Wallace Palmore v. Frito-Lay, Inc., et al.
01S01-9610-CV-00204
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon.

Craig Ring v. Ckr Industries, Inc., et al.
01S01-9702-CV-00031
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. J. Curtis Smith,
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 defendants, CKR Industries, Inc. and The Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company of America, appeal the judgment of the trial court in finding the plaintiff, Craig Ring, sustained a compensable work-related injury and awarding permanent partial disability of twenty-five percent (25%) to the left arm. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff, Craig Ring, was 26 years of age at the time of this trial. He has a GED, no specialized job training, and a prior history of factory production work. Plaintiff worked for defendant, CKR Industries for 4 years prior to Au gust 3, 1994 , when he reported an injury to his left index finger and arm. He operated a press or machine at that time which required repetitive movement of both arms. Dr. Mary Ellen Clinton, a board certified neurologist, examined and treated plaintiff after he had been seen and referred by numerous doctors. She gave various possible causes of plaintiff's problem, but stated his condition was not work-related. Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Richard Fishbein, a board certified orthopedic surgeon, for the purpose of an ind ependent me dical evaluation. Dr. Fishbein was of the opinion the plaintiff's condition was ulnar neuropathy caused by his repetitive work. He assessed a permanent partial impairment of fifteen percent (15%) to the left upper extremity and assigned work restrictions of no lifting of more than 2 pounds on a regular basis and n o more than 5 pounds on a very infrequent basis. Plaintiff testified he really did not know how or when he hurt his finger and arm, but they first became painful at wo rk on Augus t 3, 1994. At trial, he comp lained of constant pain in his left elbow and numbness in the tip of his left index finger. Because of his work restrictions, he has been transferred to a lighter job at less pay. Plaintiff has taken up go lf, built a deck on his house, and raced four wheelers since August, 1994. At trial, the parties stipulated the date of the injury, notice, all medical bills and temporary total disability payments had been paid, and the appropriate weekly compensation 2

03C01-9605-CR-00197
03C01-9605-CR-00197
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.

State vs. Brown
03C01-9608-CR-00313
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil

State vs. Strickland
03C01-9611-CC-00427

Bailey vs. State
03C01-9701-CR-00026
Trial Court Judge: Frank L. Slaughter

State vs. Day
03C01-9602-CC-00076

State vs. Brown
03C01-9505-CR-00139
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins

Corso vs. Jones
03C01-9703-CR-00099
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen

State vs. Housewright
03C01-9705-CR-00195

Joan Douglas and Germantown REalty, Inc., D/B/A Coldwell Banker, v., Frank Tibbs and Afsameh M. Tibbs
02A01-9602-CH-00033
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Floyd Peete, Jr.

This action to recover a commission on the sale of real estate was dismissed at the close of the plaintiff’s case. She appeals and presents for review the propriety of the dismissal of her case.

Terry E. McLeese, Jr., v. Tammy Lynn McLeese - Concurring
02A01-9605-CH-00130
Authoring Judge: Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Walton West

Custody of the five-year-old son of these parties was awarded to the appellee-mother in a post-divorce hearing. The parties initially agreed upon joint custody.  The father appeals, complaining essentially that the Chancellor relied too heavily on the tender years doctrine. We cannot substitute our judgment for that of the Chancellor, but are bound by the limitations imposed by TENN. R. APP. P., RULE 13(d). Unless the  evidence preponderates against the judgment, we must affirm.

State vs. James Bingham, Jessie Baker, and Donald Patterson
01C01-9604-CC-00159
Trial Court Judge: Gerald L. Ewell, Sr.

Smith v. Zurich
03S01-9701-CV-00004
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ben K. Wexler,
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 he had sustained permanent impairment as a result of an accident on November 8, 1994, while employed by the defendant. The trial judge dismissed the petition. We affirm the judgment. There is no dispute concerning the occurrence of an on-the-job accident which was a fall by the plaintiff. The only medical evidence in the case was the deposition of Dr. John H. Bell, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Bell found the plaintiff had suffered contusions and a sprain of his lower spine as a result of the fall. This was superimposed upon a pre- existing lumbosacral disc disease. Dr. Bell testified there was no anatomic evidence the disc disease was aggravated by the injury, and that the fall caused the pre-existing condition to become painful. Further, the plaintiff had told Dr. Bell he had a previous back pain episode, as well as intermittent back pain prior to the fall. Dr. Bell testified the plaintiff complained of pain but there was no anatomical change associated with the pain. Dr. Bell was of the opinion the back strain had healed. He further testified it is not uncommon for a person with an arthritic or a degenerative condition to be free of symptoms but that these conditions may become symptomatic as a result of an injury. Dr. Bell found the plaintiff had a 5 percent permanent medical impairment because of the condition of his back. Dr. Bell fixed restrictions upon the plaintiff. Dr. Bell testified, however, that he placed these restrictions upon the plaintiff because of the plaintiff's complaint of pain, which Dr. Bell associated with the pre- existing condition rather than the fall. The plaintiff presented lay testimony to support his contention that he was disabled. However, in all but the most obvious cases, there must be medical evidence to show an impairment exists, and its connection to the work injury. 2

State vs. Hall
03S01-9701-CR-00010

State vs. Dixon
03S01-9704-CR-00043

State vs. Dixon
03S01-9704-CR-00043

Carter vs. State
03S01-9612-CR-00119

State vs. Hall
03S01-9701-CR-00010

State vs. James Dantes
02C01-9705-CC-00184
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood

State vs. Carl Saine
02C01-9710-CC-00399

Henley vs. State
01S01-9703-CC-00056
Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond

Henley vs. State
01S01-9703-CC-00056

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

Darrell Turner v. Brian W. Skelly
01A01-9708-CV-00376
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas Goodall

The plaintiff, Darrell Turner, has appealed from a jury verdict and judgment dismissing his suit against the defendant, Brian W. Skelly for personal injuries sustained when the right rear view mirror of a pick-up truck operated by defendant, Brian w. Skelly, struck plaintiff’s left elbow as he walked on the right edge of the road at 8:30 p.m. after dark.