03A01-9708-CV-OO331
03A01-9708-CV-OO331

Witt vs. Tennessee
03A01-9709-CH-00400

Walker vs. Exchange
03A01-9709-CV-00402

03A01-9709-CV-00444
03A01-9709-CV-00444

01C01-9512-CR-00414
01C01-9512-CR-00414

01C01-9608-CR-00347
01C01-9608-CR-00347
Trial Court Judge: Ann Lacy Johns

01C01-9602-CC-00052
01C01-9602-CC-00052

State vs. Dewayne Cathey
02C01-9612-CR-00446
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

State vs. Gabriel Blackman
02C01-9704-CC-00135
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood

Debra Tipton vs. John Harris
02A01-9706-CV-00114

Ronnie Bradfield vs. Stephanie Cole, et al
02A01-9707-CV-00171
Trial Court Judge: R. Lee Moore Jr.

Greenback vs. Loudon
03A01-9706-CV-00207
Trial Court Judge: Russell E. Simmons, Jr.

Virginia vs. Wagner
03A01-9705-CH-00177
Trial Court Judge: Frank V. Williams, III

State vs. Alfonzo Chalmers
W2000-00440-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Chris B. Craft
The defendant appeals from his conviction for first degree premeditated murder. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court erred by impermissibly commenting on the evidence in violation of article VI, section 9 of the Constitution of Tennessee. We affirm the judgment of conviction.

State vs. Jones
03C01-9701-CR-00016
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer

State vs. Crain
03C01-9604-CC-00149

State vs. Millsaps
03C01-9601-CC-00044

03C01-9608-CR-00309
03C01-9608-CR-00309
Trial Court Judge: Frank L. Slaughter

State vs. Jeffery Casey
02C01-9701-CC-00015
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn

State vs. Winn
03C01-9702-CR-00081
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner

Knoxville News Sentinel vs. Huskey
03C01-9708-CR-00331

State vs. McConnell
03C01-9604-CC-00148

State of Tennessee v. James Henderson Dellinger &Amp; Gary
E1997-00196-CCA-R3-DD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith

Ulyes Williams v. City of Knoxville
03S01-9706-CV-00070
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Dale C. Workman
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 City of Knoxville contends (1) the claim is barred by the statute of limitations and (2) the trial court erred in not accepting the opinion testimony of the treating physician. The claimant contends the trial court erred in allowing credit for overpaid temporary total disability benefits. The panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The claimant, Williams, has less than an eighth grade education, little or no reading or writing skills and no vocational training. He was 39 years old at the time of the trial. He has worked for the city since about 1988, first as a laborer and later as tractor-mower operator. In 1992, he suffered a compensable back injury, was temporarily disabled and returned to work until September 18, 1995, when he re-injured his back at work. Back surgery was performed on or about November 18, 1995 and he returned to work around March 1, 1996 for a few weeks, quit because of post-surgical problems, then returned again around July 1, 1996. He has since been terminated. This civil action was commenced on March 29, 1996. The defendant filed and served its answer on April 26, 1996, but did not aver therein that the claim was barred by any statute of limitations. That a claim is so barred is an affirmative defense and the facts constituting such defense must be set forth in short and plain terms in a defendant's answer. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.3. Moreover, the record fails to establish that the claimant had fair notice of the employer's intention to assert the statute of limitations as a defense. The defense was thus waived. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.8. Additionally, the panel finds the defense to be without merit. The first issue is resolved in favor of the appellee. As the employer insists, citing Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 83 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tenn. 1991), the trial judge must choose which of conflicting expert medical opinions to accept. We are aware of no rule which 2

Michael Lee Proffit v. Superior Industries, Inc.
03S01-9701-CH-00008.
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. G. Richard Johnson,
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 employer has appealed from an adverse judgment, contending the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive. The employee contends the appeal is frivolous. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The employee or claimant, Proffitt, is 37 years old with a fifth grade education and experience as a mason's helper, a painter, a farm worker and a sawmill operator. He began working for the employer in 1993 as a janitor. On April 25, 1994, he was assisting another worker to empty a heavy trash barrel when he felt a sudden pulling sensation in his back. He continues to have sharp pain in his back and numbness in his back and legs. He no longer works for Superior Industries. Four medical doctors testified at the trial. Dr. Henry J. Williams treated the claimant in the emergency room shortly after the accident and diagnosed lumbar strain. The doctor first assigned no permanent impairment. After further visits, however, he assessed a permanent impairment of one percent to the body as a whole. Dr. Matthew Wood, Jr. examined the claimant and found no permanent impairment. Dr. Fred Killefer agreed with Dr. Wood. Dr. Calvin J. Johnson examined the claimant and found objective evidence of injury in the form of muscle spasm. He diagnosed chronic low back syndrome with facet arthritis and assessed ten percent permanent impairment to the whole body. He restricted the claimant from repetitively bending, stooping, squatting or lifting more than twenty pounds. The trial judge awarded permanent partial disabilitybenefits on the basis of twenty-five percent to the body as a whole. 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). Once the causation and permanency of an injury have been 2