APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

I concur with the decision to affirm the trial court’s order. In my view, it is simply a case of statutory application. In the “Open Parole Hearings Act” of 1993 the legislature provided that the Parole Board shall receive and consider victim impact statements, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-504(a); that notice be given to the victim or the victim’s representative and to the trial judge and district attorney involved in the original criminal prosecution, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-505(b)(1), (2) and (4); and that on a failure to provide the required notices, the Board may schedule a new hearing if the Board receives a written victim impact statement within fifteen days of the time the parole decision is finalized, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-505(d)(2).

The appellee has filed a petition for rehearing in this cause which, after due consideration, is denied.

The plaintiff describes himself as a whistle blower, as that term has come to be used, and seeks damages for his termination from employment because he allegedly refused to participate in and keep silent about certain allegedly illegal corporate activities. The allegations were denied by the defendants whose motion for summary judgment was granted. The plaintiff appeals and presents for review the issues of (1) whether he was terminated for time card abuse and sexual harassment or whether these reasons were pretextual, (2) whether a common law cause of action for retaliatory discharge remains viable in this jurisdiction, and (3) whether his termination constituted outrageous conduct by the defendants. Our review of the findings of fact made by the trial Court is denovo upon the record of the trial Court, accompanied by a presumption of thecorrectness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. TENN. R. APP. P., RULE 13(d). See, Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn. 1993). We will refer to the plaintiff as Hubrig, or as the appellant, or as the plaintiff. This record is unusually prolix; prima facie, it appeared to reflect a trial by affidavit, an impermissible use of RULE 56, see: Womack v. Blue Cross- Blue Shield, 593 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn. 1980), but an in-depth analysis reveals that the trial court correctly held that the totality of the evidence demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of fact or law. We therefore affirm the judgment.

The trial court found that there had been a change of circumstances and increased Jimmy Hunter Vaughn’s [husband’s] alimony obligation to Mary Runyon Vaughn [wife] from $400.00 per month to $600.00 per month. The court also found that husband should pay $350.00 as reasonable attorney fees to wife’s attorney