Sheila Reece v. J. T. Walker Industries Inc. d/b/a Rite E2006-01555-WC-R3-WC
Authoring Judge: Jerry Scott, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: G. Richard Johnson, Chancellor
This workers= compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers= Compensation Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of her employment. The trial court awarded her 50% permanent partial disability to both hands. The employer has appealed, contending the award is excessive. We modify the award to 50% permanent partial disability to both arms, and affirm the judgment
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Gary Charles Hill v. Insurance Company of North America 03S01-9712-CH-00150
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jeffrey F. Stewart,
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 court awarded the employee, Gary Charles Hill, 1% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The insurance carrier, Insurance Company of North America, has appealed contending the evidence does not support a finding of permanent disability. Employee Hill was 41 years of age at the time of the incident in question and was a high school graduate. A great deal of his work experience has been as a painter but he has operated construction equipment and worked as a carpenter. He had been employed by Raytheon since 1994 and was doing industrial painting on about February 16, 1995. He testified he was operating a grinder under a large- like air compressor when he felt a pull in a muscle. When this pain occurred he was lying down in a somewhat twisted position and was working over his head. He reported the incident to his employer and was given a list of three physicians. He chose Dr. Lester F. Littell and saw him on March 2, 1995. Dr. Littell told him he had a pinched nerve and would probably need surgery. Hoping to avoid surgery, he went to see a private physician, Dr. Ernest Forsten. Dr. Forsten scheduled an M.R.I. examination and later referred him to Dr. Larry Gibson, a neurologist. Plaintiff continued to work with his complaints and was terminated from employment on August 22, 1995. His employer told him the termination was due to his "arrest record." At the trial he told the court the accident caused neck pain and numbness in some of his fingers and thumb. He said he felt his recovery was about 75% back to normal status but he was still having pain in the back of his shoulder and down his left arm. He said he could not return to industrial painting work but he had worked at small painting jobs such as painting bedrooms, porches, fences, etc. All of the expert medical testimony was presented by deposition. Dr. Larry Gibson testified plaintiff had damage or a pinching of his 6th and 7th nerve with subsequent weakness in the left triceps. He stated a nerve conduction study confirmed the diagnosis. Testing also revealed a bulging disc which was due 2
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Charles Blake Britton v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 03S01-9901-CH-00012
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jerri S. Bryant
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. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial courts in workers' compensation cases. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). The plaintiff brought this action to recover for an injury which he alleges occurred in February of 1995. The trial judge found the plaintiff had failed to show the injury of 1995 entitled him to recover. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
James C. Ward vs. State E2004-01397-CCA-R3-HC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Cupp
The petitioner, James C. Ward, appeals from the trial court's order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has failed to establish his claim of a void judgment. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Johnson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Donnell Booker vs. State E2005-00231-CCA-R3-HC
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Cupp
The petitioner, Donnell Booker, appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Mark Alan Deakins vs. State E2004-01803-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil
The petitioner, Mark Alan Deakins, pled guilty in the Hamilton County Criminal Court to especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, sexual exploitation of a minor, and statutory rape and received an effective eleven-year sentence to be served as one year in jail and the remainder on probation. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a post-conviction petition, alleging that he was prosecuted under unconstitutional statutes and in violation of ex post facto constitutional provisions. The trial court denied post-conviction relief. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Hamilton
Court of Criminal Appeals
Joseph B. Thompson vs. State E2005-00005-CCA-R3-HC
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
The petitioner, Joseph B. Thompson, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Sullivan County Criminal Court. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition for failure to meet procedural requirements, which dismissal the petitioner appeals. The State filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the petition was properly dismissed. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Dan E. Durell E2004-03014-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins
The petitioner, Dan E. Durell, appeals the trial court's order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. The pleading is barred by the statute of limitations and was properly dismissed. Accordingly, this court affirms the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R.
State v. Anthony Borg M1999-02360-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Leon C. Burns, Jr.
Defendant, Anthony Borg, pled guilty to one count of burglary and was sentenced by the trial court to a term of four years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant raises two issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by imposing the maximum sentence; and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant alternative sentencing. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
