Steele , et. al. vs. Industrial Dev. Bd. of Metro Gov't.
01S01-9607-FD-00136

Dept. of Health, Bureau of Medicaid vs. Jaco
01S01-9609-CH-00171

State vs. David Price
02C01-9610-CC-00356
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree

Lamar Fletcher vs. State
02S01-9606-CR-00056

State vs. Richard Madkins
02C01-9511-CR-00351
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

State vs. William H. Stitts
02C01-9602-CC-00053

State vs. David Johnson
02C01-9609-CR-00305

Bruce Hutton, et al vs. City of Savannah, TN
02A01-9612-CV-00314
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn

W2001-01724-COA-R3-JV
W2001-01724-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Christy R. Little

State vs. Charles E. Miller
01C01-9607-CR-00290
Trial Court Judge: Thomas H. Shriver

State vs. Arthur E. Chandler
01C01-9608-CC-00345
Trial Court Judge: Thomas T. Woodall

Douglas Mattes vs. State
01C01-9609-CC-00398
Trial Court Judge: James K. Clayton, Jr.

State vs. Delmer Ray Hall
01C01-9608-CR-00353
Trial Court Judge: Henry Denmark Bell

Morris Donegan vs. State
01C01-9608-CR-00354
Trial Court Judge: Jane W. Wheatcraft

Thomas V. Case vs. State
01C01-9610-CC-00444
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Burch

Thomas V. Case vs. State
01C01-9610-CC-00444
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Burch

James Edward Hughes vs. State
01C01-9605-CC-00188
Trial Court Judge: J. S. Daniel

State, ex. rel., Alsobrooks vs. Rowlett
01C01-9605-CC-00211
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Burch

State vs. Calvin Head
01C01-9512-CC-00401
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer

State vs. Larry Wayne King a/k/a Key & Andrew Byers
01C01-9601-CC-00002
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris

State vs. Robert K. Booher
01C01-9604-CC-00131
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Burch

Ebasco v. Rice
03S01-9701-CH-00009
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior 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 paraphrased issue in this case is whether the finding of 15% permanent partial disability is supported by a preponderance of the evidence under our standard of review as mandated by Rule 13(d), T.R.A.P. and T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). It is not disputed that the appellee suffered a job-related accidental back injury on August 12, 1993, while using a 2-pound drill with one hand because of close working quarters. Officially, he lost no time from work but was assigned to lighter duties until he was laid off in July 1994. He testified that during the year following his injury, he missed about 25-3 days because of back pain. In October 1994 he was employed by another company as a pipefitter but was laid off after only three weeks because he could not do heavy lifting. He took re-training courses in valve technology and obtained satisfactory employment not involving the lifting of heavy materials. He testified that he can no longer engage in physical activities which require heavy lifting. Dr. Herbert Dodge was his treating physician. He initially prescribed conservative treatment for a spondylolisthesis at the lowest part of the low back, with accompanying muscle spasms. He did not relate the spondylolisthesis to an injury, because it was congenital, but said the muscle spasm was caused by trauma. Dr. Dodge continued to see the appellee who complained of pain but followed instructions with respect to light work. He opined that the appellee had a three (3%) percent medical impairment to his whole body as a result of his injury. Dr. Lester Littell examined the appellee on one occasion, March 2, 1994, for the purpose of evaluation. He concurred in the diagnosis of spondylolisthesis and testified that if the condition is symptomatic, i.e., if the patient suffered a reported injury which was documented and if he complains of pain, the AMA Guidelines call for a seven (7%) percent impairment rating. 2

Mcdaniel v. Universal
03S01-9612-CV-00121
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ben K. Wexler
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. T. C. A. _ 5-6-241(a)(2) authorizes the Court to "reconsider upon the filing of a new cause of action the issue of industrial disability" and enlarge a previous award in appropriate cases where the employee is no longer employed by the pre-injury employer and files a timely application for an increase in benefits. This complaint was filed September 1, 1994. The plaintiff alleged that she had suffered a job-related back injury in 1993 which was resolved under the workers' compensation law on July 18, 1994 by a judgment approving a lump-sum settlement based on a finding of 2 percent vocational disability, with the proviso that she be allowed to return to work "within her medical restrictions."1 The judgment provided for the payment of future medical expenses provided the plaintiff consulted the defendant before seeking treatment from an authorized medical provider. She further alleged that she returned to work on July 11, 1994 and on August 17, 19942 during the course of her employment she again injured her back which resulted in total disability for which she sought an enlargement of the previous award. The plaintiff's job was sedentary. It involved "putting screws in bags." Upwards of eight one-inch screws were placed in a small glassine bag, total weight less than one ounce. She testified that owing to the laziness of fellow workers she occasionally had to stretch her arms in order to reach the materials and on August 17, 1994 "pulled her back" resulting in the alleged new injury and increased disability. The defendant denied that the plaintiff was injured as alleged and asserted that her anatomical impairment was no greater than as found by the Court on July 18, 1994. The trial judge found that this was not "an appropriate case under the provisions of T. C. A. _ 5-6-241(a)(2)" and dismissed the case. The plaintiff 1These "medical restrictions" are not otherwise defined or explicated. 2Twenty-nine days after the settlement. 2

State vs. Jerry Blaylock
02C01-9602-CC-00069
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley

State vs. Dunlap
03C01-9607-CR-00251
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins