Opinions

Castlewood Inc., v. Anderson County, Tennessee; Patsy Stair, Trustee; Owen K. Richardson, Tax Assessor, City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the Tennessee State Board of Equalization
03S01-9705-CH-00053
Authoring Judge: Special Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor William W. Lantrip

This case presents for review the Court of Appeals' decision that the classificatin as industrial and commercial of two or more condominiums units rented by the owners to others for their use as residences does not violate Article II, Section 28 of the Tennessee Constitution. Nor does the statute violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. That decision is affirmed.

Jimmy Elliott v. Jackie Evans Trucking, Inc.
03S01-9709-CV-00108
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Carroll L. Ross,
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 plaintiff alleged and testified that on April 7, 1995 he jumped from a truck bed approximately four feet to the ground, twisting his left leg in the process. Sharp pain and swelling immediately occurred and he received emergency room treatment. Seven days later Dr. Robert Beasly, an orthopedic surgeon, performed a meniscectomy for a torn medial meniscus, followed by a left patellectomy and valgus osteomy with metal plate emplacement. The defendant responded that the plaintiff's knee problem pre-existed the alleged injury, and that the torn meniscus was of many years duration. The trial court found that the injury occurred as alleged, and awarded benefits based on "4 percent impairment to the lower body; 16 percent to the body as a whole," later amended to a finding of 1 percent leg impairment with benefits calculated on that basis. Both parties appealed; the plaintiff complains of the refusal of the trial judge to find whole body disability with resultant benefits, and the defendant complains that the finding of the trial court is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. The judgment is affirmed. 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). Although there is evidence that the plaintiff's knee problem pre-existed his alleged injury, and that it was not job-related, there is evidence accredited 2

Hon. Frank v. Williams, Iii,
03S01-9706-CH-00062
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Billy Joe White,
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. Plaintiff filed suit in 1989 for work-related injury to his left hand and alleged a related psychiatric disability. By final judgment entered September 5, 1991, the trial court awarded accrued and future medical and psychiatric benefits and permanent partial disability to his hand but found he had failed to prove any permanent psychiatric disability. The judgment was not appealed. On January 2, 1995, plaintiff filed this suit alleging that (1) under T.C.A. _ 5-6-231 he was entitled to modification of the 1991 final judgment due to increased psychiatric impairment, or (2) in the alternative, he was entitled to benefits for a new accidental [psychiatric] injury which occurred on September 2, 1994. The trial court found that plaintiff had failed to prove that he gave timely notice to the employer of a new work-related accident, had failed to prove a new compensable injury, and was barred from reopening the prior case for modification of the award owing to the doctrine of res judicata and the statute of limitations, since the denial of permanent psychiatric disability in that case was never appealed. The plaintiff appeals, insisting that notice of a new injury was provided to the defendant in a letter to the employer from his doctor and by comments made by the plaintiff at work, and that a particular stressful incident at work was a sufficient mental stimulus to constitute a new psychiatric injury. Defendant insists the trial judge correctly decided those issues and correctly held that the denial of permanent psychiatric disability in 1991 was not subject 2

Win Myint and wife Patti KI. Myint v. Allstate Insurance Company
01S01-9612-CH-00238
Authoring Judge: Justice Aldolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Special Chancellor Christina Norris

In this cause, the insuror refused to pay a claim under a policy of insurance. The insured contends that such refusal constitutes an “unfair or deceptive act or practice,” in violation
of the Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-18-101, et seq.1 In contrast, the insuror insists that Tenn. Code Ann. § 56- 7-105,2 commonly known as the “bad faith statute,” is the exclusive remedy for the bad faith denial of an insurance claim. Because Title 56, Chapters 7 and 8 of the Tennessee Code comprehensively regulates the insurance industry, the insuror insists that the acts and practices of an insurance company are never subject to the Consumer Protection Act.

Win Myint and Patti Kay Myint, et. ux. v. Allstate Insurance Company
01S01-9612-CH-00238
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Special Chancellor Christina Norris

In this cause, the insuror refused to pay a claim under a policy of insurance. The insured contends that such refusal constitutes an “unfair or deceptive act or practice,” in violation of the Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-18-101, et seq.1 In contrast, the insuror insists that Tenn. Code Ann. § 56- 7-105,2 commonly known as the “bad faith statute,” is the exclusive remedy for the bad faith denial of an insurance claim. Because Title 56, Chapters 7 and 8 of the Tennessee Code comprehensively regulates the insurance industry, the insuror insists that the acts and practices of an insurance company are never subject to the Consumer Protection Act.

Northwest Airlines, Inc., Federal Express Corp., American Airlines, Inc., Flagship Airlines, and Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Tennessee State Bd. of Equalization and CSX Transportation et al.
01S01-9702-FD-00030
Authoring Judge: Special Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas A. Wiseman, Jr.

This Court has accepted from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, certified question of law regarding the effect of the 1996 amendment to Tenn. Code Ann. §
467 - 5 - 1512 ( b ) ( 2 ) on the calculation of interest on property tax paymens and refunds. 

Robert Harold Bomely, Jr. v. Mid-America Corporation, D/B/A Burger King
03S01-9605-CH-00059
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank W. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Frederick D. McDonald

In this workers’ compensation action the Second Injury Fund, defendant-appellant, has appealed from a judgment of the Chancery Court of Knox County which found the employee, Robert Bomely, plaintiff-appellee, to be totally and permanently disabled. The award was apportioned 65 percent to the employer, Mid- America Corporation, d/b/a Burger King, defendant-appellee, and 35 percent to the Second Injury Fund under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-208(b). The trial court assessed
the employer’s liability based on 400 weeks of benefits and held the Second Injury Fund liable for the remaining 938 weeks of benefits (until the employee reached the age of 651). Thus, the employer’s liability was limited to 65 percent of 400 weeks rather than 65 percent of the total number of weeks to age 65. We transferred this case from the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel to decide whether it was proper to have limited the employer’s liability in this fashion. After carefully examining the record before us and considering the relevant authorities, we conclude that the award should be apportioned between the employer and the Second Injury
Fund based on the total number of weeks to age 65 rather than limiting the employer’s liability to a percentage of 400 weeks. Accordingly, that portion of the trial court’s judgment is reversed. We shall also address (1) whether an award of permanent total disability is subject to the monetary cap imposed by the 400 week maximum total benefit provision of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(a)(6) and (2) whether the apportionment of benefits between the employer and the Second Injury Fund in this case is controlled by subsection (a) or (b) of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-208.

Curtis R. Thrapp vs. Mary Elizabeth Thrapp
E2006-00088-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
The parties were divorced in Oregon where the Court ordered the custodial arrangement for the only child of the marriage. The Mother then moved to Colorado, where she filed suit in Colorado in the custody dispute. She then moved to Tennessee, where the Father sued her over the ongoing dispute. The Colorado Court ultimately declined jurisdiction and the Tennessee Court ordered a change of the custody. The mother has appealed. We affirm the change of custody.

Ogilvie vs. Metro Gov't. vs. Nashille Electric Svc.
01A01-9709-CV-00466
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Brothers

McMahan vs. Whisman
01A01-9711-CH-00681
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

Ramsey vs. Burkhalter & Ryan
01A01-9707-CH-00318
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

TN. Real Estate Comm. vs. Hamilton
01A01-9707-CH-00320
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

Coastcom, Inc. vs. Cruzen, et.ux.
01A01-9707-CH-00349
Trial Court Judge: H. Denmark Bell

Hawkins & Gossett vs. Hart, et. al.
01A01-9707-CV-00294
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes

J.B. Hinson, et. ux. vs. Beechview Corp.
01A01-9709-CH-00498
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Jones

Dept. of Children's Svcs. vs. Stanfill
01A01-9710-JV-00616
Trial Court Judge: Andrew J. Shookhoff

Montague vs. Dept. of Corrections
01A01-9711-CH-00667
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

Charles Montague, v. Tennessee Department of Corrections, and Warden Howard Carlton
01A01-9711-CH-00667
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle

The plaintiff, a prisoner in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, brought this action against the Department and its Commissioner seeking a declaratory judgment that he is entitled to a refund of $64.00 charged against his custodial account for a key lost by the prisoner.

National Healthcare L.P. vs. Sparta Medical Investors
01A01-9712-CH-00718
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

National Healthcare L.P. vs. Sparta Medical Investors
01A01-9712-CH-00718

Moore, et. ux. vs. Phillips, Sr.
01A01-9605-CH-00197
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey F. Stewart

State vs. Walter Ellison
01C01-9708-CR-00361
Trial Court Judge: L. Terry Lafferty

Charles E. Jones v. State of Tennessee
W2007-01086-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Lee V. Coffee

Haren Construction v. Metro Nashville and Davidson County
M2002-01135-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This appeal involves a contract between the Appellant Haren Construction Company, Inc. (HCCI) and the Appellee Metropolitan Government (Metro). The construction company brought suit claiming Metro breached its contract with HCCI in "constructive suspension" of work. In addition the construction company claimed that Metro interfered with the company's contract for equipment supply from a third party. The trial court granted Metro's two motions for summary judgment, the first concerning Metro's alleged liability under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, the second concerning the action for breach of contract. HCCI appeals the grant of summary judgment. We affirm.

State vs. Pierson
03C01-9709-CR-00334
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller