Toby Hedgecoth v. Harold Moore & Assocs.
01S01-9702-CV-00033
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon.

Beryl Jack v. State
01S01-9706-BC-00136
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. William Robert Baker,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee contends the evidence preponderates against the commissioner's finding that her claim is barred because of a false statement contained in her employment application. The panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The claimant has been a certified nursing technician since 1973. She began working for Bethany Health Care, a nursing home, in May of 199 and soon thereafter injured her back while lifting a patient. As a result of that injury, she received two laminectomies at L5-S1. Following those surgeries, she had difficulty standing, bending and sitting for long periods of time. The operating surgeon imposed lifting and bending restrictions. She was awarded permanent partial disability benefits and applied for social security disability benefits. She was terminated from Bethany because that employer did not have work for her within her limitations. On October 1, 1991, she made written application for employment at Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute. On that application, she was asked, "Do you have a limiting disability or handicap?" She responded, "No." In response to a question as to her reason for leaving Bethany, she wrote, "Illness in the family." On another document, she denied having any "history of physical defects." On the strength of that application, she was approved for employment by the state. We find in the record no evidence that the employer had any knowledge of her pre-existing disability. It is equally clear in the record that she could not have been employed as she was if the above questions had been accurately answered. The commissioner denied compensation benefits because of the false application. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6- 225(e)(2). Where the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses, especially if issues of credibility and weight to be given oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded those circumstances on review. Kellerman v. Food Lion, Inc., 929 S.W.2d 333 (Tenn. 1996). A false statement in an employee'sapplication for employment will bar recovery of workers' compensation benefits if all three of the following elements exist: first, the employee must have knowingly and willfully made a false representation as to his physical condition; second, the employer must have relied upon the false representation and such reliance must have been a substantial factor in the hiring; and third, there must have been a causal connection between the false representation and the injury. Federal Copper and Aluminum Company v. Dickey, 493 S.W.2d 463 (Tenn. 1973). The causal 2

Page G. Stuart v. State of Tennessee, Dept. of Safety
01-S-01-9612-CH-00239
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Gilcrease, Jr.

During a wide-ranging investigation, law enforcement officers located and seized several items of property thought to be used in the conduct of an illegal drug enterprise. Criminal charges followed the several seizures, and Page Stuart, the appellant, pleaded guilty to offenses involving delivery and conspiracy to deliver large quantities of marijuana. The State thereafter instituted administrative proceedings under Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-11-201 et seq. (1991 & Supp. 1992) for the forfeiture of the property seized. Although Stuart challenged the forfeiture of some of the property,1 he was not successful, and both the Chancery Court and the Court of Appeals upheld the forfeiture. We granted Stuart’s application for review under Rule 11

Sandra Sanders v. David W. Lanier and State of Tennessee - Concurring
02S01-9706-CH-00060
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Judge William H. Inman

The issue with which we are confronted is whether the State may be liable to a county employee for employment discrimination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act ("THRA") when the county employee is under the  supervision of a state judge who commits quid pro quo sexual harassment against the county employee. The trial court answered the question in the negative holding that the State was not the plaintiff's employer under the THRA. The Court of Appeals reversed and held that the THRA imposed liability on the State under an economic realities test. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm as modified the appellate court's reversal of the trial court's judgment.

Harold P. Cousins, D/B/A Cousins Construction, v. MK Ferguson of Oak Ridge Company
03A01-9709-CV-00435
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge WIlliam H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Judge James B. Scott, Jr.

This is an action to recover profits the plaintiff contractor alleges he would have made had he been allowed to construct an additional four warehouses similar in design and usage to a fifth warehouse he constructed and for which he was paid.

David E. Lind, et ux. Myra Gwinn Lind, v. Allen M. Well, Clyde N. Well, and Aster Vance Webb
03A01-9710-CH-00473
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel P. Franks

In this boundary line dispute the defendants appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, insisting that the evidence established their right to the disputed area by adverse possession.

) Hon. Frank v. Williams, Iii,
O3A01-9708-CH-00321

State vs. Manning
03C01-9501-CR-00012
Trial Court Judge: R. Steven Bebb

State vs. Garrison
03C01-9702-CC-00047
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Graham

Molin, M.D., et . ux. vs. Perryman Construction Co.
01A01-9705-CV-00232
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes

Brady vs. Valentine
01A01-9707-CV-00308
Trial Court Judge: Cornelia A. Clark

Hooker vs. Thompson
01A01-9709-CH-00533
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

Brown vs. Davidson
01A01-9702-CV-00049

Lampley vs. Lampley
01A01-9708-CH-00423

Lampley vs. Lampley
01A01-9708-CH-00423

Kizer vs. Kizer
01A01-9707-GS-00304
Trial Court Judge: Barry R. Brown

Reid vs. Sundquist
01A01-9709-CH-00494
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

Webb vs. Mortgage Systems Corp.
01A01-9512-CH-00566
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

Rivergate Toyota, Inc. vs. Huddleston
01A01-9602-CH-00053
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

State vs. Trampas Sweeney
01C01-9702-CC-00053
Trial Court Judge: William M. Barker

Bellamy vs. State
03A01-9701-BC-00035

Allstate vs. Auto
03A01-9706-CH-00225

Pehlman vs. Pehlman
03A01-9708-CV-00339

Slate vs. State
03A01-9708-CV-00369

Copas vs. Copas
03A01-9708-CV-00375