Betty Graham v. Sequatchie Valley Emergency Medical Services, Inc., et al
The employee filed a pro se post-judgment petition alleging that her employer had improperly denied court-ordered medical benefits to her, and she sought damages. Her employer moved to dismiss based upon expiration of the statute of limitations and other grounds. The employee contended that she was incompetent for an extended period of time after the alleged denial of medical care and that the limitation period was therefore tolled. The trial court held that her petition was barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed it. The employee has appealed from this decision. We affirm the judgment. |
Marion | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Cheryle Darlene Goodwin v. United Parcel Service, Inc., et al
Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee sustained a compensable injury. She returned to work for her employer in the same job, at the same hourly wage. However, her earnings were reduced because she declined offers of additional work, which she had usually accepted before her injury. She declined these offers because she could no longer safely perform them. The trial court held that she did not have a meaningful return to work, and awarded benefits in excess of one and one-half times the impairment. Her employer has appealed, asserting that the trial court erred by finding that she did not have a meaningful return to work. We affirm the judgment. |
White | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony Ray Billings
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Tony Ray Billings, of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, Multiple Offender to fourteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”). On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it allowed the State to amend the indictment; (2) the trial court committed plain error when it denied the Defendant’s motion to exclude identification testimony; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard Blankenship v. Ace Trucking, Inc., et al
Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In 2002, the employee was involved in a motor vehicle accident in the course and scope of his employment. The employee filed suit for benefits. The employer disputed the claim, asserting that the employee had failed to give proper notice and had not sustained any permanent injury as a result of the accident. The trial court awarded benefits, and the employer has appealed. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Humphreys | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Bryan K. Howard
The Defendant, Bryan K. Howard, pled guilty to vehicular homicide, a Class B felony, with the length of his sentence and manner of service left to the discretion of the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied all forms of alternative sentencing and sentenced the Defendant to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying all forms of alternative sentencing. Following our de novo review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gwen Shamblin, et al. v. Rafael Martinez
This defamation action arises out of the publication of a statement to an internet website. The trial court held that plaintiffs were unable to show actual malice in order to sustain defamation and false light invasion of privacy claims and granted summary judgment to the defendant. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Vivian Kennard v. Arthur M. Townsend, IV, M.D., et al.
This is a medical malpractice case. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee healthcare provider after its determination that Appellant patient’s medical expert did not meet the locality requirement, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-115(a)(1). Discerning no error, we affirm and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danny Ray Smith
The Defendant, Danny Ray Smith, was convicted of four counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and three counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-504, 522. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred by allowing the victim to testify about instances of sexual contact between her and the Defendant other than those charged in the indictment; (2) the trial court erred by allowing a videotape of the victim’s forensic interview to be played for the jury; (3) the trial court erred by allowing the State to cross-examine the Defendant about an expunged criminal conviction; (4) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the Defendant’s conviction on count two of the indictment because the State’s proof materially varied from the allegations in the indictment; (5) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal on counts two, six, and seven; (6) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion for a new trial which was based on newly discovered evidence; and (7) the trial court erred by imposing partial consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Carl A. Baker v. Antoinette Welch
Defendant in malpractice action was granted summary judgment. Plaintiff filed two motions seeking to set aside the grant of summary judgment, which were denied. Plaintiff appealed. We reverse for reconsideration of the motion filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Carl A. Baker v. Antoinette Welch
Defendant in malpractice action was granted summary judgment. Plaintiff filed two motions seeking to set aside the grant of summary judgment, which were denied. Plaintiff appealed. We reverse for reconsideration of the motion filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Cynthia Lynn Liner v. Robert Clifford Liner, Jr.
In a divorce action, Husband appeals the trial court’s classification of the residence he owned before the parties’ marriage as marital property and its award of one-half of the equity in the residence to Wife. We affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leonard Lamont Currie
The defendant, Leonard Lamont Currie, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s rejection of his claim of self-defense. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stanley Jenkins v. Yellow Transportation, Inc.,
Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this action, Stanley Jenkins (“Employee”) sustained a compensable injury to his left leg in the course and scope of his employment with Yellow Transportation, Inc. (“Yellow Transportation”). Employee settled his workers’ compensation claim with Yellow Transportation and returned to work. A few months later, Yellow Transportation merged with another corporation to create YRC Inc. (“YRC”), a completely new corporation. After the merger, Employee was laid off due to an economic downturn and thereafter sought reconsideration of his earlier settlement. The trial court ruled that Employee was no longer employed by his pre-injury employer after the merger and was entitled to reconsideration under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241. The trial court awarded him additional permanent partial disability benefits. Yellow Transportation has appealed, arguing that Employee is not entitled to reconsideration. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Chad Allen Kirk
The Defendant, Chad Allen Kirk, pled guilty to one count of driving on a suspended license, a Class B misdemeanor, in the Blount County General Sessions Court. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-50-504(a)(1). The General Sessions Court sentenced the Defendant to six months with 75 percent of the sentence to be served in confinement. The Defendant appealed the decision to the Blount County Circuit Court, which dismissed the appeal and remanded the case back to the General Sessions Court for execution of the judgment. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the Circuit Court failed to conduct a de novo review of the sentence. Following our review, we reverse the decision of the Circuit Court and remand the case for a new sentencing. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bronche Blair
The defendant, Bronche Blair, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, violent offender to twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Alicia Mathes, et al v. DRD Knoxville Medical Clinic, et al
This is an appeal from the trial court’s grant of separate motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The trial court determined that Appellants had failed to comply with the written notice and certificate of good faith requirements of the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act, and had failed to state a claim for vicarious liability based on theories of agency or joint venture. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand, concluding that Appellants’ claims of direct negligence do not sound in medical malpractice, but that Appellants failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to vicarious liability based on agency or joint venture. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Kathleen Evans v. Shaw Industries Group, Inc.,
Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Kathleen Evans (“Employee”) alleged that she sustained an injury to her knee while at work. Her employer, Shaw Industries, (“Employer”) denied the claim, contending that the injury could not have happened in the manner described by Employee. The trial court held that Employee had a compensable injury and awarded permanent partial disability (“PPD”) benefits. Employer has appealed. We affirm the judgment. |
Franklin | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Loyd Davis v. Praetorian Insurance Company
Employee, a truck driver, sustained an on-the-job injury during a motor vehicle accident. The treating physician assigned 7% anatomical impairment to the body as a whole due to the injury. Employee’s evaluating physician assigned 17%. The trial court adopted the latter impairment and awarded 60% permanent partial disability. The employer has appealed.1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardin | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Kara Barnes v. Pinnacle Foods Group, LLC, et al.
In this workers’ compensation action, the employee sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of her employment. She had two surgeries on her left arm to treat the condition. Prior to reaching maximum medical improvement, she voluntarily retired. The trial court found that her retirement was reasonably related to her work injuries, and therefore the statutory limit to permanent partial disability benefits contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1)(A) did not apply to her award. The employer, Pinnacle Foods Group, appealed. We affirm the judgment of trial court. |
Madison | Workers Compensation Panel | |
James M. Flinn v. Jon K. Blackwood
Plaintiff filed a cause of action against Defendant judge, alleging Defendant wrongfully refused to grant his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court dismissed the action. We affirm. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael R. Smart
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Michael R. Smart, was found guilty of sale of a Schedule VI controlled substance, a Class E felony; delivery of a Schedule VI controlled substance, a Class E felony; and simple possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court merged the sale and delivery convictions and sentenced the Defendant to 2 years for the Class E felony conviction and a consecutive 11 months and 29 days for the Class A misdemeanor conviction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred in allowing the State to impeach him with his prior conviction of receiving stolen property; (2) that the trial court erred in failing to include the requested defense of entrapment in the jury instructions; and (3) that the trial court erred in sentencing him. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony D. Forster
A Davidson County grand jury indicted the Defendant, Anthony D. Forster, for four counts of robbery related charges stemming from two incidents. The Defendant was convicted of one count of especially aggravated robbery, acquitted on the remaining charges, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-two years in prison. On appeal, the Defendant claims that:(1) the Defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (3) the trial court erred in failing to sever the offenses; (4) the trial court erred in failing to compel the State to comply with Rule 16 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure; and (5) the trial court improperly sentenced the Defendant. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary Wayne McCullough
Following a preliminary hearing in Hamilton County General Sessions Court, a Hamilton County grand jury charged the defendant, Gary Wayne McCullough, with operating a boat without lights, see T.C.A. § 69-9-209 (2004), boating under the influence, see id. § 69-9- 217(a), violating the implied consent law, see id. § 69-9-217(f)(1), and simple possession of marijuana, see id. § 39-17-418 (2006). In the trial court, the defendant contended in a motion to dismiss the indictment that the actions of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) in setting their own cases in a disproportionate number before certain general sessions judges constituted “judge-shopping” and resulted in a violation of the defendant’s due process rights. Following an evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motion, the trial court agreed and remanded the case for a new preliminary hearing before a division of the general sessions court not implicated by the judge-shopping allegation. On interlocutory appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court should have dismissed his indictment with prejudice instead of remanding the case for a new preliminary hearing. The State contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the indictment and remanding the case. Because we conclude that the trial court’s findings of fact are not supported by the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and direct the trial court to reinstate the indictment on remand. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Easter Baugh v. Barbara Thomas, et al.
Nephew of grantor of quitclaim deed conveying property to grantor’s sister appeals the declaration that the deed was null and void based on a finding that the nephew exercised undue influence on grantor. Finding that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding of a confidential relationship between grantor and nephew and in light of nephew’s failure to rebut the presumption of undue influence raised thereby, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: LaPorsha S.
This appeal involves a dispute over the placement of a child formerly in the custody of the Department of Children’s Services. Because the child turned eighteen years old during the pendency of these proceedings, this appeal is moot and must be dismissed. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals |