agreed to pay when the trial court accepted the defendant's plea agreement. We conclude it was error to allow this defendant to receive any jail credit toward his mandatory minimum of 150 days for his sixth D.U.I. offense where the credit accumulated on an unrelated charge. We further conclude the trial court was within its discretion to modify the payment plan, not the overall fine, upon determining the defendant did not have the ability to pay. We reverse in part and affirm in part the judgments of the trial court and remand for entry of a corrected judgment consistent with this opinion.

Bobby R. Essary v. John R. Essary
W2003-00299-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis