M. S. Carriers, Inc. v. William Oringe 02S01-9804-CV-00042
Authoring Judge: L. Terry Lafferty, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. James F. Russell, Judge
This workers' compensation appeal was referred to the Special W orkers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6- 225(e)(3) (Supp. 1998) for a hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff/counter-defendant employer in this case, M.S. Carriers, Inc., originally filed a petition against the defendant/counter-plaintiffemployee, William Oringe, requesting a dismissal of Mr. Oringe's workers' compensation claim for an injury that the company alleged was not work-related. Mr. Oringe filed an answer and counter-complaint for benefits against the company. To avoid confusion on appeal, we will refer to Mr. Oringe as "the claimant" and to M.S. Carriers, Inc., as "the employer." The case was tried on March 9, 1998. The trial judge found that the claimant failed to prove that his injury arose out of and in the course of employment with M.S. Carriers, Inc., on January 16, 1997. The claimant presents several issues on appeal that can be summarized as follows: (1) Whether the trial court erred in allowing a computer printout surrounding the date in question to be used in the testimony of David Work, the claimant's supervisor at the time of the accident; and (2) whether the trial court erred in finding that the claimant did not sustain a work-related injury. After a careful review of the record, we find that the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed. At the time of trial, the claimant testified that he was a 33-year-old high school graduate with some vocational training in welding and truck driving, as well as experience as a supply clerk in the National Guard. He worked for the employer, M.S. Carriers, Inc., as an over-the-road truck driver from October of 1991 until January of 1997. In addition to driving a truck, the claimant was responsible for loading and unloading various types of cargo at their destinations. He testified that he had sustained two previous injuries to his back while working for the employer. The first injury occurred in 1993 or 1994 and healed normally. The second injury occurred on October 18, 1996, while the claimant was unloading a refrigerator from a truck with a two-wheeler, and his back "popped." He was treated by his family physician, Dr. James R. Jacobs, who referred him to a neurosurgeon, Dr. Gregory F. Ricca. An MRI revealed a bulging disc, and the claimant was released from 2
Shelby
Workers Compensation Panel
Jones v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. 03S01-9806-CV-00057
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. John J. 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 insurance carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, has appealed the trial court's award of 6% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. Since the award did not result in invoking any provision of the second injury fund statute, T.C.A. _ 5-6-28, the case against the state fund was dismissed. The trial commenced on August 16, 1996 and continued through several hearings until a final hearing on March 6, 1998. While there were many issues at the trial stage, the appeal only involves two issues. The insurance company contends (1) the evidence preponderates against the award of 6% permanent disability and (2) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's ruling that the employee was entitled to temporary total disability benefits up to December 1, 1997. We have carefully examined the lengthy record and are of the opinion the judgment entered below should be affirmed. The employee, Robert Jones, sustained a work-related back injury on July 2, 1994 when he fell from standing on a five gallon barrel or drum. At the date of the initial hearing, he testified he was 4 years of age, had a G.E.D. certificate and had received some vocational training. He contends he sustained physical and mental injuries as a result of the accident. Prior to the accident in July 1994, plaintiff had received several warnings concerning unexcused absences from work and was eventually terminated after the accident during March or April 1995. He told the trial court he had missed several days work due to doctor visits and upon returning to work was told he did not have authority to be absent and he was terminated. He stated he had not worked since the termination and that he was not able to work; that he still endured a lot of pain and felt he was 1% disabled. His testimony also indicates that after the accident in question, he became separated and divorced from his wife, lost his house due to a fire and was caring for his two small children. 2
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Brenda Rainey v. Cleo, Inc. 02S01-9802-CV-00018
Authoring Judge: L. Terry Lafferty, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. C. Creed Mcginley, Judge
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. Plaintiff, Brenda Rainey, has appealed from the judgment of the trial court denying her claim for workers' compensation on the grounds that she failed to carry her burden of proof that she sustained a work-related injury in the course and scope of her employment and that she sustained a permanent anatomical impairment as a result of a work- related injury. On appeal, the only issue presented by the plaintiff is whether the evidence preponderates against the judgment of the trial court. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we find that it does not, and, therefore affirm the trial court's judgment. At the time of trial, the plaintiff testified she was a single mother with two adult children, an eighth grade education, and a previous work history consisting of factory jobs and a nursing home position. The plaintiff testified she worked for the defendant as a bow inspector in November, 1995. The plaintiff's job was to watch 2-3 gift bows go by on a conveyor belt and "pick them out." While observing the conveyor line and bows, the plaintiff testified that her hands began hurting, and she notified her supervisor/line leader.1 The line leader replied, "Well, you'll be okay," and told the plaintiff that the absence would count against her if she left work. The plaintiff had previously complained about her left wrist while employed with another employer. She was seen by Dr. James Crenshaw and treated with wrist bands and medication. On November 4, 1995, the defendant notified the plaintiff that she was being laid off and subsequently closed the factory without notice. The plaintiff testified she was not furnished a panel of physicians from the defendant's compensation carrier until her attorney got approval for her to see Dr. Michael Cobb. The plaintiff lived in Humboldt, Tennessee, and Dr. Cobb's office was in Jackson, Tennessee. The plaintiff testified that 1In her complaint, the plaintiff stated that the date of injury was November 11, 1995, and the defendant's answer acknowledged that notice of an injury was given on November 4, 1995. Plaintiff later amended her complaint to allege the injury was gradually occurring with the last occurrence on November 11, 1995. 2
State vs. David Hundley W2001-00500-CCA-RM-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree
In this case, the petitioner, David Lee Hundley, filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court dismissed the petition on the basis that it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Our Court reversed and remanded for a determination by the trial court as to whether there was sufficient evidence of Petitioner's prior mental health problems to warrant a tolling of the statute of limitations. David Lee Hundley v. State, No. 02C01-9810-CC-00313, 1999 WL 668723, Weakley County (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, August 26, 1999). The supreme court granted the State's application for permission to appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 11 and remanded the case to this Court for reconsideration in light of State v. Nix, S.W.3d, No. E1999-02715-SC-R11-PC, slip op. (Tenn. Feb. 20, 2001). Upon remand, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Victoria Robbins vs. Bill Wolfenbarger, D/B/A Wolf's Motors and Sam Horne E1999-02012-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
Plaintiff Robbins filed a complaint for damages against Wolfenbarger and Horne, alleging breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation and negligence, per se. On August 26, 1999, an Order of Compromise and Dismissal was entered as to Wolfenbarger individually and d/b/a Wolf Motors. Horne did not file an answer during the time allowed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, and Robbins filed a motion for default judgment on July 9, 1999. Horne wrote a letter to the plaintiff's attorney in response to the complaint and summons, postmarked July 16, 1999. The letter was forwarded to the Clerk of the Court for filing by plaintiff's counsel's letter dated July 30, 1999. On August 27, Robbins' Motion for Default Judgment was heard, but Horne who had notice did not attend. A default judgment was entered against Horne and the Trial Court subsequently overruled Horne's Motion to Set Aside the Default. Horne has appealed. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.
John Seals vs. James Bowlen, Warden, et al M1999-00997-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
Petitioner, a state inmate, filed the underlying pro se petition for a writ of certiorari to challenge the result of a disciplinary proceeding against him. The trial court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim. We reverse the dismissal of all parties except the Department of Correction and affirm the dismissal for failure to state a claim.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Robert Odom v. Mary Odom M1999-02811-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace
This appeal involves a bitter custody dispute over three children between the ages of nine and fourteen. During the divorce proceeding in the Chancery Court for Dickson County, the parties agreed that the mother would have custody of the children and also agreed on visitation arrangements that accommodated the mother's planned move to another state. Several months after the entry of the divorce decree, the father petitioned to change custody and to hold the mother in contempt for interfering with his relationship with the children. During the ensuing three years, the parties traded allegations of sexual and physical abuse of the children and other misconduct. Following a bench trial in December 1998, the trial court found that there had been a material change in the children's circumstances and granted the father custody of the children. On this appeal, the mother asserts that she was denied due process by the trial court's refusal to require the parties and their children to undergo a psychological examination and that the trial court unlawfully delegated its judicial authority to a psychologist who had been counseling the children. We have determined that the mother received an essentially fair hearing on this custody dispute and, therefore, affirm the trial court.
