Jayme Bussell v. Promus Hotel Corporation
02S01-9705-CV-00041
Authoring Judge: Cornelia A. Clark, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Wyeth Chandler
This worker's compensation appeal has been referred to the special worker's compensation appeals panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant and its finding that her contract of hire with the defendant was made in the State of Mississippi rather than the State of Tennessee.

Carol Potkan v. Saturn Corporation
01S01-9701-CV-00024
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon.

Fayette Tubular Products, Inc., et al. v. Anthony S. Belli
01S01-9704-CH-00091
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Vernon Neal,
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 employer and its insurer contend the claim should be disallowed because the employee engaged in willful misconduct or willfully failed to use a safety appliance. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. At the time of his injury, the employee or claimant, Belli, was working on a bender, a machine designed to bend and contour parts. The machine was equipped with a light curtain, which is a safety device designed to prevent the machine from operating if the beam of light is broken. When the machine did not work properly, the claimant reached over the light beam to press the reset button. He inadvertently pressed the wrong button and his hand became caught in the machine, injuring him. The chancellor found the claim to be compensable. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). Where the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses, considerable deference must be accorded those circumstances on review. McCaleb v. Saturn Corp., 91 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1995). An employer may refuse to pay compensation benefits for an injury resulting from a claimant's willful or intentional misconduct or self-inflicted injury, or because of intoxication or willful failure to use a safety appliance or perform a duty required by law. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-11(a).1 The burden of proof to establish such defense(s) is on the employer. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-11(b).2 The defense of willful misconduct is generally limited to deliberate and intentional violations of known regulations. See Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law (1979) section 32. The essential elements of the defense are (1) an intention to do the act, (2) purposeful violation of orders and (3) an element of perverseness. Rogers v. Kroger Co., 832 S.W.2d 538 (Tenn. 1992). 1 5-6-11. Injuries not covered -- Drug and alcohol testing. -- (a) No compensation shall be allowed for an injury or death due to the employee's willful misconduct or intentional self-inflicted injury, or due to intoxication or illegal drugs, or willful failure or refusal to use a safety appliance or perform a duty required by law. 2 (b) If the employer defends on the ground that the injury arose in any or all of the above stated ways, the burden of proof shall be on the employer to establish such defense. 2

Iris v. Flowers
03S01-9701-CV-00014
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Arnold Stulce,
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. _________________________________ Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr., Special Judge CONCUR: ________________________________ John K. Byers, Senior Judge ________________________________ Adolpho A. Birch, Jr., Justice 2

Crowder v. Magic
03S01-9702-CH-00023
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Earl H. Henley,
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 Employee sustained a herniated disk and underwent two lumbar disk surgeries in 1995. The trial court found the back problem was work related and awarded 35 percent permanent partial disability. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The Employee is now thirty six years old with seven years of formal education. He has fourteen years work experience in factory assembly for this Employer. Prior to that, he worked at a chicken farm and helped his father cut paper wood. On May 4, 1995, he bent over a box at work and felt something "pop" in his low back. He went to the nurse's station, where a "deep heating rub" was applied and he was given an ice pack. He then went back to work, and he continued to work full time until July 1995. In early July, after returning from the July 4th holiday, he experienced increased low back pain and went to the nurse at work again, where he received another deep heating rub. He testified that the pain in his lower back just kept getting worse and started going down his leg, so that he was unable to walk. On July 23, 1995, he went to his family doctor because of the back pain, but he did not tell the doctor about his injury at work. On August 2, 1995, the Employee was involved in an automobile accident and was treated by the same family doctor. When his back pain did not improve, the Employee had an MRI of his lower spine on September 1, 1995. The MRI revealed "a large posterior herniated disc eccentric to the left at the 5-1 level with encroachment into the central canal with AP narrowing as well as eccentric encroachment into the neuroforamina and nerve root on the left." There were also degenerative disc changes. The Employee testified that he was referred to an orthopedic surgeon and, when he discussed his work history and recent activities with the surgeon, they realized that the herniated disk was work related. He immediately reported this to his Employer. 2

Delias v. Philips
03S01-9704-CV-00047
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ben. W. Hooper Ii,
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. This appeal has resulted from a decision of the trial court to award plaintiff, Thomas Delias, 45% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. On appeal the defendant, Philips Consumer Electronics Company, contends the 45% award is excessive under the evidence. Plaintiff does not have a high school education as he only completed the 8th grade. At the time of the trial, he was almost 6 years of age. He was injured on the job during April, 1992, while working as a router operator. He said a jig fixture jumped off of a pin and the router moved causing his left shoulder to be jerked severely. He was seen at the hospital two days later and eventually came under the care of an orthopedic surgeon who treated him for awhile and then discharged him. Plaintiff testified he did not miss any time from work (he went to school for some period of time) and returned to router operator work but other employees did the heavier router work which involved considerable lifting and/or pushing. He continued the lighter type work and experienced pain while working. He wore a TENS unit about 9% of the time to help counteract the pain. Sometime later his condition began to get worse and the company referred him to another orthopedic surgeon. Plaintiff told the court he was left handed and upon returning to work, he had to use his right hand as it was difficult to lift anything with his left arm. He said he had stopped working in his garden and could not hunt or fish any longer. Ethyl Delias, plaintiff's wife, testified she did any lifting that was necessary around their house; that he had stopped working in their garden; he did not hunt or fish any longer and did not mow the yard. Dr. William T. Youmans, the last surgeon to treat plaintiff, was of the opinion he had a frozen shoulder; that his range of motion was limited; said he had given injections and found plaintiff had a 7% medical impairment to the whole body. He did not recommend surgery at the time since plaintiff was working and earning wages. 2

Vivian Jeanette Payne v. Sequatchie Valley Coal Corp.
01S01-9610-CH-00214
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon.

State of Tennessee v. Andre S. Bland - Concurring/Dissenting
02S01-9603-CR-00032
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Arthur T. Bennett

I concur, in principle, with Justice Reid’s dissent. I would, however, increase the pool of similar cases to include all cases in which a trial judge’s report is required by Supreme Court
Rule 12.1 The majority chose to exclude from the proportionality review pool all cases in which the State did not seek the death penalty and all cases in which no capital sentencing hearing was
held. In my view, this exclusion discourages a more meaningful proportionality analysis.

State of Tennessee v. Andre S. Bland
02S01-9603-CR-00032
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank W. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Arthur T. Bennett

In this capital case, the defendant, Andre S. Bland, was convicted of premeditated first degree murder, attempted aggravated robbery, especially aggravated robbery, and attempted first degree murder.1 In the sentencing hearing, the jury found one aggravating circumstance: “[t]he murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(I)(5) (1991 Repl. & 1996 Supp.). Finding that the aggravating circumstance outweighed mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury sentenced the defendant to death by electrocution.

State of Tennessee v. Andre S. Bland - Concurring/Dissenting
02S01-9603-CR-00032
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge Arthur T. Bennett

The issues before the Court and sufficiency of the evidence and comparative propottionality of the sentence of death. I agree with the majority that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's finding of premeditation, that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's finding of torture (i.e. the "infliction of severe physical or mental pain upon the victim while he or she remains conscious"), and the aggravating circumstance outweighs the mitigating circumstances. However, I would find that the sentence of death is disproportionate.

State of Tennessee vs. Dmitri Johnson
01C01-9510-CC-00334
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge John H. Gasaway, III

The defendant, Dmitri Johnson, appeals as of right from the twenty-year sentence imposed by the Circuit Court of Montgomery County for his conviction upon a guilty plea for second degree murder, a Class A felony. The defendant contends that the trial court improperly relied upon facts not in evidence in its sentencing decision. He also contends that the trial court improperly applied three enhancement factors and refused to apply two additional mitigating factors. We believe that the case should be remanded for a new sentencing hearing.

State vs. Norman Curtis, Keith Chambers, Gina Chambers and Shelly Bragg
01C01-9607-CC-00313
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joe B. Jones
Trial Court Judge: Judge Leonard W. Martin

The State of Tennessee (state) appeals as of right from a judgment of the trial court suppressing evidence seized by law enforcement officers from the person of Norman Curtis without a search warrant, and the residences of the Chamberses and Curtis under color of a search warrant. Two issues are presented for review. The state contends there were exigent circumstances which permitted officers executing the search warrant at the Chamberses’ residence to enter the dwelling without complying with the “knock and announce” requirement. The state further contends the search of Norman Curtis’s person when he arrived at the Chamberses’ residence while the officers were executing the search warrant was reasonable. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the law governing the issues presented for review, it is the opinion of this court that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The State of Tennessee has failed to illustrate why the evidence contained in the record preponderates against the findings made by the trial court.

State of Tennessee vs. Antwan Patton
01C01-9608-CC-00346
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joe B. Jones
Trial Court Judge: James James L. Weatherford

The appellant, Ryan Moran (defendant), was convicted of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony, especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony, especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and assault, a Class A misdemeanor. The defendant entered a no contest plea to attempted first degree murder and guilty pleas to the remaining charges. The trial court found the defendant was a standard offender and sentenced the defendant to the following Range I sentences: for attempted first degree murder, twenty-five (25) years in the Department of Correction, for especially aggravated kidnapping, twenty-five (25) years in the Department of Correction, for especially aggravated robbery, twenty-five (25) years in the Department of Correction, and for assault, eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days. The trial court ordered that the sentences for attempted first degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and especially aggravated robbery should be served consecutively. The sentence for assault is to be served concurrently with the other sentences. The effective sentence is confinement for seventy-five (75) years in the Department of Correction.

AMC-Tennessee, Inc. v. Hillcrest Healthcare
M2003-00882-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
In this appeal arising from a breach of contract claim, the appellant, Hillcrest Healthcare, LLC challenges the trial court's award of damages in the amount of $337,363.59 including $219,937 in lost profits. We affirm.

03C01-9403-CR-00110
03C01-9403-CR-00110
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull

State vs. Pike
03C01-9611-CR-00408

State vs. Belcher
03C01-9608-CC-00299
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

Roddy v. Spring
03S01-9704-CH-00041
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jeffrey F. Stewart,
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 employee alleged injury to her back when she lifted a bolt of cloth at work. The trial court found that her back condition was caused by a work related accident and awarded 45 percent permanent partial vocational disability and medical expenses, including those of the treating surgeon, which were unauthorized. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. On Saturday, August 8, 1992, the employee, Robbin Roddy, was inspecting rolls of fabric at work when a co-worker brought her an unusually heavy roll to work with. When she threw the roll up in a bin, her back "just popped." She reported the injury to her supervisor, James Hood, who went with her to the office where they completed an injury report. Hood then sent her home. She was aware that the company posted at the work site a list of three doctors from whom she could choose. On the following Monday she went to the Family Medical Center, to the office of one of those doctors, Dr. Richard R. Jost, where she and her family had been seen in the past for routine medical care. It is uncontested that the employee never saw Dr. Jost for examination, evaluation, treatment or assessment of disability for this injury. For all of her treatment she saw Mr. Robert Wayne Harrison, a certified physician's assistant employed and supervised by Dr. Jost. The record indicates that apparently the employee was accustomed to referring to the physician's assistant as "Dr. Rob." In fact, the record shows that counsel for the defendant occasionally referred to him as "Dr. Harrison." When asked about his role in the treatment of the employee, Mr. Harrison testified that he is "permitted to do all aspects of medical care with the exception of write prescriptions. That's actually been changed by statute at the present, but at the time in question, I guess we're dealing with a record of 1992, so at that time the statute did not allow prescription writing." 2

Adams v. Peterbilt
03S01-9603-CV-00031
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Wheeler Rosenbalm,
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 brought this suit in which he alleged he was totally and permanently disabled and that he was entitled to medical benefits from his employer and the Second Injury Fund. The trial judge found the plaintiff had sustained a 6 percent impairment as a result of an on-the-job injury on May 27, 1994. The trial judge dismissed the suit as to the Second Injury Fund because the amount of the disability of the plaintiff from the current injury when combined with previous workers' compensation injuries did not exceed 1 percent permanent total disability. The plaintiff, in this appeal, says the trial court erred in not finding he was permanently and totally disabled as a result of the May 27, 1994 injury and in not awarding him benefits from the Second Injury Fund. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The treating physician, Dr. Robert E. Finelli, an orthopedic surgeon, testified the plaintiff had a ruptured disc at the L4-L5 vertebrae. Dr. Finelli did surgery on the plaintiff and treated him until September 2, 1994. Dr. Finelli returned the patient to work and found he had sustained a 1 - 12 percent permanent medical impairment as a result of the injury. The plaintiff had undergone two previous back surgeries and Dr. Finelli considered these in determining the medical impairment from the last injury. Dr. Finelli was of the opinion that if the plaintiff returned to heavy work he would be at risk for a possible ruptured disc. It was his further opinion that if he did medium work the risk of further back injury was low. Dr. Gilbert Hyde, an orthopedic surgeon, saw the plaintiff on July 28, 1995 for the purpose of evaluating his disability. Dr. Hyde found the plaintiff to be suffering a 22 percent medical impairment as a result of the injury of May 27, 1994. Dr. Hyde 2

Luther Haggard vs. State
M2003-02554-CCA-R3-HC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.
The petitioner, Luther Haggard, filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the Davidson County Criminal Court. In the petition he alleges that various Bradley County, Tennessee, convictions he received pursuant to guilty pleas entered in 1997 are illegal and void. The Davidson County Criminal Court summarily dismissed the petition. We affirm.

State vs. Tommie Hill
02C01-9511-CC-00335

State vs. Richard Nelson
02C01-9612-CR-00472
Trial Court Judge: Chris B. Craft

Ella Pruett vs. Wal-Mart Stores
02A01-9610-CH-00266
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris

Jones vs. Culpepper
03A01-9706-CH-00202
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White

Tennessee Municipal League vs. Brook Thompson
01S01-9711-CH-00242
The ruling listed above is the Order regarding the "Tiny Towns" legislation. The full opinion will be published at a later date.