The defendant pled guilty to two counts of felonious possession of a weapon with an agreed sentence of two consecutive two-year terms. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing. Upon review of the record, we affirm the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing.
Hamilton
Court of Criminal Appeals
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Fernando Gonzales M1999-02037-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Weatherford, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Chancellor
The defendant/counter-plaintiff, Fernando Gonzales appeals the judgment of the Chancery Court of Warren County, where the trial court found that Mr. Gonzales retained a five percent (5%) permanent vocational disability to his right and left upper extremities for his work- related bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we modify the judgment of the trial court and award Mr. Gonzales a twenty percent (2%) permanent vocational disability.
Warren
Workers Compensation Panel
Marie Moyers, v. Kemper Insurance Companies, et al. E2000-01729-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Ben Hooper, II, Circuit Judge
The trial court found the plaintiff's husband suffered a fatal heart attack arising out of his employment with the defendant and entered judgment accordingly. The trial court found the heart attack was caused by emotional stress rather than physical exertion. The defendant asserts the evidence preponderates against the finding of the trial court. We find the evidence does not support the judgment of the trial court. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss this case.
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Connie Harris and Danny Harris vs. Marriott, Inc., & Fibercare, Inc. M1999-00096-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This is a slip and fall case. The plaintiff filed her complaint barely within one year of the injury, but did not cause process to issue until six months later. Both defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's case as time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations. The trial court granted the motions. We reverse and remand, finding that under Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff can rely on the filing of her complaint to toll the statute of limitations so long as the plaintiff causes process to issue within one year of the filing of the complaint.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
R.G. Burnett vs. James Swafford & Rhonda Swafford M1999-01648-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White
This appeal arises from an oral contract between a landlord and tenant. The plaintiff operated a grocery and leased a grocery store to the defendant for a period of ten years, pursuant to a written lease. The parties had a separate oral agreement in which the defendant agreed to buy the plaintiff's business. When the defendant vacated the property at the end of the lease, the parties disagreed as to whether the oral agreement included a purchase of the store equipment. The trial court found that the plaintiff had converted certain items belonging to the defendant, and entered a judgment in favor of the defendant for $5,000. We find that the trial court's decision is based on its determinations of credibility, and affirm.
Fentress
Court of Appeals
Randall Jordan vs. CSX Transportation, Inc. M1999-01415-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
This is a suit by an employee against his employer, a railroad operator, under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. The employee alleged that he suffered injuries caused by chemical solvents used by the employer. Prior to trial, the employer made an offer of judgment under Rule 68 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. This offer was refused. After the trial, the jury found that the employee failed to prove that his injuries were caused by the chemical solvents. The employer moved for an award of costs not included in the court clerk's bill of costs, under Rules 68 and 54.04 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The employee moved for a new trial. The trial court denied both parties' motions, and both parties appealed. We affirm the trial court's denial of both parties' motions.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Marvin Matthews v. State of Tennessee W1999-00833-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carolyn Wade Blackett
The petitioner, Marvin Matthews, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Because the petition is barred by the statute of limitations, among other reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Jerry L. Cox v. State of Tennessee E2000-02044-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck
Jerry L. Cox appeals from the Sullivan County Criminal Court's denial of motions in which he raised various claims related to sentence calculation and sentence validity. In part, Cox seeks the benefit of various sentence credits for the sentence he is presently serving in the Department of Correction. He also alleges that one of his sentences is void or has expired. Because there is no appeal as of right from the denial of Cox's motions challenging his sentences, we dismiss the appeal.
The Hamilton County Criminal Court dismissed Charles Griffin's petition for post-conviction relief. Asserting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, he appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
Defendant was convicted by a Knox County jury of the offense of felony murder and received a life sentence. He raises the following two issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession; and (2) whether the trial court erred in disallowing certain expert testimony. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Thomas J. Faulkner, Jr. stands convicted of four counts of attempted first degree murder and one count of theft over $1,000. He received his sentence at the conclusion of a jury trial in the Grainger County Circuit Court and is presently serving an effective 73-year sentence for these crimes. In this direct appeal, he raises numerous issues related to admission of evidence, release of a juror, sufficiency of the evidence, severance, jury instructions and sentencing. Upon review, we are unpersuaded of error and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I concur in the results and most of the reasoning in the majority opinion. However, I respectfully disagree with the view indicated in section VII of the majority opinion that the law is split regarding the need for supplemental post-trial instructions to be submitted in writing pursuant to Rule 30(c), Tenn. R. Crim. P. I believe that the Rule and binding precedent require such to be in writing.
The petitioner was originally convicted by a Hamilton County jury of first degree murder and received a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. The petitioner sought post-conviction relief, which was denied. In this appeal, the petitioner contends (1) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) he was denied the right to testify at trial and at sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the post-conviction court correctly denied post-conviction relief.
Hamilton
Court of Criminal Appeals
Michelle Estes v. Toshiba America Consumer Products, M2000-00546-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Weatherford, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond, Judge
The defendants, Toshiba America Consumer Products, Inc. and Travelers Insurance Co. appeal the judgment of the Criminal Court of Wilson County, where the trial court found: (1) the plaintiff, Mrs. Michelle Estes, had sustained a five percent (5%) permanent partial disability to the body as a whole due to her work-related injuries; (2) Mrs. Estes had a twelve and one-half percent (12_ %) vocational disability and was limited to a recovery of two and one-half (2 _) times her impairment rating pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(a)(1); and (3) defendants liable for payment of $1,286. for chiropractic treatment rendered to Mrs. Estes by Dr. Frank C. Etlinger, D.C.. The defendants submit that the trial court erred in determining that Mrs. Estes is vocationally impaired as a result of her work-related injury and in determining that the defendants were liable for payment for the unauthorized treatment of Dr. Etlinger. For the reasons discussed in this opinion we find that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause dismissed.
Wilson
Workers Compensation Panel
James R. Davidson v. Montgomery County M1999-02066-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Lee Russell, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Robert Wedemeyer, Circuit Court Judge
The Appellant appeals from the dismissal of his claim and seeks an award for permanent partial disability benefits, temporary total disability benefits, and specified medical expenses. After a complete review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the dismissal of the claim by the trial court.
Davidson
Workers Compensation Panel
Carl Wayne Griffin v. Consolidated Freightways M1999-02213-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Lee Russell, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: James O. Bond, Criminal Court Judge
The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court's award of sixty percent permanent partial disability to each lower extremity is excessive. After a complete review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Wayne
Workers Compensation Panel
Joe W. Dillard v. Textron Aerostructures, A Division of Avco M2000-01558-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle, Chancellor
The trial court found the plaintiff sustained a 75 percent permanent partial vocational disability to the body as a whole. The defendant says the record does not support the finding that the plaintiff experienced a permanent anatomical change or a permanent aggravation of his pre-existing condition as a result of an incident on October 18, 1995, and January 2, 1996. The defendant also says the award, if any, should be limited to two and one-half times the medical impairment rating. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Davidson
Workers Compensation Panel
Shirley Alexander v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. M2000-00632-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III, Chancellor
The plaintiff filed two suits against the plaintiff. One of the suits was for an alleged injury to or aggravation of a pre-existing injury to her right leg. The case was assigned the trial court number of 98-WC-1614. The other suit, filed on the same day was for an alleged injury to the plaintiff's left knee or leg and was assigned number 98-WC-1615. The cases were consolidated for trial and are consolidated for the appeal. The trial judge found the plaintiff did not show any injury to her right knee or leg or any compensable aggravation thereof. The trial judge found the plaintiff had sustained a compensable injury to her left knee and awarded her seventy percent permanent partial disability for the injury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Rutherford
Workers Compensation Panel
Boyd Adams v. Galaxy Logistics, M2000-01552-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: James E. Walton, Judge
In this appeal, the employer insists (1) the trial court erred in finding that the worker's injury to his left leg was caused by a work-related injury to the right leg, (2) that the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on 8 percent to both legs is excessive, and (3) the trial court erred in commuting the award to a lump sum. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed.
Robertson
Workers Compensation Panel
Loews Vanderbilt Plaza Hotel v. Stephanie Keaton Simon M1999-02576-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Carol Catalano, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle, Chancellor
The defendant employee, Stephanie Keaton Simon, raises two issues, arguing that the trial judge erred in (1) failing, in the face of reasonable doubt regarding causation, to grant all inferences to Simon, and (2) finding that Simon's injury did not arise in the course of her employment. The Panel concludes that the evidence does not preponderate against the finding that Simon's injury arose outside the course of her employment. Furthermore, we do not find error in the trial court's asserted failure to resolve all reasonable doubt in Simon's favor regarding causation. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the Chancery Court for Davidson County.
Davidson
Workers Compensation Panel
Richard Dan Moorehead v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, M2000-00425-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Weatherford, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Carol Soloman, Judge
The defendant, Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Davidson County, where the trial court allowed reconsideration of the plaintiff's industrial disability under Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(a)(2) and awarded a sixty percent (6%) disability to the body as a whole with a credit for earlier payments made pursuant to the original settlement order between the parties filed in the Chancery Court of Davidson County. The defendant submits that the trial court erred: (1) by allowing the plaintiff a reconsideration of his earlier award when he had received in excess of the two and one-half (2 _) cap upon advice of former counsel; (2) by awarding additional disability benefits when the employee failed to establish disability to the extent of thirty-two and one-half (32.5%) percent he had already received; and (3) by awarding disability benefits of five (5) times the impairment rating without making specific findings of fact required by Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(c). Under the recent ruling of the Tennessee Supreme Court in Freeman v. Marco Transportation Co., 27 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2), in which the Court held that a request for reconsideration brought pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(a)(2) must be filed in the same court that exercised jurisdiction over the original workers' compensation claim, we do not reach the issues raised by the defendant and find that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause dismissed without prejudice. Under the savings statute, the plaintiff can refile his request for reconsideration in the Chancery Court of Davidson County within one year of the date of judgment that is the final deposition in this case.
Moore
Workers Compensation Panel
Timothy Sipe v. Aquatech, Inc. and Travelers Insurance Cos. M1999-02030-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Lee Russell, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Vernon Neal, Chancellor
The Appellant appeals from the amount of the award of permanent partial disability benefits. After a complete review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the award made by the trial court.
Putnam
Workers Compensation Panel
Ric Ky S Hor T v. D Ietz Mo Bile Hom E Tr Ans Por T, M1999-01460-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Lee Russell, Sp.J
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull, Circuit Judge
The Appellants, Dietz Mobile Home Transport (hereinafter called the "Employer") and ITT Hartford Insurance Company (hereinafter the "Carrier") contest the amount of the trial court's award of permanent partial disability benefits on three grounds: (1) that the trial judge established and relied upon an anatomical impairment that was not a rating given by any of the three doctors who testified and that the impairment rating was too high under all of the facts in the case; (2) that the trial judge erroneously found that Ricky Short (hereinafter the "Claimant") did not have a meaningful return to work and therefore erroneously failed to cap the award at two and a half times the anatomical rating; and (3) that the trial judge's award of sixty percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole was excessive. After a complete review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court on all of the issues raised.
The defendant was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) and vehicular assault. In this appeal as of right, the defendant raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; and (2) whether both convictions can stand without violating his right to be protected against double jeopardy. Having reviewed the entire record, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support convictions for DUI and vehicular assault, but that both convictions cannot stand without violating principles of double jeopardy. The conviction for DUI is, therefore, vacated. The remaining conviction for vehicular assault and the sentence imposed by the trial court are affirmed.
