Please enter some keywords to search.
| Harris v. Burlington
03S01-9606-CV-00069
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 appellant recognizes the established rule in this State that a second injury is not compensable unless there is evidence of an anatomical change, Cunningham v. Goodyear, 841 S.W .2d 888 (Tenn. 1991), but insists the rule should not have been applied in this case. The plaintiff alleged and testified that he injured his back on January 4, 1994 while lifting a heavy object during the course of his employment. He had injured his back in 1991, and was treated by chiropractic, but did not pursue a claim for benefits. Between 1991 and 1994 he denied a re-injury, but testified to a number of "flare-ups." The plaintiff insists that he suffered an aggravation of the 1991 injury and that he is entitled to benefits accordingly. Following the January 4, 1994 injury, he sought chiropractic treatment again, and was referred to Dr. Stephen Natelson, a neurosurgeon, who performed a hemilaminectomy. The plaintiff represented to Dr. Natelson that he had no previous back problems. He was initially seen by Dr. Natelson on November 14, 1994. The corrective surgery was performed on January 1, 1995. On January 5, 1994, the day after the plaintiff allegedly injured his back, he was seen by Dr. John L. Holbrook, an orthopedic surgeon, to whom he related a lengthy history of back problems. A comprehensive examination was made resulting in a final diagnosis of degenerative disc disease. He was seen again on May 24, 1994, complaining of back pain, and another examination resulted in the same findings as before. During all this time the plaintiff was also being treated by chiropractic. Dr. Holbrook testified that there were no anatomical changes in the plaintiff's lumbar spine between 1991 and 1994; i.e., that the plaintiff had not suffered a re-injury as claimed. Our review is de novo on the record, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact of the trial court unless the preponderance of 2
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Richard G. Johnson |
Washington County | Workers Compensation Panel | 06/01/97 | |
| Rainey v. Oak Ridge
03S01-9607-CV-00077
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 plaintiff alleged that on February 15, 1994, during the course of his employment as a janitor, he suffered a lumbar strain while lifting a trash barrel which resulted in permanent, partial disability. As the case unfolded it developed that the plaintiff had a job-related injury in 1979, requiring surgery, for which he received an award for 21.25 percent permanent partial disability. The medical proof established that the 1994 lifting incident aggravated a long- standing disc problem to the extent of causing some nerve irritation but no anatomical changes. The treating orthopedic physician, Dr. Fred Killeffer, testified that the plaintiff had a four percent impairment attributable to the 1994 accident, but opined that he should not continue to work as a painter or custodian. The defendant offered the plaintiff continued employment at the same wages, with an accommodation for the restrictions recommended by his physician. The plaintiff testified that he attempted to work but could not do so within the lifting restrictions. The trial judge found that the plaintiff was unable to return to his former employment and awarded him "six times his aggravation of a pre-existing condition which is 24 percent to the body as a whole." We assume this finding is intended to mean six times the impairment of four percent attributable to the 1994 injury. The plaintiff appeals, insisting that his entitlement should not have been limited to six times his impairment because he met three of the four criteria set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-242 and thus should have been awarded a greater degree of disability. Pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-242, a trial court may award an employee permanent partial disability benefits in excess of the maximum disability allowed by applying the multiplier but not to exceed 4 weeks. In such cases, there must be clear and convincing evidence to support at least three of the following four criteria: 2
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. James B. Scott, Jr., |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | 06/01/97 | |
| Evelyn Campbell, a/k.a Elvin Campbell, Erma Dorton and Edria Humphrey, vs. Union Planters Bank , Formerly Commerce Federal Savings Bank
E1999-01910-COA-R3-CV
In this action to recover on two certificates of deposit against the bank, the Trial Judge directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs after sustaining an objection to the bank's attempt to offer its business records in evidence. The bank has appealed, and we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Originating Judge:Kindall T. Lawson |
Hamblen County | Court of Appeals | 05/31/97 | |
| 01C01-9606-CR-00243
01C01-9606-CR-00243
|
Williamson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/30/97 | |
| William Jones vs. Jack Morgan, et al
01C01-9606-CC-00263
Originating Judge:Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr. |
Davidson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/30/97 | |
| Gregory Thompson vs. State
01C01-9506-CC-00180
Originating Judge:William H. Russell |
Coffee County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/30/97 | |
| State vs. Terry Dominy
01C01-9512-CC-00404
Originating Judge:Jim T. Hamilton |
Lawrence County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/30/97 | |
| State vs. Basil Mathis
01C01-9605-CC-00186
Originating Judge:Robert E. Burch |
Houston County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/30/97 | |
| Gilley vs. Culpepper
01A01-9611-CH-00521
Originating Judge:Ellen Hobbs Lyle |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 05/30/97 | |
| State vs. Terry Dominy
01C01-9512-CC-00404
Originating Judge:Jim T. Hamilton |
Lawrence County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/30/97 | |
| State vs. Tyree Austin
01C01-9605-CC-00187
|
Williamson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/30/97 | |
| State vs. Rickey Coleman
01C01-9604-CC-00139
Originating Judge:Jim T. Hamilton |
Giles County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/30/97 | |
| State vs. Robert Sowell
01C01-9603-CR-00087
|
Davidson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/30/97 | |
| Gilley vs. Culpepper
01A01-9611-CH-00521
Originating Judge:William C. Koch |
Court of Appeals | 05/30/97 | ||
| Estate of Jane & John Doe vs. Vanderbilt Univ., et. al.
01A01-9609-CV-00429
Originating Judge:Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr. |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 05/30/97 | |
| Rick Vaulton vs. State
01C01-9606-CR-00276
|
Davidson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/30/97 | |
| Jantice L. West v. Nashville Tent & Awning Company, Inc. and General Accident Insurance Company
01S01-9501-CH-00008
This case is before the Court upon a motion for review pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-6-225(e)(5)(B), the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, and the Panel's Memorandum Opinion affirming the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim for workers' compensation benefits on the grounds that it was untimely under the statute of limitations.
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Originating Judge:Hon. Irvin H. Kilcrease, |
Davidson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 05/30/97 | |
| Williams v. Sweetwater
03S01-9607-CH-00084
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. Plaintiff alleged a work-related aggravation of a pre-existing non-work-related back condition. She alleged that medical expenses and temporary total disability benefits had been paid by the employer but sought permanent partial disability, future medical expenses and discretionary costs. The trial court found that the temporary aggravation of her back condition had resolved with no permanent impairment and awarded no future benefits. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Plaintiff, a registered nurse, injured her back at home in June, 1992. Dr. David Hauge, orthopedic surgeon, performed lumbar disk surgery at L4-L5 on November 19, 1992 and returned plaintiff to work the following January with lifting restrictions. Plaintiff alleged that on January 25, 1993, she re-injured her back while lifting a patient at work. Dr. Hauge placed her on temporary total disability for three weeks and treated her conservatively, after which she returned to work again. Dr. Hauge opined that 2 percent of patients who have disk surgery experience recurrent herniations of the same disk. There are various causes of such recurrences, some related to the surgery itself and some which are due to just normal activity. He could not state within reasonable medical certainty whether or not plaintiff's recurrent herniation was work-related. Dr. Hauge opined that the original, non-work-related injury resulted in eleven percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole: "I would state that the 11% impairment to the body . . . is a result of the injury she sustained in June, 1992 and her subsequent surgery. The percentage impairment this patient has did not change as a result of the January, 1993 incident, although it certainly can be argued that she was much more likely to have an aggravation requiring medical treatment because of the existence of this previous problem." Our review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the 2
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Earl H. Henley, |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | 05/29/97 | |
| Moore vs. Tate
03A01-9611-CV-00350
|
Anderson County | Court of Appeals | 05/29/97 | |
| Petitioner'S Conviction Is Void. See Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2D 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993).
02C01-9612-CC-00477
|
Lake County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/29/97 | |
| Nationsbank vs. JDRC
03A01-9607-CH-00226
|
Knox County | Court of Appeals | 05/29/97 | |
| State vs. Derek Manns
02C01-9410-CC-00209
|
Haywood County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/29/97 | |
| Carroll vs. State
03C01-9603-CR-00139
|
Hamilton County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/29/97 | |
| State vs. Michael Henry
02C01-9611-CC-00382
Originating Judge:William B. Acree |
Obion County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 05/29/97 | |
| Robin Lethco and husband, Mark Lethco v. John Huffman, M.D.
03A01-9610-CV-00340
The sole issue on this appeal, as stated by the appellant, is whether the trial court erred in dismissing this action on motion for summary judgment. More properly stated, the issue is whether or not the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for a continuance of the hearing for summary judgment or alternatively whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiffs relief from the summary judgment. We find no error on the part of the trial court and accordingly affirm the judgment.
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Originating Judge:Judge Dale Young |
Blount County | Court of Appeals | 05/28/97 |