01C01-9603-CC-00114
01C01-9603-CC-00114

01A01-9605-CH-00218
01A01-9605-CH-00218
Trial Court Judge: Samuel L. Lewis

P. 54.04(2); See Lock v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 809 S.W.2D 483, 490 (Tenn.
01A01-9606-CV-00251

01C01-9604-CR-00158
01C01-9604-CR-00158
Trial Court Judge: Ann Lacy Johns

Driber vs. Physicians Health Care
01A01-9607-CH-00310
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

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

03C01-9603-CR-00110
03C01-9603-CR-00110

03C01-9512-CR-00413
03C01-9512-CR-00413

03C01-9508-CR-00222
03C01-9508-CR-00222
Trial Court Judge: Mary Beth Leibowitz

03C01-9601-CC-00037
03C01-9601-CC-00037
Trial Court Judge: Arden L. Hill

03C01-9606-CR-00248
03C01-9606-CR-00248
Trial Court Judge: Mary Beth Leibowitz

03C01-9508-CC-00250
03C01-9508-CC-00250
Trial Court Judge: Arden L. Hill

03C01-9404-CR-00157
03C01-9404-CR-00157
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.

03C01-9601-CC-00023
03C01-9601-CC-00023

03C01-9511-CC-00343
03C01-9511-CC-00343
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry

Carmella Mccadams v. Henry County Board of Education
02S01-9606-CV-00055
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Julian P. Guinn,
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 issue in this appeal is whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's award of permanent disability benefits for a claimed back injury. This tribunal has concluded the judgment should be reversed for insufficient evidence of permanency. Because we do not reach a second issue, involving the method by which the employee's average weekly wage is determined, that issue is pretermitted. At the time of the trial, the employee or claimant, McCadams, was thirty-six years old, with a twelfth grade education and 8 hours of training in cosmetology. Her work history includes sewing shoes at Brown Shoe, sewing clothes at HIS, baby sitting at home, cleaning houses, working at a florist and working in the cafeteria at Henry County High School. She began working for the employer, Henry County Board of Education, in March of 1993, as a substitute cook. On November 18th of the same year, while standing on a ladder to reach vents she was cleaning, she lost then quickly regained her balance. When she did, she felt pain in her neck and back. She did not fall. She finished working that day and, except for the following day when she worked only three hours and twenty-five minutes, worked regularly until December 6th of the same year. She has voluntarily quit working. On December 3rd and 13th, she sought treatment from Dr. Walter Griffey for pain in her back and neck and a funny feeling in both feet. In January of 1994, she sought treatment from Dr. Carl W. Huff, who diagnosed neck pain without objective findings, back pain without objective findings and symptom magnification syndrome. Dr. Huff prescribed return to work without limitations and with no permanent impairment. She has been also seen by three neurosurgeons, none of whom found evidence of injury, other than preexisting degenerative disc disease. One of them described the claimant as a malingerer. Her husband called the doctor a quack. The claimant was finally referred to a Dr. Mark Crawford, whose specialty and qualifications are not in the record. Dr. Crawford wrote, " (B)ased on the AMA Guidelines to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th Edition and based on moderate degenerative disc disease of L4 and L5 with residuals, she would have an impairment of 8% of the whole person. This degenerative disc disease was an asymptomatic pre-existing condition brought into disabling reality by her work related injury." None of the other medical experts assigned any permanent impairment. 2

Alma J. Milam v. Mci Telecommunications Corp., et al
02S01-9604-CH-00040
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Hon. D. J. Alissandratos,
This case is before the Court upon the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, and the Panel's Memorandum Opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are incorporated herein by reference.

Jessie James Jones, Jr. v. Cigna Insurance Companies
02S01-9601-CH-00041
Authoring Judge: F. Lloyd Tatum, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Honora Ble Joe C.
This workers' compensation app eal has been referred to the Special W ork ers ' C om pe ns atio n A pp ea ls P an el of the Su pre m e C ou rt in acc ord an ce with Te nn . Co de An n. _ 5 -6- 22 5(e )(3 ) fo r he arin g a nd rep orting of find ings of fa ct an d co nc lusio ns of law . The p lainti ff, Je ss e J am es Jo ne s J r., u nd erw en t co m pe ns ab le lumbar disc h ern iatio n a nd surgery for which he entered into a settlement agre em ent w ith his em ployer for p aym en t of permanent partial disa bility be ne fits of 4 % to the bo dy as a w ho le in September, 19, 1992. On May 18, 1992, Plaintiff was injured in a second industrial accident and suffered a second lumbar disc herniatio n for which he underwent a sec on d lam inec tom y. The plaintiff recovered a judgment for the second injury against Cigna Insurance Company in which he was aw ard ed fur the r w ork ers ' co m pe ns atio n b enefits based on the find ing that he suffered 55% perm ane nt partial disab ility to the bo dy as a whole. On Se pte m be r 2 , 19 95 , C ign a file d a m otio n fo r re du ctio n o f aw ard pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 56-6-231 seeking a reduction of the pe rm an en t disa bility aw ard for the sec on d inju ry. Th e T rial Co urt denied Cigna's motion for reduction of award and this appeal results. In its on ly issue, Cigna says that evidence preponderates against the Tr ial C ou rt's d en ial o f its m otio n to te rm ina te its ob liga tion for payment of p erm an en t disa bility be ne fits as of N ov em be r 7, 1 99 5. 2

State of Tennessee v. Thomas D. Smith
01C01-9904-CC-00146
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer

Tina R. Guffey vs. Wenco of Shelbyville, Inc., d/b/a Wendy's Restaurant - Concurring
01A01-9609-CV-00400
Authoring Judge: Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lee Russell

This is a “slip and fall case” in which the jury awarded $173,250, and the defendant appealed.

Michael Kindall v. Jim H. Rose - Concurring
01A01-9610-CH-00495
Authoring Judge: Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jim T. Hamilton

The captioned petitioner, an inmate of an institution operated by a private contractor for the Tennessee Department of Correction, has appealed from the summary dismissal of his petition for certiorari for review of disciplinary actions of the defendants.

Jonthan Hyler v. Charles Traughber, Chairman Tennessee Board of Paroles, et al.
01A01-9610-CH-00482
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

The captioned petitioner has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing his petition for certiorari from the action of the Board of Paroles denying hisapplication for parole from the custody of the Department of Correction.

Joe Larry Turnbo vs. Brenda Jane (Thompson) Turnbo
01A01-9307-CH-00314
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd

The defendant/appellee has filed a respectful petition to rehear. It appears that a rehearing is appropriate, and same is hereby granted.

Erma Hardesty and Jim Hardesty, v. Service Merchandise Company, Inc.
02A01-9510-CV-00235
Authoring Judge: Judge Paul G. Summers

The majority holds that the plaintiff cannot establish constructive notice. I am constrained to agree. However, I invite our Supreme Court to revisit this area of law.

Erma Hardesty and Jim Hardesty v. Service Merchandise Company, Inc.
02A01-9510-CV-00235
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert A. Lanier

This appeal is taken from the trial court’s order of June 7, 1995, granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Service Merchandise Company, Inc. (hereinafter, “Service Merchandise”). Specifically, the trial court found that there was no proof of a dangerous condition created by Service Merchandise and no proof that Service Merchandise had either actual or constructive notice that a dangerous condition existed. Upon consideration of the record before us, the trial court’s order is affirmed.