We granted review in this workers' compensation case to determine whether the trial court erred in awarding temporary total benefits and death benefits based on the maximum weekly wage where the employee did not earn any wages in the 52 weeks prior to being diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. On appeal, the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel concluded that the trial court erred in awarding benefits based on the maximum weekly wage because the employee was voluntarily retired at the time of his diagnosis, and that benefits were to be based on the minimum weekly wage. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude that an employee's voluntary retirement does not preclude workers' compensation benefits for an injury arising out of and in the course of employment and that the trial court properly awarded benefits based on the maximum weekly rate under the facts of this case.
The defendant pled guilty to four counts of obtaining prescription drugs by use of a forged prescription, and the trial court sentenced her to an effective sentence of fourteen years incarceration. The defendant contests the sentences imposed. We affirm the trial court.
The defendant Michael R. Floyd pled guilty to possession with intent to sell over .5 grams of cocaine and over one half ounce of marijuana. For these offenses he received agreed upon sentences of eight (8) years and one (1) year, respectively, as a Range I, standard offender. In addition, his plea agreement included two-thousand dollar ($2,000.00) fines for each offense. Following a subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently to one another and the defendant to serve six months of this period in the county jail with the remainder to be served on supervised probation. The defendant thereafter brought this appeal contending that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve a period of incarceration. However, we are unable to determine whether error occurred because of the insufficiency of the record on appeal. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Hardin
Court of Criminal Appeals
Betty Jeane Scott, v. Cumberland Health Care Center,Inc., d/b/a General Care Convalescent Center, et al. M2000-00075-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Carol Catalano, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found the plaintiff had suffered an injury arising out of her employment with the defendant and awarded her thirty-five percent vocational disability to the body as a whole. Further, the trial court ordered the defendant to pay medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff as a result of the injury. The defendant argues the evidence does not support the finding of the trial court as to a compensable injury and the vocational disability, and claims the medical bills incurred by the plaintiff were not necessary We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court is Affirmed JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., in which FRANK F. DROWOTA III, J. and TOM E. GRAY, SP. J., joined. Jill A. Hanson, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants Cumberland Health Care Center, Inc., d/b/a General Care Convalescent Center and Legion Insurance Company. Stacy A. Turner, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Betty Jeane Scott. OPINION The trial court found the plaintiff had suffered an injury arising out of her employment with the defendant and awarded her thirty-five percent vocational disability to the body as a whole. Further, the trial court ordered the defendant to pay medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff as a result of the injury. The defendant argues the evidence does not support the finding of the trial court as to a compensable injury and the vocational disability, and claims the medical bills incurred by the plaintiff were not necessary. Facts The plaintiff, forty-seven years of age at the time of trial, has a twelfth- grade education, and training as a certified nurses' aide. The plaintiff began working for the defendant in 1974. She left work for the defendant for a period of time but returned during the mid or later part of the 198's. On July 9, 1991, she fell while in the course of her work. She fell upon her left side and injured her lower back, left hip, cervical and thoracic spine and left shoulder. Medical Evidence The defendant first sent the plaintiff to Dr. David Gullet, the company doctor. Dr. Gullet referred the plaintiff to Dr. Steve McLaughlin, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. McLaughlin entered into a course of treatment of the plaintiff on July 24, 1991. Dr. McLaughlin found the plaintiff had a pinching of the rotator cuff in her shoulder and an inflamation of the bursa over the left hip, which accounted for her left hip and left knee pain. Dr. McLaughlin opined these findings were caused by the fall the plaintiff had at work. Dr. McLaughlin saw the plaintiff again approximately ten days after the initial examination; she expressed complaints similar to those of the earlier visit. On August 26, 1991, Dr. McLaughlin saw the plaintiff and had an MRI done which showed some degenerative disease at the 4th and 5th lumbar vertebra and perhaps a mass in the pelvis. Dr. McLaughlin did not see the plaintiff again until May 3, 1996. She missed an appointment on September 9, 1991. Dr. McLaughlin saw the plaintiff on several occasions after the May appointment over the next few weeks. He found she was suffering from the same problems as she had in 1991. He was of the opinion that this was not unusual for the condition the plaintiff suffered in 1991. Dr. McLaughlin performed surgery upon the plaintiff's shoulder. Dr. McLaughlin was of the opinion the plaintiff had sustained a ten percent medical impairment to the upper extremity. The plaintiff wentto Dr. James D. Davis, a chiropractor, on December 13, 1993, complaining of the same symptoms about which Dr. McLaughlin testified. Dr. Davis' examination revealed similar findings as those of Dr. McLaughlin. He found the plaintiff had a five percent permanent medical impairment to the body as a whole. Dr. Richard Fishbein, an orthopaedic surgeon, evaluated the plaintiff in October of 1996. -2-
Scott
Workers Compensation Panel
Peggy Birmingham v. Porter-Cable Corporation W1999-00695-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: W. Michael William Michael Maloan, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris, Chancellor
The defendant, Porter-Cable Corporation, appeals the judgment of the Chancery Court of Madison County which awarded the plaintiff, Peggy Birmingham, permanent partial disability of sixty percent (6%) to the body as a whole. For the reasons stated in this opinion, We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Madison
Workers Compensation Panel
James Eakes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company W2000-00142-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: William Michael Maloan, Chancellor
In this appeal, the employee contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the preponderance of the evidence fails to establish a causal connection between his injury and his employment. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed.
Obion
Workers Compensation Panel
Elizabeth Doramus, et al vs. Rogers Group, Inc. and T.W. Comer M1998-00918-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
This appeal involves an intrafamily dispute over the use of a 498 acre farm. The conflict's seeds were sown nearly fifty years ago when the now-deceased owners conveyed the farm to a corporation and entered into a long-term lease which created successive leasehold tenancies for life for them, followed by their son, T. W. Comer. T. W. Comer's heirs at law were given the option to choose to become tenants upon his death. Years later, after T. W. Comer had become the tenant, he and Rogers Group, Inc., a mining company which had purchased the remainder interest in the farm, entered into an agreement involving the removal of limestone from the property. Mr. Comer's daughters and his granddaughters responded by commencing this action, seeking to prevent any mining on the property. After the daughters voluntarily dropped their claims, the trial court dismissed the complaint, and the granddaughters appealed. We affirm the trial court's ruling because we find that the granddaughters' interest is not sufficient to warrant an injunction against the lessor and the current lessee.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Mary Jarmakowicz, et al vs. Billy Suddarth, et al M1998-00920-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall
This appeal arises out of a dispute over the purchase of Nationwide Travel Services, LLC. The jury found that the Sellers were still the owners of the agency and found for Buyers on the Sellers' claim for breach of contract. The jury found for Buyers on their claims of fraud and deceit, conversion and abuse of process and awarded compensatory damages. At the close of the proof, the trial court granted Sellers' motion for directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages. Later, the court denied Buyers' Motion for discretionary costs, and this appeal resulted. Buyers take issue with whether the trial court properly granted a directed verdict on punitive damages and whether the Court abused its discretion by denying discretionary costs. Sellers argue there was not sufficient evidence to support the jury's award on fraud and deceit, conversion and abuse of process. They also argue that the jury should have found for Sellers on the breach of contract claim. For the reasons below, we affirm the jury's award of compensatory damages and hold there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's determination of fraud and deceit, conversion, abuse of process and no breach of contract. Further, we affirm the trial Court's directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages. However, we vacate the denial of Buyers' motion for discretionary costs and remand for consideration consistent with this opinion.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Mohamed F. Ali v. Howard Carlton, E2000-02549-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: G. Richard Johnson
William R. Clark v. Willamette Industries, Inc. E1999-02693-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: John S. Mclellan, III, Chancellor
The dispositive issue is whether the evidence preponderantly proved that the condition of the plaintiff's right knee was causally related to a fall he suffered in March 1997. The expert proof was divergent, and the plaintiff's credibility was remarked by the trial judge.
The petitioner challenges the trial court's denial of his habeas corpus petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. We affirm the denial of the petition.
Johnson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Jim Vines vs. David Gibson E2000-02257-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
In this breach of contract case, the defendant appeals from the trial court's refusal to grant a new trial or set aside an order favorable to the plaintiff. Because we find that the defendant did not receive advance notice of the hearing that led to the entry of the order, we vacate the order of the trial court.
Anderson
Court of Appeals
James Fraysier vs. Karen Fraysier E2000-02485-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Jean A. Stanley
James Thomas Fraysier ("Husband") filed a complaint seeking a divorce from Karen Kay Singleton Fraysier ("Wife") on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. Wife filed an answer and counterclaim seeking a divorce on the same grounds. The parties agreed upon the distribution of the marital assets, which was approved by the Trial Court. The two issues to be decided at trial were who should be granted the divorce and whether Wife was entitled to alimony. The Trial Court determined that Husband was entitled to a divorce on the basis of inappropriate marital conduct and that Wife was entitled to rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $600.00 per month for a period of 48 months or until further order of the court. Both parties appeal the Trial Court's determination with regard to alimony. We affirm.
Washington
Court of Appeals
Vickie Sherman vs. American Water Heater Co., Inc. E2000-01389-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.
The Trial Court held release given by plaintiff barred plaintiff's claim for statutory indemnification. On appeal we reverse.
Washington
Court of Appeals
John Fiser, et al vs. Town of Farragut E1999-00425-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
In this suit the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that a Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Farragut, which admittedly seeks to eliminate off-premises billboards, is invalid insofar as their property is concerned. The Trial Court found in favor of Farragut. We reverse.
The defendant, Jeffery S. Shands, challenges the trial court's order upholding the District Attorney General's denial of pretrial diversion for the charges of criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving. He contends that the District Attorney abused his discretion in failing to consider and weigh all of the relevant factors presented in the evidence. After a review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court's order denying pretrial diversion.
Madison
Court of Criminal Appeals
State of Tennessee v. David Plunk W2000-00526-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge L. Terry Lafferty
A Crockett County jury convicted the defendant of premeditated first degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. In this appeal as a matter of right, the defendant challenges (1) the introduction of statements he made to officers, and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Petitioner, Anthony M. Freeman, appeals the dismissal of his petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus and/or post-conviction relief. We conclude the petition does not state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, and the petition was filed beyond the statute of limitations for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Shelby
Court of Criminal Appeals
Robert Wilson, Jr. vs. Martha Wilson E2000-01181-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: William R. Brewer
In this post-divorce case, the trial court (1) denied the father's request to relocate to Georgia with the parties' minor child; (2) imposed sanctions for the father's perjury; and (3) changed the joint custody decreed at the time of the divorce to sole custody in the mother. On this appeal, the father argues (1) that the trial court erred in reversing its initial post-divorce decision pursuant to which the father had been permitted to relocate to Georgia; (2) that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act to make a custody determination; (3) that the trial court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground of inconvenient forum; (4) that the trial court erred in basing its change of custody upon the father's admittedly false testimony; (5) that the trial court's reversal of its prior decision to permit the father to relocate is barred by the doctrine of laches; (6) that the trial court erred in finding that father's contemptuous behavior was a proper basis for denying him an award of child support; and (7) that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed sanctions for criminal contempt without providing the necessary procedural safeguards. We find that the trial court erred in dismissing Father's petition for child support. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Blount
Court of Appeals
John Justice vs. Holly Justice M1998-00916-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal involves a dispute between a physician and a pharmacist regarding the provisions in their divorce decree for spousal support and legal expenses. In its decree ending their fourteen-year marriage, the Circuit Court for Davidson County directed the physician, among other things, to pay the pharmacist $50 per month in alimony in futuro until her death or remarriage, as well as $4,500 to partially defray the legal expenses she had incurred in the divorce proceeding. The physician asserts on this appeal that the spousal support award was punitive and that the pharmacist received sufficient assets as a result of the division of the marital estate to pay her own legal expenses. We have determined that the record supports the trial court's decisions regarding both the spousal support and the legal expenses and, therefore, affirm the judgment.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Jerry LaQuiere, et al vs. Daniel W. McCollum M1999-00926-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal involves a dispute arising out of the sale of a tract of real property in Antioch. After a survey revealed that the size of the tract was significantly less than the size stated in the contract, the purchaser filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking both specific performance of a provision in the contract requiring an adjustment in the purchase price and damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation. The purchaser also filed a lis pendens notice with the Davidson County Register of Deeds. The trial court granted the vendor's motion for summary judgment on the issue of specific performance and ordered the lis pendens notice removed. However, the trial court declined to grant summary judgment on the issue of damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation. We granted the purchaser's Tenn. R. App. P. 10 application for an extraordinary appeal. We now affirm the trial court because we concur with its conclusion that the price adjustment provision in the contract is not clear, definite, and complete.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Richard Conroy vs. City of Dickson, et al M2000-01189-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin
The driver of an automobile sued the City of Dickson under the Governmental Tort Liability Act for the severe injuries he suffered when a city police cruiser collided with his car. After a bench trial, the court found that the plaintiff and the officer driving the police car were equally responsible for the accident, resulting in no recovery for the plaintiff. We affirm.
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of assault, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to the maximum term of eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be served as a split sentence with five months and twenty-nine days served in confinement at the workhouse, and the balance served on probation. In this appeal as of right, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred in allowing the victim, his former wife, to testify as to two other bad acts committed by the defendant, one a prior beating incident and the other an act of vandalism of the victim’s car. Having reviewed the entire record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
