Lenore Berry Ross Storey, Debtor v. Bradford Furniture Company, Inc.
93-08973-KL3-7
Authoring Judge: Justice Penny J. White
Trial Court Judge: Judge Keith N. Lundin

QUESTION CERTIFIED Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Tennessee Supreme Court Rules,1 we have accepted a question certified to us by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The bankruptcy court has asked: Which of the following is the correct interpretation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-111(1)(E): (1) Once asserted in any judicial proceeding, the exemption in alimony described in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-111(1)(E) is effective with respect to all subsequent executions, seizures or attachments of alimony; or (2) The exemption in alimony described in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-111(1)(E) is effective only if claimed in each judicial proceeding in which execution, seizure or attachment of alimony is sought. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the alimony exemption set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated Section 26-2-111(1)(E) is effective only if claimed in each judicial proceeding in which execution, seizure, or attachment of alimony is sought.

Jack and Nancy Ritter, Thomas H. and Debra Kitts, and Fred A. and Donna J. Sykes v. Custom Chemicides, Inc.
01S01-9408-OT-00092
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge Harry W. Welford

The Court has accepted for decision two questions of law certified by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, pursuant to Rule 23, Supreme Court Rules, which questions are as follows:

( l ) Whether the tort of negligent misrepresentation applies only to professinals and others who  specialize in providing information as a service; and not to commercial entities or businesses which allegedly supply misleading information for the guidance of others in their business transactions; and

(2) Whether a party alleging negligent misrepresentation, in order to recover 'economic losses," must be in privity of contract with the defendant. The decision of the Court is that liability for the tort of  negligent misrepresentation is not limited to 'professionals'; however, the record in this case does not establish the essentials of that cause of action.

Linda Bogle v. Toshiba America Consumer Products, Inc.
M2000-00247-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John A. Turnbull, Sp.J.
Trial Court Judge: Hon. James O. Bond, Judge
In this case, the defendant-employer contends (1) that the evidence does not support the trial court's finding that the plaintiff-employee's closed head injury and herniated cervical disc arose out of and in the course of her employment with the defendant, (2) that the trial court erred in determining the plaintiff's permanent partial impairment of 52.5%, and (3) that the trial court erred in determining that the defendant is entitled to an offset for the net short-term disability benefits provided to the plaintiff rather than for the gross amount that was paid by the provider. As discussed below, the Panel concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in all respects.

Harold W. Ferrell, Jr. v. Apac-Tennessee, Inc. and Cigna Property & Casualty Insurance Co.
M1999-02260- WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John A. Turnbull, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: J. Richard McGregor, Special Judge
The employer contends the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff suffered a vocational disability of 12% to the body as a whole from his back injury, and an additional 15% to the left arm from his wrist injury which occurred two months later. As discussed below, the panel concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The panel further concludes that the appeal was frivolous or for the purpose of delay and remands the case to the trial court for imposition of appropriate penalty.

Harold W. Ferrell, Jr. v. Apac-Tennessee, Inc. and Cigna Property & Casualty Insurance Co.
M2000-00223- WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John A. Turnbull, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: J. Richard McGregor, Special Judge
The employer contends this claim for work related hearing loss is time barred by notice and statute of limitations provisions, and that the award is excessive. We conclude that notice was timely given, suit was timely filed, and the award is supported by the evidence.

Linda Bogle v. Toshiba America Consumer Products, Inc.
M2000-00247-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John A. Turnbull, Sp.J.
Trial Court Judge: Hon. James O. Bond, Judge
In this case, the defendant-employer contends (1) that the evidence does not support the trial court's finding that the plaintiff-employee's closed head injury and herniated cervical disc arose out of and in the course of her employment with the defendant, (2) that the trial court erred in determining the plaintiff's permanent partial impairment of 52.5%, and (3) that the trial court erred in determining that the defendant is entitled to an offset for the net short-term disability benefits provided to the plaintiff rather than for the gross amount that was paid by the provider. As discussed below, the Panel concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in all respects.

Debra Ward v. Kantus Corporation
M1999-01718-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Weatherford, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Lee Russell, Judge
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The defendant, Kantus Corporation, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court for Marshall County, where the trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits of $32,879.6, representing a permanent partial disability of thirty-two and one-half percent (32.5%) to the body as a whole, and representing two and one-half times the plaintiffs impairment rating of thirteen percent (13%) with open future medical benefits. The trial court commuted the award to a lump sum, and taxed court costs to Kantus. The defendant submits that: (1) Ms. Ward's claim is barred by the statute of limitations; (2) she failed to give notice to her employer of her injury; (3) Ms. Ward did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course and scope of her employment; (4) the trial court's award of thirty-two and one-half (32.5%) permanent partial disability to the body as a whole was excessive and contrary to the weight of the evidence; and (5) the trial court erred in affording equal or greater weight to the opinion of the evaluating physician than that of the treating neurosurgeon in determining permanent partial impairment and disability. For the reasons stated in this opinion, We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

James R. Hyde v. All American Homes, Llc.
M2000-00899-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Howell N. Peoples, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: James E. Walton, Circuit Judge
The trial court awarded the employee thirty-five percent disability to both arms and ordered the award to be paid in a lump sum. The employer contends the award is excessive and the lump sum is not in the employee's best interest. We affirm.

George Thomas Carter v. Kenneth O. Lester Company
M2000-00651-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: C. K. Smith, Chancellor
In this appeal, the employer insists the trial court erred in accrediting the testimony of an examining physician over that of the treating physician and by exceeding the multiplier applicable in cases where the employee returns to work at the same or greater wage. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed.

Kennedy vs. Kennedy
M1997-00219-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal involves a man's efforts to use his voluntary early retirement as a basis for ending his spousal support obligation. Three years after the divorce, the man filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Davidson County seeking to end his responsibility to pay child support. His former wife responded by filing a petition seeking to hold him in contempt for failure to pay spousal support. Following a bench trial, the trial court dismissed the man's petition, held him in contempt, and entered a $3,106 judgment against him for back spousal support. On this appeal, the man asserts that the trial court erred by declining to relieve him of his alimony obligation because of his inability to pay and his former spouse's lack of need. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Hodges vs. TN Atty. General
M2000-00550-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a prisoner's pro se complaint for failure to prosecute. The Chancery Court for Davidson County dismissed the complaint eleven months after it was filed because the prisoner had failed to provide summonses and copies of the complaint for service on the defendants. The prisoner has appealed to this court. Instead of arguing that the trial court erred by dismissing his complaint for failure to prosecute, the prisoner has simply renewed the assertions he made in the trial court that his sentence credits have been calculated incorrectly and that he should be released on parole. We determined that the trial court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute.

Jeffrey Bivens v. State of Tennessee
W1999-01028-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roy B. Morgan, Jr.

Jeffrey Bivens appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Although the petition was filed outside the one year limitations period, the post-conviction court excused the "late-filed" petition "in the interest of justice." Following a hearing upon the merits of the petition, the court denied post-conviction relief. Because the petition was time-barred, the post-conviction court was without jurisdiction to conduct a hearing on the merits. For this reason, dismissal of the petition is affirmed.

Angela Joan Wagner, v. Rodney Keith Wagner
M1999-01045-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert E. Corlew, III

The trial court granted the parties a divorce, ordered joint custody of the parties' minor son, and divided the marital property. On appeal, Ms. Wagner contends that the trial court's award of joint custody on an alternating week basis was improper, that the division of marital property was inequitable, and that the trial court's order requiring her to bear one-half of the child's medical insurance was improper. We disagree and affirm the trial court's judgment.

James W. Hunter vs. Shirley C. Hunter
E2000-00662-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Telford E. Forgerty, Jr.
In this divorce case, Shirley C. Hunter ("Wife") appeals, arguing that the trial court erred (1) in classifying and dividing the parties' property; (2) in refusing to find James W. Hunter ("Husband") in contempt for failing to pay Wife's medical bills; (3) in restricting Wife's spousal support award to one of alimony in solido of $7,200; (4) in awarding Husband a judgment against Wife for $5,068.53 in connection with Wife's use of his vehicle; and (5) in failing to award Wife her attorney's fees. We vacate the trial court's judgment ordering Wife to pay for her use of Husband's vehicle. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Patricia Baldwin v. Waldenbook Company, Inc.
M1999-01577-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr., Sp. J
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert E. Corlew, III, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with the Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employer contends the trial court erred in finding that the statute of limitations was tolled and that suit was timely filed. As discussed below, the panel has concluded that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, finding that suit was timely filed. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed Frank G. Clement, Jr., Sp.J., in which Frank F. Drowota, III, J., and John A. Turnbull, Sp.J., joined. Richard E. Spicer, Spicer, Flynn, & Rudstrom, PLLC, Nashville,TN, for the appellants, Waldenbook Company, Inc. Scott Daniel, Murfreesboro, TN, for the appellee, Patricia Baldwin. MEMORANDUM OPINION There are two issues to be considered to determine whether suit was filed timely. One issue is whether there was but one compensable injury or two separate compensable injuries. If there was only one compensable injury, the suit was filed timely. If there were two separate compensable injuries, instead of one, then the issue is whether Travelers Insurance Company was authorized, as agent for Waldenbook, to act for and thereby obligate Waldenbook for matters pertaining to the injury(ies). 1 Patricia Baldwin ("Baldwin"), the employee/appellee, began working for Waldenbook Company ("Waldenbook"), the employer/appellant, in 1989. Baldwin's employment consisted of performing general tasks within Waldenbook's warehouse. The first of the two incidents occurred on October 19, 1994. On that date Baldwin was loading books into a Gaylord1 at Waldenbook when she felt her wrist pop. Baldwin's hand immediately began to swell and a ganglion cyst appeared. She reported the injury to Waldenbook immediately. A First Report of Work Injury was completed and filed. Waldenbook sent Baldwin to the nearest local clinic to have her injury examined and/or treated. The clinic recommended Dr. Renfro, a specialist, who provided conservative treatment until February 2, 1995, at which time he performed surgery in order to excise the ganglion cyst. After the surgery, Baldwin returned to work on light duty but continued to complain of wrist pain. Baldwin requested that she be permitted to see another doctor but the request was refused by KM. Though she had returned to work, Baldwin was still restricted to light duty when the second incident occurred. The second incident occurred on May 18, 1995,when Baldwin felt the same wrist pop again. The wrist began to swell in the same place just as it did following the first incident in 1994. Baldwin promptly reported the incident to Waldenbook. Her symptoms were the same as before, only worse. She was authorized to receive further medical care and was treated by eleven doctors. Though the 1995 incident was immediately reported to Waldenbook, and though Baldwin was authorized to be treated by several doctors as a result of this incident, neither Waldenbook nor Travelers ever filed a First Report of Work Injury for this so-called "second injury." The only "First Report" that was filed pertained to the 1994 incident, the so-called "first injury." It is the May 18, 1995 incident which Waldenbook now insists is the second and separate compensable injury. Conversely, Baldwin insists the 1995 incident is merely an aggravation of the first and only injury, which occurred on October 19, 1994. Waldenbook was self-insured from the time Baldwin first became a Waldenbook employee until February 1, 1995. While Waldenbook was self-insured, KM Administrative Services ("KM") served as a third-party administrator processing Waldenbook's workers' compensation claims. Travelers Insurance Company became the designated workers' compensation insurance carrier for Waldenbook on February 1, 1995, Waldenbook was no longer self-insured after that date and KM no longer administered their claims. Both Waldenbook (through KM) and Travelers paid Baldwin's medical bills. Her bills were paid through November 27, 1996. On April 19, 1996, KM verbally informed Baldwin's attorneythat the last voluntary medical 1A large box in which books are packed for shipping. 2

Merlin Gene Cletcher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
M1998-00011-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. C.K. Smith, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. Section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employer, Wal-Mart, contends the trial court erred when it held 1) that Dr. Dan Jackson's treatment of Plaintiff's workers' compensation injury was reasonable and necessary, 2) that Dr. Jackson, a chiropractor, was and should remain an authorized provider, and 3) that Defendant should pay for all future medical-related charges that Dr. Jackson deems reasonable and necessary for the treatment of the compensable injury which is the subject of this action. After careful review of the record, it is the opinion of this Panel that the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.

Pamela Harper v. Travelers Insurance Co., et al
M1999-01913-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. James O. Bond, Judge
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. Section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff commenced this cause of action on March 18, 1998 alleging that she had developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome due to the repetitive use of her hands and arms while employed at Flex Technologies, Inc. The trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on the functional equivalent of 75% to both arms. Flex Technologies, Inc. and The Travelers Insurance Company, respectively, filed this appeal. Appellants contend that the trial court erred 1) by denying Appellants' motion for a continuance of the trial, 2) in accepting the opinion of an independent medical expert over the opinion of the treating physician, and 3) in awarding excessive permanent partial disability benefits. As discussed below, the Panel holds that the trial court's award of permanent partial disability benefits was not excessive and that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed.

John Welsh, v. Universal Fasteners, Inc., and The Yasuda Fire and Marine Insurance Company
M1999_00267_WC_R3_CV
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Donald P. Harris, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee contends the trial court erred in granting the employers motion for summary judgment on grounds that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. We conclude that the running of the one year statute of limitations was tolled from the time the employee requested assistance of the Department of Labor until his claim for medical benefits was rejected by the claims specialist. Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-225(e)(3) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed and Remanded TURNBULL , Sp.J., delivered the opinion of court, in which DROWOTA , J., and LOSER, Sp.J., joined. Christopher L. Dunn, Columbia, Tennessee, for the appellant, John Welsh. Delicia R. Bryant, Brewer, Krause & Brooks, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Universal Fasteners, Inc., and The Yasuda Fire and Marine Insurance Company. MEMORANDUM OPINION Facts The thirty year old employee, Welsh, is a high school graduate with a work history of manufacturing line employment. He began working for his employer, Universal Fasteners, Inc., in March of 1989, and continues to work there. In the spring of 1996, the employee began experiencing pain in his right shoulder. From September of 1991 until September of 1996, he worked on Universal's plating line. This task required repetitive scooping liquid material [slugs] in one or two gallon buckets weighing between ten and sixty pounds. The task was repeated six times during each seven and one-half minute plating cycle throughout the work day. The pain in employee's shoulder progressed during the summer of 1996, ultimately causing him to report his injury to his employer on September 26, 1996. Welsh then went to Dr. Michael Pagnani who diagnosed bicipital tendinitis with a spur projecting from the under surface of the right acromion and recommended limitation of upper extremity work, and discussed the possibility of rotator cuff surgery if pain persisted. Dr. Pagnani was equivocal as to whether the injury resulted from employment. After initially paying medical expenses, the Yasuda Fire and Marine Insurance Company denied Welch's claim for medical benefits and filed a notice of controversy on November 4, 1996. Yasuda's last voluntary medical payment occurred on November 27, 1996. On November 18, 1996, the employee contacted the Tennessee Department of Labor and requested review of Yasuda's denial of benefits. The record does not contain the entire Department of Labor file, but does indicate the first claim specialist assigned to the case made an investigation and wrote for a medical report on April 23, 1997. Due to change ofpersonnel, a new claim specialist was assigned in the summer of 1997, and on August 8, 1997, she wrote Yasuda and Welsh indicating she found "the medical evidence supports that Mr. Welsh suffers from a compensable work related injury," and stated her position "medical coverage for this claim should be reinstated and recommended courses of treatment ... should be followed." However, on September 19, 1997, the specialist reversed her finding and stated in a letter to Mr. Welsh: "I cannot justify ordering medical and/or lost time benefits in this case. Mine is not the final word however, and you may bring your dispute before a court of proper jurisdiction. You do not have an unlimited time to do so. Tenn. Code Ann., Section 5-6-23 sets a one year statute of limitations to bring a suit for compensation. You may wish to seek legal counsel to properly preserveyour legal rights." The employee retained counsel in January of 1998, and filed suit February 3, 1998. The employee has not missed any work due to his injury, but did make a contingent claim for temporary total and permanent disability benefits in his filed complaint. From the above summarized evidence, the chancellor found no dispute as to any genuine issue of material fact and concluded that Welsh failed to file his complaint within one year from the date of last voluntary payment of medical expenses on November 27, 1996. At the hearing on motion for summary judgment, trial counsel failed to cite or advise the chancellor of the provision [2]

Tindell's Inc. vs. Mary Ava Partin
E2000-01640-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White
This is a suit to recover the sales price of certain materials sold to the Defendant and to enforce a lien against certain property if the judgment rendered is not paid. The Trial Court found in favor of the Plaintiff, resulting in this appeal, wherein the Defendant questions the introduction of certain proof and insists the preponderance of the evidence is contrary to the Trial Court's determination. We affirm.

G.L. Omohundro, et al vs. Paul Harrison, et al
E2000-00666-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
This is a suit by investors in The Great Smoky Mountain Opry Corporation against a number of defendants including Paul Harrison. The trial court found a violation of the Tennessee Securities Act of 1980 and awarded the plaintiffs a judgment for $56,932.50. Harrison appeals, contending that the judgment should be reversed. We affirm.

Department of Children's Services, vs. D. & G.M.
E1999-01359-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Suzanne Bailey
The Trial Judge terminated mother's parental rights to her three minor children. We affirm.

Berman Kennedy vs. Darlene Lane-Detman, et al
E2000-01315-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: W. Frank Brown, III
The defendant Herbert G. Adcox guaranteed, in part, payment of a $35,000 promissory note executed by Darlene Lane-Detman in favor of the plaintiff Berman D. Kennedy. Adcox's guaranty took the form of a post-dated check in the amount of $30,000. When Detman defaulted on the note and Adcox then stopped payment on the check, the plaintiff sued Adcox on the check. The trial court granted Adcox summary judgment, finding that the record before it established a number of affirmative defenses. We affirm the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment to Adcox, because we find that Kennedy modified the repayment terms of Detman's note without Adcox's consent.

Stephen Benker V.Williams Telecommunications Service, Inc., et al.
E1999-01967-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Thayer, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Ben W. Hooper II, Circuit Judge
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6- 225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employer has appealed from the trial court's ruling the employee is totally disabled raising issues concerning compensability of the claim and the apportionment of the award. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court is Affirmed. THAYER, SP. J., in which ANDERSON, C. J. and BYERS, SR. J., joined. Robert W. Knolton, of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for the Appellants, William Telecommunications Service, Inc. and Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, and E. Blaine Sprouse, Assistant Attorney General, of Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellee, State Second Injury Fund. J. Anthony Farmer, of Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Stephen Benker. OPINION The employer, Williams Telecommunications Service, Inc., and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, have appealed from the trial court's ruling finding the employee, Stephen Benker, to be totally disabled. Facts Employee Benker was 51 years of age and was a high school graduate with some vocational training. His prior work history was a laborer, maintenance worker, construction worker and carpenter. He was employed as a telephone computer service system installer on September 23, 1997, when he tripped on some phone cords and fell. When this occurred, he testified he twisted his back, felt sharp pain down his leg and some numbness in his low back. Prior to this accident, he had disc surgery in 1975 or 1976 and returned to work. In 199 he had another disc operation and returned to work. He had complaints from back problems for several years prior to the incident in question and had missed work at different times between 199 and the accident in 1997. He has not worked since the September 23rd incident and states he is not able to work at any of the jobs he has held. His wife, Lisa Benker, testified as to his physical limitations and testified that she does everything both inside and outside their home and that "our entire life has changed, everything is different." Dr. John T. Purvis, a neurosurgeon, performed the second surgery in 199 which involved a ruptured disc. He saw the employee again after the incident in question and stated that he had severe osteoarthritis in his low back and with his prior historyof having disc surgery twice, he would be very sensitive to any type of injury to the back. He concluded that Benker sustained an aggravation and acceleration of his lumbar spondylosis to such an extent that he was unable to work; that there was some anatomical change and he was surprised that he had worked as long as he did. He gave impairments of 1 percent due to the 1976 surgery, 15 percent due to the 199 surgery and 1 percent due to the September 1997 accident. Opposing this medical testimony was the written medical report of Dr. Archer Bishop. He performed an independent medical examination on November 1, 1998 and was of the opinion the accident had only increased his pain and that there was no additional impairment. Witness, Julian Nadolsky, a vocational consultant, testified the employee had "no capacity to earn a living in any occupation" based on the opinion of Dr. Purvis. He admitted that there would be no vocational disability under Dr. Bishop's conclusion. The trial court found the accident of September 23, 1997 rendered the employee totally disabled and apportioned the award of permanent total disability pursuant to subsection (a)(1) of Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-28. The court ordered the employer to pay 6 percent of the award and the state second injury fund to pay the remaining 4 percent. Issues on Appeal The employer and insurance company contend: (1) the accident in question did not cause any anatomical change in the employee's pre-existing condition, (2) the employee was not totally disabled as a result of the last accident and (3) the court was in error in apportioning a greater portion -2-

Estate of Annie Hamilton et al. v. Walter Morris,et al.
W1998-00191-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford
Proponents of 1992 will of testatrix offered the will for probate, and three beneficiaries of testatrix's 1987 will filed a complaint contesting the 1992 will. Proponents of the 1992 will filed a response to the complaint contesting the 1992 will which, inter alia, denies that the 1987 will is the last will and testament of the testatrix. The chancellor granted summary judgment against the proponents of the 1992 will, holding that the will was void by virtue of proponents' undue influence on testatrix. The chancellor also granted summary judgment for residuary beneficiary of the 1987 will and admitted the 1987 will to probate as the last will and testament of the testatrix. Appellants, the proponents of the 1992 will and contestants of the 1987 will, have appealed.

Elpidio Placencia vs. Lauren Placencia
W1999-01812-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown