Opinions

Parker vs. State
03C01-9706-CR-00214

Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins

State vs. Thomas Dee Huskey
03S01-9610-CR-00096

Bettye/Louis Schopfer vs. Kroger
02A01-9707-CV-00138

Trial Court Judge: Karen R. Williams

William Hobson vs. State
01C01-9710-CR-00497

Trial Court Judge: David H. Welles

Special Judge Hamilton v. Gayden, Jr.
02S01-9707-CV-00069
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. C. Creed Mcginley,
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 trial judge found the plaintiff had suffered a 5 percent impairment to each of her arms as a result of carpal tunnel syndrome which arose out of her employment with United Postal Service ("UPS"). We find the evidence in this case preponderates against an award of 5 percent to each arm and find the evidence preponderates in favor of an award of 25 percent to each arm. At the time of the trial of this case, the plaintiff was 45 years of age. She has a twelfth grade education and had worked for UPS for 18 years as a truck driver. The plaintiff's work history included operating an antique store and working as a sales clerk, a loan officer for a bank, and an executive secretary. The only issue before us is whether the trial court's award of 5 percent to each arm is supported by the evidence. The evidence concerning the extent of the plaintiff's disability is supplied by the plaintiff's testimony; by the medical report and records of Dr. Lowell Stonecipher, an orthopedic surgeon and the treating physician who was furnished by the defendant; by the report of Dr. Robert J. Barnett, an orthopedic surgeon, who evaluated the plaintiff at her request; and by the report of Dr. Ronald C. Bingham, who conducted nerve conduction tests on the plaintiff at the request of Dr. Stonecipher -- these tests showed mild residual median neuropathy. The plaintiff began to experience difficulty with her arms and hands in June 1996. Dr. Stonecipher diagnosed the condition as carpal tunnel syndrome and did surgery to relieve the condition in her left arm on February 21, 1996. On April 2, 1996, Dr. Stonecipher did surgery on the plaintiff's right arm. The plaintiff returned to work in June 1996 doing the same work she had done prior to having surgery. The plaintiff testified the work caused her hands and 2

Don/Phil Gordon vs. Georgetown Univ
02A01-9709-CH-00218

Trial Court Judge: William Michael Maloan

State vs. Eric Henderson/James Hill
02C01-9708-CR-00302

Trial Court Judge: Bernie Weinman

Randall Fleming vs. Jacqueline Yi
02A01-9706-CV-00129

Trial Court Judge: Whit A. Lafon

Edwin B. Raskin Co. vs. Johnson
01A01-9708-CH-00392

Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

State vs. James Messick
01C01-9702-CC-00065

State vs. Ted Brannan
01C01-9704-CC-00148

Robert Bellafant vs. State
01C01-9705-CC-00183

State vs. Rickey Hailey
02C01-9705-CR-00198

Trial Court Judge: Carolyn Wade Blackett

In re: Brittany Swanson, a minor
02A01-9709-CV-00233

Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III

State vs. Elwin South
02C01-9710-CR-00386

State vs. Jamil Butler
01C01-9612-CR-00529

State vs. Jarrod Adreon
01C01-9609-CC-00391

Jonus Cole vs. State
01C01-9509-CC-00294

Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

Mary Fuller vs. Eligo Fuller
02A01-9708-CH-00175

Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris

State vs. Quincy Henderson
02C01-9706-CR-00227

Trial Court Judge: Carolyn Wade Blackett

State vs. Glenn Ray
02C01-9709-CR-00369

Tanaka vs. Meares
03A01-9710-CV-00463

Trial Court Judge: Dick Jerman, Jr.

Andy Phillips v. Anthony Hall Construction, et al.
01S01-9710-CC-00213
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. J. O. Bond,
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 case involves a weighty issue of whether the judgment is supported by the preponderance of all the evidence. RULE 13(d), T. R. A. P. 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. TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6- 225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). Adjunctive is the established rule that we are as well positioned as the trial judge to gauge the worth of the depositional testimony, and we have done so, in accordance with our prerogative and responsibility. Cooper v. INA, 884 S.W.2d 446, 451 (Tenn. 1994); Landers v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 775 S.W.2d 355, 356 (Tenn. 1989). The plaintiff is 39 years old. He completed eleven years of schooling and apparently has no marketable job skills. On December 21, 1995, while working on a barn, he chose to descend from the roof by sliding down a brace rather than using a ladder as instructed. He fell against another brace and injured his left arm and back. He continued to work but developed problems the following day and was given his choice of physicians. He selected Dr. Wayne Wells, who passed him on to Dr. Michael Moore, who released him to return to work on January 15, 1996 with temporary restrictions against overhead lifting and lifting more than 25 pounds with his left arm. 2

Marilyn L. Knight v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Group
01S01-9710-CH-00214
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon.

Thurman D. Vanwinkle v. Bridgestone U.S.A., Inc.
01S01-9709-CH-00190
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. James K. Clayton, Jr.
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 alleges that he suffered a heart attack attributable to the demands of his job and therefore compensable within the purview of the Workers' Compensation law. The words "heart attack," as alleged, are generically used and are generally referable to any sudden adverse cardiac condition; in the case at Bar, the plaintiff suffered a myocardial infarction.1 The trial court found that the "petition for workers' compensation benefits should be sustained," and that the plaintiff had a 6 percent permanent impairment,2 presumably attributable to his heart condition. The employer appeals, questioning the finding that the plaintiff's heart problem is work-related. 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. TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(2), Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). Background 1An infarct is a region of dead or dying tissue which is the result of a sudden obstruction to the blood circulation supplying the involved part, usually by a clot. A myocardial infarct is a region of dead or dying tissue in the muscle of the heart which is the result of an obstruction to the blood supply usually by a clot lodged in a coronary artery. 2The judgment refers to a letter containing a "Finding of Facts" but this letter is not in the record. We thus have no findings to review under the appropriate standard, RULE 13(d), T.R.A.P., which requires a presumption of correctness. We therefore have conducted a de novo review with no presumption. 2