Opinions

Rudy Rogers vs. Gerald & Tony Young
02A01-9604-CH-00081
Trial Court Judge: John Walton West

State vs. Ferguson
03C01-9406-CR-00235
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown

Fred Dean vs. Donal Campbell, et al
02A01-9704-CV-00077
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III

02A01-611-CV-00267
02A01-611-CV-00267
Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey

02C01-9501-CC-00029
02C01-9501-CC-00029

State vs. Hawkins
03C01-9606-CC-00239
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen

State vs. Bowling
03C01-9501-CR-00017
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown

Hudson vs. State
03C01-9605-CC-00200

03C01-9512-CR-00410
03C01-9512-CR-00410
Trial Court Judge: Russell C. Hinson

Reliance Insurance Co. vs. WSN Leasing, Inc.
01A01-9612-CV-00552
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Brothers

Tomlin, a minor., et. al. vs. Warren,
01A01-9702-CV-00067
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes

Southeast Drilling & Blasting Services vs. BRS Construction Co.
01A01-9706-CH-00272
Trial Court Judge: Don R. Ash

Curtis vs. Curtis
01A01-9508-CV-00385
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson

Jenkins vs. Jenkins
01A01-9609-CV-00399
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins

Droussoitis vs. Damrron, et. al.
01A01-9612-CV-00548
Trial Court Judge: J. S. Daniel

State vs. Wallace Butler
02C01-9511-CR-00339
Trial Court Judge: Arthur T. Bennett

State vs. Claude Todd
02C01-9609-CR-00295

State vs. Jeffey Yates
02C01-9608-CR-00276
Trial Court Judge: Bernie Weinman

State vs. James Dodd
02C01-9608-CC-00273

State vs. Courtney Price/Robertson
02C01-9606-CC-00203
Trial Court Judge: Dick Jerman, Jr.

State vs. Charles Barbee
02C01-9610-CC-00372
Trial Court Judge: Joe G. Riley. Jr.

Tucker v. Ercl
03S01-9603-CV-00025
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Rex Henry Ogle
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, Dorothy Tucker, has appealed from the action of the trial court in dismissing her complaint and refusing to reconsider the issue of whether disputed material issues of fact exist. Defendant employer, ERCL, Inc., and defendant insurance carrier, Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company, have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground a notice of appeal was not timely filed within thirty days after the entry of an order sustaining a motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The motion for summary judgment was filed on January 13, 1995, and was supported by a deposition from plaintiff's treating doctor stating that there was no permanent impairment as a result of plaintiff's injury. Temporary total disability benefits as well as existing authorized medical expenses had been paid. Plaintiff did not file an opposing affidavit or deposition and an order was eventually entered on March 22, 1995, sustaining the motion and dismissing the case. On April 2, 1995, plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Rule 59, T.R.Civ.P., requesting the court to reconsider, vacate the order of dismissal and set the case for trial. The motion was styled "Motion for Reconsideration" and was supported by an affidavit from Dr. Scott L. Parson, a chiropractor, stating his examination of plaintiff indicated she had a l% impairment due to the injury of her elbow. The trial court denied the motion stating the affidavit came too late. This order was entered on January 5, 1996, and a notice of appeal was filed on January 1, 1996, reciting the appeal was being taken from the entry of the two orders of the trial court. Defendants contend it is well established a motion to reconsider will not toll the thirty day period after entry of a final judgment and cite the cases of Anthony v. Kelly Foods Inc., 74 S.W.2d 35 (Tenn. 1986) and Daugherty v. Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance, 798 S.W.2d 754 (Tenn. 199). In the Anthony case, a 2

Gregory Eidson vs. State
M2004-02528-CCA-R3-HC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Jane W. Wheatcraft
The Petitioner, Gregory Eidson, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that the Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We find the State's motion has merit. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the appeal is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

King v. State
03C01-9601-CR-00024

Mcmahan v. City of Newport
03S01-9607-CV-00080
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. William R. Holt, Jr.,
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 trial judge found that the plaintiff had sustained a ten percent permanent partial disability as a result of a work-related accident, although he did not have any additional assigned medical impairment. Plaintiff appeals, challenging the trial court's findings that plaintiff was not assigned an additional medical impairment rating and that plaintiff had a ten percent permanent partial disability. He also argues that the trial court should have reconsidered plaintiff's permanent partial disability award from his first injury. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Plaintiff, 45, has an eighth-grade education. He served with the Marines in Vietnam, has worked as a welder and has worked in maintenance. In 1983, he began working for the city of Newport, performing mostly maintenance tasks. He injured his back on October 8, 1992, for which surgery was performed; he returned to work after this surgery. He was awarded 4% permanent partial disability benefits for this injury. The trial court in that case found that plaintiff had a 15% medical impairment rating based on the testimony of Dr. Alan Whiton, plaintiff's treating orthopedic surgeon, that plaintiff's impairment could be as high as 15%. Plaintiff re-injured his back on July 12, 1994, when a power saw jerked while he was trimming trees. A surgical fusion was performed on plaintiff in October 1994. He did not return to work, although he was offered a position which would involve supervising prison inmates who were picking up litter. His supervisor, Tim Dockery, testified that this position was still available for plaintiff, although he admitted it had not yet been funded by the city council. Plaintiff testified that he experiences continuous pain in his back and down his right leg and that he does not believe that he can work. He also testified that Mr. Dockery told him he would be moved back into full duty after a few months; however, Mr. Dockery testified that he did not say this and that the position was intended to be permanent. 2