Gary L. Holt, Sr. v. Ozburn-Hessey Moving Company and American Alternative Insurance Corporation M1999-02563-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Lee Russell, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Appellant appeals from the amount of the award of permanent partial disability benefits. After a complete review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the award made by the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. ' 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed LEE RUSSELL, SP. J., in which ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, J. and JAMES L. WEATHERFORD, SR.J., joined Jeffrey P. Boyd, Jackson Tennessee, for the appellant, Ozburn-Hessey Moving Company James R. Tomkins, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Gary L. Holt, Sr. MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal by Defendant Ozburn-Hessey Moving Company (hereinafter referred to as "Ozburn-Hessey" or "the company") from an award of benefits made in favor of Gary L. Holt 1 ("Claimant") on a claim filed pursuant to the Tennessee Workers Compensation Act. The trial court held that the Claimant was an employee of Ozburn-Hessey and awarded the Claimant a forty percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole as a result of an injury to the back which allegedly occurred on July 23, 1998. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial judge erred in her holding that the Claimant was an employee of Ozburn-Hessey and not a mere independent contractor. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial judge's finding that the Claimant was an employee.
Davidson
Workers Compensation Panel
State vs. Miles Mateyko M1998-00275-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee
The defendant was charged and convicted of child abuse through neglect in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-15-401(a). The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, finding that the State did not establish that the defendant's children suffered any actual, deleterious effect or harm from the neglect. However, the intermediate court found that the defendant was guilty of attempted child abuse through neglect, and it remanded the case for resentencing. The State requested permission to appeal to this Court, and we hold that section 39-15-401(a) does require proof of an actual, deleterious effect or harm to the child's health and welfare and that the mere risk of harm is insufficient to support a conviction. We also hold that in those cases in which no such actual, deleterious effect or harm is shown, a defendant may be convicted of attempted child abuse through neglect under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-12-101, provided that the State is successful in making the required showing. Because the record in this case contains conflicting evidence as to the required intent necessary for the attempted crime, we remand this case to the Lincoln County Circuit Court for a new trial on the lesser-included offense of attempted child abuse through neglect. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
In matter of Hannah Parlow W2000-01462-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: George E. Blancett
After paternity was established and Mother was granted custody of minor daughter, Father filed petition to change custody on the ground of material change of circumstances consisting of Mother's remarriage to an allegedly violent man, and Mother's intention to move with the child out of the state. The juvenile referee denied the petition and, upon a de novo trial before a special juvenile judge of the juvenile court, Father's petition was denied. Father has appealed. We affirm.
Cora Cantrell, et al vs. Knox County Bd of Ed. et al E1999-01557-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Harold Wimberly
The issue in this appeal is whether non-certified, non-tenured teacher aides have under state law a reasonable expectation of continued employment beyond the term of their written contracts such that they are entitled to back pay and benefits beyond the expiration of their contract period. We conclude that teacher aides do not have a reasonable expectation of continued employment. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated.
Knox
Supreme Court
Charmaine West, et al vs. Media General Convergence, Inc., et al M2001-00141-SC-R23-CQ
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, this Court accepted certification of the following question from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee:
Supreme Court
Nancy Byrd v. Freshi Air Systems, Inc. (Formerly E2000-00481-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: O. Duane Sloan, Circuit Judge
The trial court found the plaintiff sustained a permanent psychological or mental impairment as a result of a confrontation between her and a supervisor of the defendant. The trial judge found the plaintiff sustained a fifty percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole as a result of the confrontation. The defendant says the evidence preponderates against the finding. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Annette L. Hanna, et al. v. Federated Insurance Company M2000-01967-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: James E. Walton, 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. The trial court found the plaintiff's husband was killed in the course and scope of his employment and ordered the amount to which his dependants were entitled should be paid in a lump sum. The court further ordered the money to be paid into the court and that the Clerk and Master invest the funds and pay the interest earned thereon to the widow for the benefit fo the deceased's minor children. The defendant says the death benefits cannot be paid in a lump sum and further says, even if lump sum payments is permissible, the plaintiff has failed to show she can manage the money. Further, the defendant says the trial court erroneously failed to commute the award to its present value. 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 is Affirmed JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., in which FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, J. and JOSEPH C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., joined. D. Brett Burrow and Delicia R. Bryant, Nashville, Tennessee, attorneys for the appellant, Federated Insurance Company. Mark A. Rassas and Julia P. North, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Annette L. Hanna, widow of the decedent, Darren D. Hanna, and as Guardian for the minor children, Brett Hanna and Marian Hanna, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Darren D. Hanna. OPINION On September 2, 1999, Darren H. Hanna died as a result of a vehicle accident. There was no dispute that the accident occurred within the scope and course of the decedent's occupation with the defendant. Mr. Hanna was survived by his widow, Annette L. Hanna, who was born November 25, 1972, and two minor children, Marian Ruth Hanna, born September 17, 1994, and Brett Darren Hanna, born March 3, 1997. On November 5, 1999, the widow filed this case against the defendant. On June 15, 2, the widow was appointed guardian of the estate of the two minor children to receive any workers' compensation benefits, and also in that order the Clerk of the Chancery Court was authorized to receive the proceeds of any compensation benefits, invest them and pay the interest to Annette K, Hanna for the care and maintenance of the two minor children. On June 27, 2, the widow filed a sworn statement renouncing any benefits from the proceeds of any workers' compensation award conditional on the money being paid into the court and invested and distributed as subsequently ordered by the trial court. On June 3, 2, the trial judge ordered the defendant to pay a lump sum of $174,416. into the court less any credits for sums previously paid, and that the Clerk and Master have control of the funds for the purpose of investment and for payments of the interest earned thereon to the widow for the benefit of the minor children. Discussion Did the trial court have authority to order a lump sum payment_yes. In Jones v. General Accident Ins. Co., 856 S.W.2d 133 (Tenn. 1993), the court held "(i)n any event, we hold today that death benefits awarded under Tennessee Code Annotated. _ 5-6-21 can be commuted to a lump sum." In Clayton v. Cookeville Energy Inc., 824 S.W.2d 167 (Tenn. 1992), the court approved a lump sum settlement to the widow, and in Ponder v. Manchester Housing Authority, 87 S.W.2d 282 (Tenn. 1994) the court approved a lump sum payment to the widow and an arrangement for the minor children's share to be paid to the clerk, invested and the interest therefrom paid to the children. The arrangement in this case is similar to the arrangement in Ponder except in this case the widow will not receive a share of the proceeds.1 Perhaps a more substantial argument is made by the defendant on the premise that the evidence does not support a lump sum award because the widow has demonstrated an inability to wisely manage a lump sum award. 1 The defendant's argument that the widow might remarry is not important because the defendant would still be liable for two-thirds of the benefit because of the two remaining children. -2-
Robertson
Workers Compensation Panel
Did Not Meet The Criteria For Acceptance of Scientific Testimony In Mcdaniel v. Csx Transportation M2000-00185-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Weatherford, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Don Ash, Chancellor
The plaintiff, Mary E. Miller, appeals the judgment of the Chancery Court of Tennessee for the 16th Judicial District at Murfreesboro, where the trial court found: (1) that Ms. Miller sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course and scope of her employment and awarded twenty percent (2%) permanent vocational or industrial disability to the right lower extremity; (2) that the testimony of Ms. Miller's expert witness on reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) and fibromyalgia did not meet the criteria for acceptance of scientific testimony in McDaniel v. CSX Transportation Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn.1997), and therefore excluded his testimony; (3) that her condition of fibromyalgia and resulting psychiatric condition were not work-related and as such were not compensable; (4) that Ms. Miller was entitled to permanent medical care and treatment only for the injury to her right leg arising out of this work-related accident but not for fibromyalgia or any other conditions. Ms. Miller also raises some other procedural and evidentiary issues that will be addressed herein. For the reasons stated in this opinion, We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Rutherford
Workers Compensation Panel
Arthur Ray White v. Maytag Cleveland Cooking E2000-01451-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Thayer, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Jerri S. Bryant, Chancellor
The Second Injury Fund has appealed an award of total disability where the employer was ordered to pay 2 percent of the award and the Second Injury Fund was to pay the remaining 8 percent. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
White
Workers Compensation Panel
State vs. Michael D. Simmons M1999-00099-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman
Appellant, Michael Dewayne Simmons, pled guilty to felony theft of property and aggravated robbery but reserved for appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(i) the following certified question of law: whether the defendant was denied his federal and state constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that Simmons had not been deprived of his speedy trial right. We granted Simmons' application for permission to appeal to determine whether a speedy trial violation occurred in this case where the only prejudice allegedly resulting from the delay is the defendant's lost possibility of concurrent sentencing with a sentence imposed for a prior unrelated offense. Because the delay of twenty-three months was not egregious, the reason for the delay was negligence or administrative oversight, and the only prejudice alleged is the lost possibility of serving a concurrent sentence, we conclude that the defendant's right to a speedy trial has not been violated. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals upholding the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss.
Estate of Julie Amos, et al. v. Vanderbilt University, et al. M1999-00998-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
We granted appeal in this case to determine whether the special proof requirements of Camper v. Minor, 915 S.W.2d 437, 446 (Tenn. 1996), extend to all negligence claims in which damages for emotional distress are sought as an item of compensatory damages. We hold that the special proof requirements of Camper apply only to "stand-alone" claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress. We further hold that Vanderbilt University Medical Center owed a duty to warn Julie Amos of her potential exposure to HIV so that she might take appropriate measures to protect third parties. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court's judgment in this case.
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of premeditated first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the admission of three alleged hearsay statements and the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The petitioner appeals his denial of post-conviction relief and asserts that the post-conviction court incorrectly found that he received effective assistance of counsel and, thus, knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
Shelby
Court of Criminal Appeals
Harold Liford v. Afg Industries, Inc., E2000-01474-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Thayer, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Ben K. Wexler, Circuit Judge
The employer and insurance company have appealed from an award of permanent total disability insisting the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding the employee's leg condition was causally related to his work injury. The employee contends the award of disability should have been determined to be of a permanent partial nature so that he would qualify for benefits under Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-242. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Sheree Sapp v. Covenant Transport, Inc., M2000-00681-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Loser, Sp. J
Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond, Judge
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to theSpecial 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 and its insurer contend: (1) the trial court erred in finding the employee's carpal tunnel syndrome to be work-related; (2) the trial judge's comments concerning a potential expert and matters not in evidence demonstrated bias and lack of impartiality; (3) the trial court erred in not finding the employee's unilateral initiation and selection of medical treatment and refusal to report for light duty barred any claim for temporary total, permanent partial and/or medical benefits; (4) the trial court erred in finding that adequate and proper notice of a workers' compensation claim was provided; (5) the trial court erred in assessing bad faith penalties on outstanding medical expenses, temporary total disability benefits and accrued permanent partial disability benefits; (6) the trial court erred in finding that it was appropriate that the employee's attorney put in the record counsel's attendance at the employer's medical examination, and thus attempting to bolster the testimony of the employee; and (7) the trial court's award of permanent partial disability benefits was excessive. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the trial court erred in assessing a 25 percent penalty on accrued permanent partial disability benefits and in assessing a penalty on unpaid medical benefits, but that the judgment should otherwise be affirmed. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed in part; Reversed in part; Modified in part. LOSER, SP. J, in which BIRCH, J. and PEOPLES, SP. J., joined. Robert J. Uhorchuk, Spicer, Flynn & Rudstrom, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellants, Covenant Transport, Inc. and Travelers Insurance Companies. William Joseph Butler, Debbie C. Holliman, Farrar & Holliman, Lafayette, Tennessee, for the appellee, Sheree Sapp. MEMORANDUM OPINION At the time of the trial on February 1, 2, the employee or claimant, Sheree Sapp, was 43 years old and a high school graduate with experience as a convenience store worker and truck driver. After previously working for Covenant, she returned to work there in late May 1977. At the time, she was having general aches and pains in her hands, but had never experienced any tingling and numbness. She passed a physical examination before returning. Her duties required her to drive a truck and to help load, unload and drop trailers and refuel the tractor. By January of 1998, she was having pain, tingling and numbness in both hands. She reported the problems to her dispatcher at Covenant. She was eventually referred to Dr. Paul Abbey, whom she visited on June 12, 1998. On the same day, she notified her employer that she believed the condition was work related. The employer filed a First Report of Work Injury with the workers' compensation division of Tennessee on the same day. The employer told the claimant that she would be required to go to Chattanooga to be evaluated by a workers' compensation insurance company physician, stay in a motel and work in Covenant's offices in Chattanooga to have any chance of collectingworkers' compensation benefits. The claimant lives in Smith County, a drive of more than 15 miles from Chattanooga. She refused to drive to Chattanooga for an examination and evaluation. She received a letter from John Orum, a claims representative representing Covenant, denying workers' compensation benefits because, he said, ". . . After a careful review of your claim for Workers' Compensation benefits, we have determined that your carpal tunnel syndrome did not arise out of your employment with Covenant Transport, Inc." The letter was dated July 13, 1998. It is undisputed in the record that the claimant told Sheila Simpson-Murray, workers' compensation manager for Covenant, on June 12, 1998, that she had a work-related injury. At trial, Mr. Orum admitted that he actually made no investigation of the claim and that normally he would call the employee, the employer and the physician. He did not call Ms. Sapp or Dr. Abbey before denying this claim. The record contains conflicting evidence as to whether Ms. Murray offered the claimant a panel of three physicians from which to choose a treating one. The claimant says she did not; Ms. Murray says she did, but concedes all three were in Chattanooga, and admits she never offered the name of a treating physician as close to Smith County as Nashville, all on the advice of Orum. Additionally, the only light duty offered to the claimant was in Chattanooga. The claimant did not wish to drive all the way to Chattanooga for light duty work or medical care. Dr. Abbey continued to treat the claimant and eventually performed carpal tunnel surgery on both arms. She continued to have problems after surgery. The doctor's testimony regarding causation, though equivocal, was that the claimant's condition could have been work-related. Our independent examination of the record reveals no evidence that the injury resulted from an occurrence that was not work-related. Dr. Cornelius J. Mance, a neurologist, examined the claimant and found no evidence of carpal tunnel syndrome, but said he regularly saw truck drivers with the condition and would defer -2-
