APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal presents an issue of first impression concerning the evidentiary standards applicable to disciplinary proceedings involving licensed physicians. The Tennessee Department of Health perfected an interlocutory appeal to the Chancery Court for Davidson County after an administrative law judge disqualified its expert witness for failing to satisfy the locality rule generally applicable in medical malpractice cases. The trial court reversed the administrative law judge’s decision after concluding that a physician’s conduct should be measured by a statewide standard of minimum competency rather than a particularized local standard of care. While the administrative law judge’s decision was correct with regard to two of thecharges, we affirm the trial court’s decision in part because several of the charges in this proceeding only require proof that a physician has failed to meet statewide, minimal competency standards.

Plaintiff Demetra Lyree Parker appeals the trial court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant/Appellee W arren County Utility District. We reverse the trial court’s judgment based on our conclusion that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the Utility District responded promptly, adequately, and effectively to Parker’s allegations of sexual harassment against the Utility District’s general manager.

A Bedford County Circuit Court jury found Appellant Venson Woodard guilty of two counts of aggravated assault. As a Range II multiple offender, he received a sentence of nine years and eight months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court ordered the sentence to be served consecutive to a sente nce for which Appellant was on parole at the tim e of the offense. In this appeal, Appellant presents the following issue for review: whether the trial court violated its duty to act as a thirteenth juror by refusing to grant Appellant’s motion for a new trial. Specifically Appellant maintains the weight of the evidence shows he was acting in self-defense.
 

After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial co urt.