Opinions

DHS vs. Rudd
01A01-9712-JV-00745
Trial Court Judge: Andrew J. Shookhoff

Hall vs. Pippin & Delaney
01A01-9609-CH-00439
Trial Court Judge: Vernon Neal

Hall vs. Pippin & Delaney
01A01-9609-CH-00439

Johnson vs. Dept. of Corrections
01A01-9710-CH-00586
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

In the matter of: Laura Ann Campbell
01A01-9802-JV-00086
Trial Court Judge: Clovis G. Parnell

State vs. John Lewis
01C01-9707-CC-00289
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee

State vs. Timmy Beavers
01C01-9709-CC-00394
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee

Seffernick vs. St. Thomas Hospital
01A01-9606-CV-00282

Vickie Lewis v. Otis Campbell & Robert Dinwiddie
M2000-03092-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Sr.
This case involves allegations of medical malpractice and misrepresentation. In September 1998, the plaintiff patient began visiting the office of the defendant physician for medical treatment. In February or March 1999, the patient discovered that the person treating her was not the defendant physician. In June 1999, the patient discovered that the person treating her was a pharmacist. In April 2000, the plaintiff patient filed a lawsuit against the physician and the pharmacist, asserting medical malpractice and misrepresentation. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants based on the one-year statute of limitations. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm, finding that plaintiff had sufficient knowledge in February or March 1999 to put her on notice of her cause of action, and, consequently, her April 2000 lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations.

State vs. Don Allen Rodgers
W2000-00714-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Roy B. Morgan, Jr.
The defendant appeals the trial court's revocation of his community corrections sentence and the imposition of incarceration in the Department of Correction. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion in making either determination, we affirm.

State vs. Gilliam
03C01-9711-CC-00489
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner

State vs. Smith, a.k.a Maxwell
03C01-9708-CR-00366
Trial Court Judge: Mary Beth Leibowitz

Brewer vs. State
03C01-9709-CC-00397
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

State vs. Corey Powell
02C01-9707-CC-00265

State vs. Andrew Cole
02C01-9712-CC-00461
Trial Court Judge: Dick Jerman, Jr.

State vs. Jeffrey Hankins
02C01-9709-CC-00355
Trial Court Judge: John Franklin Murchison

James Carroll vs. Carolyn Whitney
02A01-9707-CV-00162
Trial Court Judge: Janice M. Holder

01C01-9707-CR-00248
01C01-9707-CR-00248

State vs. Michael Walls
01C01-9708-CC-00381

State vs. Mark Cash
01C01-9712-CR-00579
Trial Court Judge: Leon C. Burns, Jr.

Amy v. Hollars
03S01-9707-CH-00084
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Samuel F. Payne,
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. 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 findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). This case presents the issue of whether the trial judge erred in dismissing the plaintiff's claim, which was filed on February 14, 1996, for workers' compensation benefits by way of summary judgment. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings. On February 1, 1995, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a settlement of a workers' compensation matter on a joint petition. The defendant filed the petition to resolve the case because of some question as to whether the plaintiff had a compensable claim. The plaintiff was unrepresented throughout the proceeding. The settlement entered into was to compensate the plaintiff for injuries to her sinus cavities as a result of exposure to chemicals used in the dark room of the x-ray department where she worked. Because the medical evidence indicated the plaintiff was allergic to these chemicals, the plaintiff quit work upon entry of the judgment approving the settlement. We find the following facts in the pleadings, etc. filed by the parties on the motion for summary judgment. Prior to the settlement, the plaintiff had been experiencing some joint pain and was examined for this on September 19, 1994 by Dr. Patrick Tsui. Dr. Tsui's notes 2

Larry Donald Setsor v. England Corcsair, Inc.
03S01-9708-CH-00103
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor
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. The employee [appellee] sustained three successive cervical spine injuries while working for the employer [appellant]. Appellee filed suit in January 1995 for the first injury and in August 1995 for the second injury. Appellant filed suit in August 1996 for judicial determination of its rights and obligations after the appellee alleged the third injury in May 1996. These three cases were consolidated for trial. The trial judge found the appellee had sustained 25 percent vocational disability from the first injury, 25 percent from the second injury, and no vocational disability from the third injury. The employer appeals, insisting that the trial judge improperly assessed the credibility of the medical evidence to reach an excessive award and erred in authorizing the employee to choose a new treating doctor. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Larry Donald Setsor, the appellee, is 45 years old, has a high school education, and has three months' vocational training1 for air-conditioning and refrigeration repair. He also trained to sell insurance, and attempted unsuccessfully to do so for eight months. His work experience includes upholstering, assembly line production and truck driving for this employer. In April 1994, appellee ruptured a cervical disc at C6/7 while unloading furniture at work. The employer sent him to a chiropractor, who referred him to Dr. Fred Killeffer, a neurosurgeon, who performed surgical removal of a disc 1He did not complete the course. 2

State vs. Quintero and Hall
01S01-9703-CC-00068

State vs. Quintero and Hall
01S01-9703-CC-00068

General Electric Co. vs. Process Control Co.
01S01-9707-FD-00148