James Peeler v. Methodis Medical Center
03S01-9704-CH-00045
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Frank V. Williams, 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. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellant contends the trial court erred (1) in finding a causal relationship between the claimant's employment and his injury and (2) in finding the claimant will retain permanent partial disabilities of forty-five percent to the right arm and thirty percent to the left arm. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The claimant or employee is thirty years old with a GED. He is a certified nursing assistant and had, at the time of his injury, worked for the employer, Methodist Medical Center, since 1991 as an attendant. His duties included turning, bathing, weighing and walking patients and pushing stretchers and wheel chairs of patients. He gradually developed carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Eugenio Vargas treated the claimant and ultimately performed bilateral carpal tunnel surgery. He testified the injuries were causally related to the claimant's job and that he would retain a ten percent permanent impairment to both arms. Dr. Clifford Posman viewed the claimant's medical records, including the reports of Dr. Vargas, and opined that the claimant's injuries were not work-related. Rodney Caldwell, a vocational consultant, opined the claimant was forty-seven percent vocationally disabled. The trial court found the injuries to be compensable and fixed the claimant's permanent partial disability at thirty-seven and one-half percent to both arms.1 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). From a careful consideration of the medical and lay proof in this case, the panel is unable to say the evidence preponderates against the trial judge's finding that the injuries are work-related. The first issue is resolved in favor the employee. 1 More precisely, the trial judge awarded benefits on the basis of 45% to the right arm and 3% to the left arm, which equates to 37 1/2% to both arms, a scheduled injury. 2/24/98

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Deborah Dunn
01S01-9707-CH-00160
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. J. Richard Mcgregor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. This declaratory judgment action likely created an interest that otherwise might not have existed or, perhaps, might not have manifested itself. The employer filed the action alleging that its employee reported that she experienced pain in her neck on August 17, 1995, that she was successfully treated and returned to work on September 12, 1995, that her medical expenses had been paid, and that the plaintiff [employer] should be "discharged from responsibility to defendant [employee]." A counter-claim followed in course, with the employee alleging that her neck injury resulted in temporary total disability, temporary partial disability, permanent impairment and disability, together with the incurrence of medical expenses. The trial court found the issues in favor of the employee and awarded her benefits based upon a twelve and one-half percent disability to her whole body, thus entitling her to a recovery of $2,793.5 to be paid in a lump sum. By separate order the employee was awarded $6. discretionary costs. The propriety of these awards is questioned on appeal. Our 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. T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The claimant is 37 years old, with limited marketable skills. She was initially employed in 1991 or 1992, according to her testimony. In 1992 "something happened to my neck" while loading a spool of wire. Two or three

Joseph D. Lewis v. The Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins. Co., et al.
01S01-9702-CV-00036
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon.

Chad Swatzell vs. State
01C01-9604-CC-00154

State vs. Leon Woodlee
01C01-9611-CC-00465

State vs. Willliam Trotter .
01C01-9701-CR-00019

State vs. Willliam Trotter .
01C01-9701-CR-00019
Trial Court Judge: Ann Lacy Johns

State vs. Chloe Clark
01C01-9704-CC-00134
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton

State vs. Robert Bitner
02C01-9705-CC-00177
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley

State vs. Donald Long
02C01-9610-CC-00362
Trial Court Judge: John Franklin Murchison

Johnny Moffitt vs. Carthel Smith
02A01-9705-CV-00095
Trial Court Judge: John Franklin Murchison

Shelby County Deputy from the Shelby County Sheriff's Association, et al., v. Shelby County, Tennessee et al.
02A01-9706-CH-00126
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor D. J. Alissandratos

This appeal involves a declaratory judgment suit in chancery court related to a previous proceeding in criminal court pursuant to the provisions of the “anti-fee statutes,” T.C.A. § 8-20- 101 et seq.. The plaintiffs are Shelby County Deputy Sheriff’s Association, Sergeant Ronald A. Houston, Sergeant Robert Michael Shelby, Sergeant Ronald Ray, and Sergeant Mark Rochevot. The defendants are Shelby County, Tennessee, the Shelby County Commission, Mayor Jim Rout and Sheriff A. C. Gilless, Jr. The complaint alleges in substance as follows:

Ray Thompson vs. State
02A01-9705-BC-00102

State vs. Hoxie
03S01-9706-CR-00061

Geneva Grahl vs. Lillie Davis, Et al
03S01-9701-CV-00011

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

State vs. Timothy Dean Martin
01C01-9609-CC-00393
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee

Lutcher Eidson vs. State
01C01-9607-CR-00295
Trial Court Judge: Thomas H. Shriver

State vs. Anthony Merlo
01C01-9611-CC-00471
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee

State vs. Landy Kash
01C01-9705-CR-00179
Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond

State vs. Daniel Bailey
02C01-9612-CR-00456
Trial Court Judge: L. Terry Lafferty

Rudy Holmes vs. Sheriff Jack Owens, et al
02A01-9706-CV-00115
Trial Court Judge: James E. Swearengen

State vs. Irwin
03S01-9702-CC-00021

State vs. Grapel Simpson
02S01-9702-CC-00010

State of Tennessee v. Fred Arthur Stier
W1999-600-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn