Riverbluff Coop. vs. City of Memphis
02A01-9805-CH-00128
Trial Court Judge: W. Michael Maloan

State vs. Melissa Pewitt
01C01-9706-CR-00229
Trial Court Judge: Jimmy C. Martin

Alfred Grizzell vs. State
01C01-9709-CR-00409

State vs.Carl London
01C01-9710-CR-00458
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

State vs. Vincent Hadley
02C01-9710-CR-00414

State vs. Lynn Person
02C01-9712-CC-00470

Court Affirmed on Appeal. Roy L. Crawford v. State, No. 21, Shelby County (Tenn.
02C01-9803-CR-00092

State vs. Darron Clayton
02C01-9304-CR-00071
Trial Court Judge: L. Terry Lafferty

01C01-9703-CR-00078
01C01-9703-CR-00078
Trial Court Judge: Jane W. Wheatcraft

State vs. Roy Leach
01C01-9705-CC-00189
Trial Court Judge: William M. Barker

State vs. C. W. McCaleb
01C01-9707-CC-00251

Jeanie Dianne (White) Hannah vs. Gary Hannah & Carl Hannah
01A01-9712-CV-00694
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall

James E. McGaugh, Jr. vs. Charles & Joyce Galbreath
01A01-9706-CH-00256
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

State vs. Bobby Love
02C01-9809-CR-00261

Robert Wall vs. City of Paris, TN
02A01-9707-CV-00166
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley

Worther Williams vs. Robert Steward
02A01-9712-CV-00311
Trial Court Judge: James E. Swearengen

James Gatlin vs. Deanna Gatlin
02A01-9710-CH-00267
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis

William J. Chase, Jr. vs. City of Memphis
02S01-9703-CV-00019

State vs. Melvin Boyd
02C01-9708-CC-00301

State vs. Michael Benson
02C01-9708-CC-00333
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley

State vs. Bryan Bastel
02C01-9708-CR-00312
Trial Court Judge: Arthur T. Bennett

State vs. Rebecca Curevich
01C01-9707-CR-00276

State vs. Y'vette vs. Vaden
01C01-9708-CC-00366

Richard Lee Bennett v. Bridgestone, U.S.A., Inc.
01S01-9710-CH-00236
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. James Weatherford,
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 issue in this case is whether the trial judge properly dismissed the complaint owing to the failure of the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of all the evidence that his disability was job-related. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6- 225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). I The complaint alleged that the plaintiff experienced a `work-related event' in November 1994 which worsened a `progressively deteriorating back disease.' He is 44 years old and has worked at Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. continuously from 1985 through April 2, 1996. The onset of back problems was traced to 1988, with no history of a specific injury at any time. On November 5, 1994, he was working in the curing department at Bridgestone when he suddenly could not lift any more tires. At his request, his supervisor helped him complete his work that shift, and he took a vacation day the following day. No particular event or incident caused his inability to work, although two days earlier he had presented himself at the Health Unit at Bridgestone, where he gave a history of back pain for three years and that the pain originally began on "4/11/88." Four days later he again visited the Health Unit for ongoing back pain. Plaintiff first saw Dr. Gregory Lanford on November 14, 1994, to whom he gave a history of three years of back pain with no precipitating trauma. He 2

Sandra Gail Holmes V Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
01S01-9710-CH-00237
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert E. Corlew, III
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 sought workers' compensation benefits for plantar fasciitis, which she alleged was caused by standing on a concrete floor at work for twelve hours shifts. The defendant argued that plantar fasciitis is not caused by standing for long periods and therefore plaintiff's job did not cause her condition. The trial court, in a comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion, found the preponderance of the evidence proved the condition to be work-related and awarded benefits, which the defendant appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Sandra Gail Holmes ["Employee"] began working for Bridgestone ["Employer"] in 1987. Her job as a tire builder consisted of twelve hour shifts during which she stood on a concrete floor on a 1/4" rubber mat while building tires. She was not permitted to sit unless she was on break. In 1994 she began complaining of her feet, and on August 22, 1994, requested medical treatment at work owing to burning pain shooting through her heel and arc of her left foot, up through the calf muscle, and lesser symptoms in her right foot. The employer's on-site physician, Dr. Flynn, sent her to Dr. Mark Christofersen, an orthopedic surgeon, whom employee testified she saw once, for ten or 15 minutes, on September 1, 1994. Dr. Christofersen examined employee and found excellent joint motion and no swelling but with tenderness to palpation at the origin of the plantar fascia and arch on the left and to a lesser extent on the right. She had been on a 2