State vs. Gilliam
03C01-9711-CC-00489
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner

Larry Donald Setsor v. England Corcsair, Inc.
03S01-9708-CH-00103
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee [appellee] sustained three successive cervical spine injuries while working for the employer [appellant]. Appellee filed suit in January 1995 for the first injury and in August 1995 for the second injury. Appellant filed suit in August 1996 for judicial determination of its rights and obligations after the appellee alleged the third injury in May 1996. These three cases were consolidated for trial. The trial judge found the appellee had sustained 25 percent vocational disability from the first injury, 25 percent from the second injury, and no vocational disability from the third injury. The employer appeals, insisting that the trial judge improperly assessed the credibility of the medical evidence to reach an excessive award and erred in authorizing the employee to choose a new treating doctor. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Larry Donald Setsor, the appellee, is 45 years old, has a high school education, and has three months' vocational training1 for air-conditioning and refrigeration repair. He also trained to sell insurance, and attempted unsuccessfully to do so for eight months. His work experience includes upholstering, assembly line production and truck driving for this employer. In April 1994, appellee ruptured a cervical disc at C6/7 while unloading furniture at work. The employer sent him to a chiropractor, who referred him to Dr. Fred Killeffer, a neurosurgeon, who performed surgical removal of a disc 1He did not complete the course. 2

Amy v. Hollars
03S01-9707-CH-00084
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Samuel F. Payne,
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. 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 findings, 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 court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). This case presents the issue of whether the trial judge erred in dismissing the plaintiff's claim, which was filed on February 14, 1996, for workers' compensation benefits by way of summary judgment. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings. On February 1, 1995, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a settlement of a workers' compensation matter on a joint petition. The defendant filed the petition to resolve the case because of some question as to whether the plaintiff had a compensable claim. The plaintiff was unrepresented throughout the proceeding. The settlement entered into was to compensate the plaintiff for injuries to her sinus cavities as a result of exposure to chemicals used in the dark room of the x-ray department where she worked. Because the medical evidence indicated the plaintiff was allergic to these chemicals, the plaintiff quit work upon entry of the judgment approving the settlement. We find the following facts in the pleadings, etc. filed by the parties on the motion for summary judgment. Prior to the settlement, the plaintiff had been experiencing some joint pain and was examined for this on September 19, 1994 by Dr. Patrick Tsui. Dr. Tsui's notes 2

Miller vs. Miller
M1999-00226-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall

Dennis Dykes vs. Billy Compton, Warden
02S01-9711-CC-00105

State vs. Robert Dunlap
02C01-9801-CC-00009
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley

State vs. Williams
03S01-9706-CR-00060

State vs. Quintero and Hall
01S01-9703-CC-00068

State vs. Quintero and Hall
01S01-9703-CC-00068

General Electric Co. vs. Process Control Co.
01S01-9707-FD-00148

03S01-9706-CR-00068
03S01-9706-CR-00068

Frances Blanchard vs. Arlene Kellum, D.D.S.
02S01-9709-CV-00083

State vs. David Bornfriend
02C01-9708-CC-00297

State vs. Quintero and Hall
01S01-9703-CC-00068
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace

Alexander, et. al. vs. Inman
01S01-9705-CH-00103

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

Peggy Arnold vs. Dehoney Inter.
02A01-9803-CV-00075
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio

Stroud vs. Seaton
03A01-9802-CV-00060

State vs. Lonny Hazelwood
01C01-9705-CC-00175
Trial Court Judge: Henry Denmark Bell

State vs. Lonny Hazelwood
01C01-9705-CC-00175
Trial Court Judge: Henry Denmark Bell

State vs. Melvin Archuleta
01C01-9705-CC-00167

State vs. James Bult
01C01-9711-CC-00534
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee

State vs. Jeremy Winsett
02C01-9709-CR-00343
Trial Court Judge: William M. Barker

State vs. Davron Dinish
02C01-9709-CR-00349

State vs. Pamela Holloway
02C01-9810-CC-00320