Peggy Birmingham v. Porter-Cable Corporation W1999-00695-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: W. Michael William Michael Maloan, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris, Chancellor
The defendant, Porter-Cable Corporation, appeals the judgment of the Chancery Court of Madison County which awarded the plaintiff, Peggy Birmingham, permanent partial disability of sixty percent (6%) to the body as a whole. For the reasons stated in this opinion, We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Madison
Workers Compensation Panel
Betty Jeane Scott, v. Cumberland Health Care Center,Inc., d/b/a General Care Convalescent Center, et al. M2000-00075-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Carol Catalano, 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 _ 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 had suffered an injury arising out of her employment with the defendant and awarded her thirty-five percent vocational disability to the body as a whole. Further, the trial court ordered the defendant to pay medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff as a result of the injury. The defendant argues the evidence does not support the finding of the trial court as to a compensable injury and the vocational disability, and claims the medical bills incurred by the plaintiff were not necessary We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court is Affirmed JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., in which FRANK F. DROWOTA III, J. and TOM E. GRAY, SP. J., joined. Jill A. Hanson, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants Cumberland Health Care Center, Inc., d/b/a General Care Convalescent Center and Legion Insurance Company. Stacy A. Turner, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Betty Jeane Scott. OPINION The trial court found the plaintiff had suffered an injury arising out of her employment with the defendant and awarded her thirty-five percent vocational disability to the body as a whole. Further, the trial court ordered the defendant to pay medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff as a result of the injury. The defendant argues the evidence does not support the finding of the trial court as to a compensable injury and the vocational disability, and claims the medical bills incurred by the plaintiff were not necessary. Facts The plaintiff, forty-seven years of age at the time of trial, has a twelfth- grade education, and training as a certified nurses' aide. The plaintiff began working for the defendant in 1974. She left work for the defendant for a period of time but returned during the mid or later part of the 198's. On July 9, 1991, she fell while in the course of her work. She fell upon her left side and injured her lower back, left hip, cervical and thoracic spine and left shoulder. Medical Evidence The defendant first sent the plaintiff to Dr. David Gullet, the company doctor. Dr. Gullet referred the plaintiff to Dr. Steve McLaughlin, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. McLaughlin entered into a course of treatment of the plaintiff on July 24, 1991. Dr. McLaughlin found the plaintiff had a pinching of the rotator cuff in her shoulder and an inflamation of the bursa over the left hip, which accounted for her left hip and left knee pain. Dr. McLaughlin opined these findings were caused by the fall the plaintiff had at work. Dr. McLaughlin saw the plaintiff again approximately ten days after the initial examination; she expressed complaints similar to those of the earlier visit. On August 26, 1991, Dr. McLaughlin saw the plaintiff and had an MRI done which showed some degenerative disease at the 4th and 5th lumbar vertebra and perhaps a mass in the pelvis. Dr. McLaughlin did not see the plaintiff again until May 3, 1996. She missed an appointment on September 9, 1991. Dr. McLaughlin saw the plaintiff on several occasions after the May appointment over the next few weeks. He found she was suffering from the same problems as she had in 1991. He was of the opinion that this was not unusual for the condition the plaintiff suffered in 1991. Dr. McLaughlin performed surgery upon the plaintiff's shoulder. Dr. McLaughlin was of the opinion the plaintiff had sustained a ten percent medical impairment to the upper extremity. The plaintiff wentto Dr. James D. Davis, a chiropractor, on December 13, 1993, complaining of the same symptoms about which Dr. McLaughlin testified. Dr. Davis' examination revealed similar findings as those of Dr. McLaughlin. He found the plaintiff had a five percent permanent medical impairment to the body as a whole. Dr. Richard Fishbein, an orthopaedic surgeon, evaluated the plaintiff in October of 1996. -2-
Scott
Workers Compensation Panel
James Eakes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company W2000-00142-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: William Michael Maloan, Chancellor
In this appeal, the employee contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the preponderance of the evidence fails to establish a causal connection between his injury and his employment. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed.
Obion
Workers Compensation Panel
John Fiser, et al vs. Town of Farragut E1999-00425-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
In this suit the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that a Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Farragut, which admittedly seeks to eliminate off-premises billboards, is invalid insofar as their property is concerned. The Trial Court found in favor of Farragut. We reverse.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Vickie Sherman vs. American Water Heater Co., Inc. E2000-01389-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.
The Trial Court held release given by plaintiff barred plaintiff's claim for statutory indemnification. On appeal we reverse.
The petitioner challenges the trial court's denial of his habeas corpus petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. We affirm the denial of the petition.
Johnson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Jim Vines vs. David Gibson E2000-02257-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
In this breach of contract case, the defendant appeals from the trial court's refusal to grant a new trial or set aside an order favorable to the plaintiff. Because we find that the defendant did not receive advance notice of the hearing that led to the entry of the order, we vacate the order of the trial court.
Anderson
Court of Appeals
James Fraysier vs. Karen Fraysier E2000-02485-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Jean A. Stanley
James Thomas Fraysier ("Husband") filed a complaint seeking a divorce from Karen Kay Singleton Fraysier ("Wife") on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. Wife filed an answer and counterclaim seeking a divorce on the same grounds. The parties agreed upon the distribution of the marital assets, which was approved by the Trial Court. The two issues to be decided at trial were who should be granted the divorce and whether Wife was entitled to alimony. The Trial Court determined that Husband was entitled to a divorce on the basis of inappropriate marital conduct and that Wife was entitled to rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $600.00 per month for a period of 48 months or until further order of the court. Both parties appeal the Trial Court's determination with regard to alimony. We affirm.
Washington
Court of Appeals
William R. Clark v. Willamette Industries, Inc. E1999-02693-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: John S. Mclellan, III, Chancellor
The dispositive issue is whether the evidence preponderantly proved that the condition of the plaintiff's right knee was causally related to a fall he suffered in March 1997. The expert proof was divergent, and the plaintiff's credibility was remarked by the trial judge.
Petitioner, Anthony M. Freeman, appeals the dismissal of his petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus and/or post-conviction relief. We conclude the petition does not state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, and the petition was filed beyond the statute of limitations for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The defendant, Jeffery S. Shands, challenges the trial court's order upholding the District Attorney General's denial of pretrial diversion for the charges of criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving. He contends that the District Attorney abused his discretion in failing to consider and weigh all of the relevant factors presented in the evidence. After a review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court's order denying pretrial diversion.
Madison
Court of Criminal Appeals
State of Tennessee v. David Plunk W2000-00526-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge L. Terry Lafferty
A Crockett County jury convicted the defendant of premeditated first degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. In this appeal as a matter of right, the defendant challenges (1) the introduction of statements he made to officers, and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Crockett
Court of Criminal Appeals
Robert Wilson, Jr. vs. Martha Wilson E2000-01181-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: William R. Brewer
In this post-divorce case, the trial court (1) denied the father's request to relocate to Georgia with the parties' minor child; (2) imposed sanctions for the father's perjury; and (3) changed the joint custody decreed at the time of the divorce to sole custody in the mother. On this appeal, the father argues (1) that the trial court erred in reversing its initial post-divorce decision pursuant to which the father had been permitted to relocate to Georgia; (2) that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act to make a custody determination; (3) that the trial court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground of inconvenient forum; (4) that the trial court erred in basing its change of custody upon the father's admittedly false testimony; (5) that the trial court's reversal of its prior decision to permit the father to relocate is barred by the doctrine of laches; (6) that the trial court erred in finding that father's contemptuous behavior was a proper basis for denying him an award of child support; and (7) that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed sanctions for criminal contempt without providing the necessary procedural safeguards. We find that the trial court erred in dismissing Father's petition for child support. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Blount
Court of Appeals
John Justice vs. Holly Justice M1998-00916-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal involves a dispute between a physician and a pharmacist regarding the provisions in their divorce decree for spousal support and legal expenses. In its decree ending their fourteen-year marriage, the Circuit Court for Davidson County directed the physician, among other things, to pay the pharmacist $50 per month in alimony in futuro until her death or remarriage, as well as $4,500 to partially defray the legal expenses she had incurred in the divorce proceeding. The physician asserts on this appeal that the spousal support award was punitive and that the pharmacist received sufficient assets as a result of the division of the marital estate to pay her own legal expenses. We have determined that the record supports the trial court's decisions regarding both the spousal support and the legal expenses and, therefore, affirm the judgment.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Jerry LaQuiere, et al vs. Daniel W. McCollum M1999-00926-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal involves a dispute arising out of the sale of a tract of real property in Antioch. After a survey revealed that the size of the tract was significantly less than the size stated in the contract, the purchaser filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking both specific performance of a provision in the contract requiring an adjustment in the purchase price and damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation. The purchaser also filed a lis pendens notice with the Davidson County Register of Deeds. The trial court granted the vendor's motion for summary judgment on the issue of specific performance and ordered the lis pendens notice removed. However, the trial court declined to grant summary judgment on the issue of damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation. We granted the purchaser's Tenn. R. App. P. 10 application for an extraordinary appeal. We now affirm the trial court because we concur with its conclusion that the price adjustment provision in the contract is not clear, definite, and complete.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Susie Tackett, et al vs. Hulin Shepherd, et al M1999-02333-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: James E. Walton
This case involves a two-vehicle accident between Defendant Jones Brothers Construction's truck and Plaintiff. The accident occurred on April 19, 1996, in Clarksville, Tennessee at the intersection of U.S. Highway 41-A North, also Fort Campbell Blvd, and Jack Miller Blvd. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant Hulin D. Shepherd ("Shepherd"), an employee of Jones Brothers Construction, was negligent by failing to yield when he exited a "private" road and entered onto a "public" highway. The Defendants denied that it was a "private" road, denied liability, and asserted comparative fault on the part of Plaintiff John Roe ("Roe"). At the trial in November 1999, Plaintiffs requested special jury instructions concerning "private" roads. The trial court rejected the special instructions. The jury returned a verdict of equal fault and the case was dismissed. The Plaintiffs timely appealed after Plaintiffs' motion for a new trial was denied. We affirm the trial court.
Montgomery
Court of Appeals
Richard Conroy vs. City of Dickson, et al M2000-01189-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin
The driver of an automobile sued the City of Dickson under the Governmental Tort Liability Act for the severe injuries he suffered when a city police cruiser collided with his car. After a bench trial, the court found that the plaintiff and the officer driving the police car were equally responsible for the accident, resulting in no recovery for the plaintiff. We affirm.
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of assault, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to the maximum term of eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be served as a split sentence with five months and twenty-nine days served in confinement at the workhouse, and the balance served on probation. In this appeal as of right, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred in allowing the victim, his former wife, to testify as to two other bad acts committed by the defendant, one a prior beating incident and the other an act of vandalism of the victim’s car. Having reviewed the entire record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Shelby
Court of Criminal Appeals
Gertrud Deneau vs. Donald Deneau M2000-00238-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin
This divorce case involves property division and alimony after a short term marriage. The trial court awarded all of the real property to the husband and allowed each party to keep the personal property in his or her possession. The court ordered the husband to pay $50,000 to the court clerk's office, who shall in turn pay the wife's debt to the Department of Veterans Affairs and disburse the remainder to the wife. The court refused to award alimony. We affirm.
Stewart
Court of Appeals
M1999-02810-COA-R9-CV M1999-02810-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Soloman
Davidson
Court of Appeals
De Lage Financial vs. Earthlab Productions W2000-02232-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio
This appeal involves a contract dispute. The Appellant alleges that the Appellees made one payment but then failed to continue making payments as per the terms of the agreement. The Appellees, however, assert that consideration for the contract is lacking. At the close of Plaintiff's proof at trial, Defendants moved for an involuntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, which the trial court granted. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the court below.
Tracy McGowan vs. Dr. Crants/Alan Bargery W2000-02398-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
This is a civil lawsuit filed by a prisoner. The inmate filed a complaint against the prison warden and the chairman of the board of the company which owns and operates the prison, alleging negligence and violations of his constitutional rights. The inmate moved for default judgment, which was denied. The defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that there were no material facts in dispute. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The inmate now appeals. We reverse, finding that there are genuine issues of material fact.
Hardeman
Court of Appeals
Stanley Blackwood vs. Patrick Martin & Hardee, Martin, Jaynes, Ivy W2000-01573-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
This is a legal malpractice case arising from an underlying criminal conviction. The plaintiff prisoner was convicted on twelve counts, including one count of first degree murder. The plaintiff sued the defendant attorneys for malpractice, alleging, inter alia, that the defendants negligently failed to conduct a thorough investigation and that, after the plaintiff terminated the defendants' services, the defendants improperly retained a portion of the retainer fee paid by the plaintiff for post-trial representation. The defendant attorneys filed a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. The plaintiff then filed a motion seeking the appointment of a court-appointed expert, which was denied. The trial court subsequently granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint an expert and did not err in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
