01A01-9603-JV-00090
01A01-9603-JV-00090
Trial Court Judge: Lee A. England

01A01-9603-PB-00092
01A01-9603-PB-00092
Trial Court Judge: James R. Everett

01A01-9605-PB-00221
01A01-9605-PB-00221
Trial Court Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr.

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

03C01-9512-CR-00391
03C01-9512-CR-00391

02A01-9504-CH-00080
02A01-9504-CH-00080

02A01-9504-CH-00080
02A01-9504-CH-00080

02A01-9508-CV-00194
02A01-9508-CV-00194
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood

02A01-9508-CV-00168
02A01-9508-CV-00168
Trial Court Judge: Wyeth Chandler

02A01-9507-CV-00159
02A01-9507-CV-00159
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown

03A01-9603-CV-00082
03A01-9603-CV-00082

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

03C01-9511-CR-00350
03C01-9511-CR-00350
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Baumgartner

03C01-9508-CC-00217
03C01-9508-CC-00217
Trial Court Judge: R. Steven Bebb

02A01-9506-CH-00124
02A01-9506-CH-00124
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis

03C01-9506-CR-00156
03C01-9506-CR-00156
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins

03A01-9601-CH-00008
03A01-9601-CH-00008

Duncan v. Crawford, Maryville, For The Appellant
03A01-9602-PB-00045
Trial Court Judge: Inman

03C01-9509-CR-00273
03C01-9509-CR-00273
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer

01A01-9502-CH-00037
01A01-9502-CH-00037

01S01-9507-CV-103
01S01-9507-CV-103

Autto Lee Taylor, Sr. v. Bailey-Parks Urethane, Inc.,
02S01-9602-CV-00018
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Billy Joe White
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert A. Lanier,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal the employer contends no notice was given and causation was not proven. The trial judge found proper notice and a work-related injury. This panel affirms the judgment of the trial judge. The Plaintiff testified, "A. I told him about it. He just sat there and looked at me. He didn't say nothing. Q. What did you tell him? A. I told him I hurt my back Friday. I needed to go to the doctor. Q. Did Mr. Tutor ask you any questions at that time? A. He asked me where I hurt my back. I said here at the job." (App. P. 28). Mr. Tutor testified, ". . .He had come to evidently Larry, which is his supervisor. We happened to be standing talking and he come up to us, I guess he was giving notification that he had hurt his back, that he had -- that he needed to go home or get this taken care of, but he had not said anything to Larry individually. He come up to both of us at the same time, which is the right thing for him to do. He needs to report it." (App. P. 7). The scope of review is de novo on the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the judgment of the trial court, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. T.C.A. _ 5-6-225 (e)(2). This panel finds that the preponderance of the evidence establishes notice within T.C.A. _ 5-6-21 and affirms the trial court. As to the issue of causation the treating doctor, Dr. Leventhal, testified to a history given him by the employee of a work related injury. (Leventhal Depo. P.11).

Autto Lee Taylor, Sr. v. Bailey-Parks Urethane, Inc.,
02S01-9602-CV-00018
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Billy Joe White
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert A. Lanier,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal the employer contends no notice was given and causation was not proven. The trial judge found proper notice and a work-related injury. This panel affirms the judgment of the trial judge. The Plaintiff testified, "A. I told him about it. He just sat there and looked at me. He didn't say nothing. Q. What did you tell him? A. I told him I hurt my back Friday. I needed to go to the doctor. Q. Did Mr. Tutor ask you any questions at that time? A. He asked me where I hurt my back. I said here at the job." (App. P. 28). Mr. Tutor testified, ". . .He had come to evidently Larry, which is his supervisor. We happened to be standing talking and he come up to us, I guess he was giving notification that he had hurt his back, that he had -- that he needed to go home or get this taken care of, but he had not said anything to Larry individually. He come up to both of us at the same time, which is the right thing for him to do. He needs to report it." (App. P. 7). The scope of review is de novo on the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the judgment of the trial court, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. T.C.A. _ 5-6-225 (e)(2). This panel finds that the preponderance of the evidence establishes notice within T.C.A. _ 5-6-21 and affirms the trial court. As to the issue of causation the treating doctor, Dr. Leventhal, testified to a history given him by the employee of a work related injury. (Leventhal Depo. P.11).

03A01-9601-GS-00039
03A01-9601-GS-00039
Trial Court Judge: Inman