State vs. Fields E1998-00388-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner
The issue raised on this appeal is whether the defendant's conviction of the Class C felony of facilitation of an illegal drug transaction within 200 yards of a school overcomes the presumption in favor of alternative sentencing so as to justify a sentence of confinement. The trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeals found confinement necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense. We conclude that the evidence presented is insufficient to overcome the presumption of alternative sentencing. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand this case to the trial court to determine an appropriate alternative sentence.
Greene
Supreme Court
Elsie Anne Bullock v. Medical Professional, Inc., and E1998-00315-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Peoples, H.N., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr., Judge
The appellant, Elsie Bullock, appeals the dismissal of her claim for workers' compensation benefits. The trial court found that she had "failed to meet her burden of proof that the conditions of which she complains are related to work-related accident of February 14, 1996." Ms. Bullock contends the trial court (1) erred in finding that she did not have a compensable injury to her back, and (2) erred in finding she did not have a compensable mental injury as a result of the injury she sustained at work. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
David Palmer v. State of Tennessee M2000-00371-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.
The petitioner filed a post-conviction petition for relief from his conviction for aggravated child abuse, arguing that: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial; (2) his due process rights were violated because he was not present during voir dire; and, (3) he was denied his constitutional right to testify in his own behalf. After the post-conviction court denied his petition, the petitioner appealed to this court. We affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition.
The Defendant, Donald Craig Miller, pled guilty to burglary, Class D felony, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement wherein he was to receive a sentence of four (4) years, with the manner of the service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court following the sentencing hearing. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court accepted the four-year sentence, but ordered three and one-half years incarceration, followed by service of four years in Community Corrections in a "split-confinement" sentence. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a "Motion for Clarification of Judgment Order" which was denied by the trial court following a hearing. The Defendant filed a notice of appeal. We hold that this matter should be treated as a petition for common law writ of certiorari rather than a Rule 3, T.R.A.P. appeal, and reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Carol Dickens v. Federal-Mogul Systems Protection, Inc., M1999-02264-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond, Judge
The trial court found the plaintiff had suffered a twenty percent vocational disability to the body as a whole and that she was entitled to receive temporary total disability payments from August 27, 1997, through May 11, 1998. The defendant raises as issues the failure of the trial judge to exclude a medical deposition entered into evidence by the plaintiff; the failure of the trial judge to limit the award to two and one-half times the medical impairment rating of five percent; and questions the extent of the temporary total benefits awarded. We affirm the judgment in part and modify the judgment in part.
The defendant, Parker Odell Doney, Jr., appeals his convictions for one count of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault and his sentences totaling fifteen years in the Department of Correction. The defendant contends the evidence presented against him at trial was insufficient to support his convictions, and the trial court erred in sentencing him. After a thorough review of the record, we reduce the aggravated assault sentences but otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Sumner
Court of Criminal Appeals
Brian Mayes v. Ronald LeMonte M2002-00625-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Russ Heldman
In this dog bite case, the trial court awarded a meter reader $5000 in compensatory damages against the dog owner. The dog owner claims on appeal that he was not negligent in handling his dog and that the sitting trial judge was biased and prejudiced against him. We affirm.
Hagan Paul Roberts (herein petitioner) appeals the dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The petitioner claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview and call two witnesses to testify at the trial. The trial Court found that the petitioner did not inform his trial counsel of these witnesses and dismissed the petition. We affirm the trial Court.
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
Todd Hutcheson v. Irving Materials M2002-03064-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Burch
Plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract and negligence alleging that concrete provided by Defendant did not meet specifications. Defendant filed counterclaim for Plaintiff's unpaid bill. Plaintiff failed to timely respond to requests for admissions. Defendant filed motion to have requests deemed admitted, which the trial court granted. Plaintiff took no remedial action until seven months later, after Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment that was primarily based on the now disputed admissions. Plaintiff then filed Tenn. R. Civ. P. 36.02 motion for relief from the admissions. Trial court denied Plaintiff's motion for relief, granted Defendant's summary judgment, awarding damages against Plaintiff, and dismissed Plaintiff's cause of action against Defendant. This is an appeal from the trial court's denial of Plaintiff's motion for relief pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 36.02, and the trial court's granting of Defendant's motion for summary judgment, rendering judgment in favor of Defendant. We affirm the trial court.
Cheatham
Court of Appeals
Sheila Goodner and Amy Goodner vs. Arthur Sass E2000-00837-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: L. Marie Williams
The Trial Judge granted defendant's Motion to Dismiss for insufficient process. We reverse and remand.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
John Rogers, Sr. vs. Est. of Newton Russell, Larry Holbert, Pers. Rep . E2000-01054-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Hugh E. Delozier
Plaintiff's claim in Probate Court against the estate of his stepfather was denied by the Probate Court because it was not filed timely. The Probate Court advised Plaintiff, who appeared at the hearing pro se, that he should seek counsel if he wished to challenge the ruling of the Probate Court. Although Plaintiff immediately retained counsel, no further action was taken on the matter for eleven months. With new counsel, Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Set Aside Order Denying Claim pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. Rule 60.02. This Motion was heard on the pleadings, documents in the case file, including the Affidavit of Plaintiff, and arguments of counsel. The Probate Court dismissed the Motion. We affirm the Judgment of the Probate Court.
Blount
Court of Appeals
Anna D. Nicholson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. M1999-01137-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Loser, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the SpecialWorkers' 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. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the case remanded. The employee or claimant, Nicholson, commenced this civil action on May 8, 1996, seeking recovery of medical and disability benefits under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law, for an injury that occurred in November, 1994. After a trial on the merits, the trial judge found that the claimant became aware that her injury was work related on April 25, 1995, thirteen days more than one year before the suit was filed, and concluded the action was therefore barred by Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-23. The court further found that there was no evidence of a voluntary payment of benefits on behalf of the claimant by the employer, Wal-Mart, within one year of the date of commencement. The claimant contends the record does contain such evidence. It is significant that the trial judge also found that the injured employee's claim for the employer's group health insurance benefits and employer's group short term disability benefits were denied on June 5, 1995 and June 24, 1995 respectively, because her injury was work related. It is also significant that the trial judge found that her claim for workers' benefits was not denied until August 9, 1995. We note that no issue is taken with respect to these three events, all of which occurred within one year of commencement of this civil action. Appellate review of findings of fact by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). This standard requires the panel to examine in depth the trial court's findings and conclusions. This tribunal is not bound by the trial court's factual findings but instead conducts an independent examination to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.
Montgomery
Workers Compensation Panel
Richard Scott Stainforth v. Chemetals, Inc., M1999-00459-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Loser, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley, Judge
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. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The claimant gradually developed pain in his hands and arms at work, which he reported to the employer on March 9, 1998. He was referred to Dr. Wade Reynolds, who diagnosed tendinitis of the thumbs, restricted him from repetitive use of the thumbs and prescribed non-narcotic medication. The claimant continued working with pain and was later referred to Dr. John McInnis, who treated him for swollen thumbs, but did nothing to alleviate the pain in his hands and arms. Dr. McInnis prescribed pain medication, which was helpful, but the claimant continued to suffer from pain in his hands and arms and swelling in his thumbs. In his deposition, Dr. McInnis said the claimant had arthritis in both thumbs and opined the injury would not cause any permanent medical impairment. The claimant was evaluated by Dr. Joseph Boals, who made a report on a form prescribed by the director of the workers' compensation division and a narrative report, both of which are included in the record. Dr. Boals diagnosed overuse syndrome in both upper extremities, manifested by mild carpal tunnel syndrome, severe arthritis of the thumbs and decreased grip strength, causally related to the work the claimant was doing. He estimated the claimant's permanent impairment at twenty percent to each arm. The trial judge found that the claimant suffered an injury byaccident arising out of and in the course of employment and awarded, inter alia, permanent partial disability benefits based on sixty- two and one-half percent to both arms. 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. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). The reviewing tribunal is not bound by a trial court's factual findings but instead conducts an independent examination to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.
A Cheatham County jury found the defendant guilty of aggravated burglary and theft for breaking into his neighbor's home and stealing two television sets, a VCR, and a computer. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range III, persistent offender to twelve years for the aggravated burglary count and as a career offender to twelve years for the theft count, with the sentences to be served consecutively in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence; the failure of the trial court to order a mistrial based on testimony alluding to the defendant's criminal past; and the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury as to the crime of accessory after the fact on the theory that it is a lesser-included offense of both indicted offenses. Finding the evidence sufficient and no other reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Cheatham
Court of Criminal Appeals
Gregory Childress v. Winsett-Simmonds, Inc. & Usf&G Ins. Co. M1997-00164-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: Thomas W. Brothers, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ellen Hobbs Lyle,
The appellant-employee argues that the employee proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a work-related injury which caused him permanent injury. The employee also argues that the trial court erred by ordering the appellant to pay the cost of the entire transcript. The employer argues that the trial court erred in not allowing the employer to be reimbursed for previously paid workers' compensation benefits. The employer also argues that the trial court was correct in its determination of what items were to be included in the appellate court record. As discussed below, the panel has concluded that the trial court should be affirmed on all points.
Davidson
Workers Compensation Panel
Javius vs. Javius M2000-00314-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey S. Bivins
After a stormy and sometimes violent marriage, the trial court awarded a divorce to the wife, divided the marital property, and ordered the husband to pay alimony. The husband claims on appeal that the wife's fault should have resulted in the divorce being granted to both parties; that the property was divided in an inequitable manner; and that the trial court should have ordered rehabilitative alimony rather than alimony in futuro. We affirm the grant of divorce to the wife and the property division, but modify the alimony award.
This is a post-conviction appeal. In 1988, appellant was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon and received a life sentence. Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, attacking his conviction on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied relief, and this Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Subsequently, the appellant filed the instant three petitions for post-conviction relief. Two of appellant's petitions attack the validity of the petitioner's convictions for grand larceny and third degree burglary, which were used to enhance his 1988 sentence for robbery with a deadly weapon. The third petition addresses the 1988 sentence and attacks the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to another of petitioner's prior convictions. The trial court summarily dismissed the petitions for failing to comply with the applicable statute of limitations and failing to state an appropriate ground upon which a successive petition could be lodged. The judgment of the trial court dismissing the petitions is affirmed.
The defendant appeals his conviction of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon and vandalism under $500.00. He contends the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of the jury, the sentence of two years was excessive, and the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant to community corrections with the condition that he serve 200 days in the county jail. We find no error and affirm the trial court.
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
Phelps and Amanda Lee Phelps v. Tennessee Woolen M1998-00666-WC-R3
Authoring Judge: Weatherford, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: C.K. Smith, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to theSpecial Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _5-6- 225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The defendants, Tennessee Woolen Mills, Inc. and The Travelers Insurance Company appeal the judgment of the Chancery Court of Smith County, where the Trial Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Lana Phelps, finding that there were no material factual issues in dispute on the issue of causation and that the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law when the decedent, Joseph Phelps, sustained an injury by accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment at Tennessee Woolen Mills when he fell off a ladder and subsequently died of sudden cardiac death. The trial court incorporated its order of partial summary judgment in its final order awarding plaintiff a total recoveryof one hundred forty-five thousand two hundred and four dollars ($145,24.). For the reasons stated in this opinion, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for a hearing on the merits. Tenn. Code Annotated _5-6-225 (e)(1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court; Reversed and Remanded. WEATHERFORD, SR. J., in which BIRCH, J. AND RUSSELL, J. joined. Janelle S. Evyan, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellants, Tennessee Woolen Mills, Inc. and The Travelers Insurance Company Bratton H. Cook, II, Smithville, Tennessee and Jacky O. Bellar, Carthage, Tennessee for the appellees, Lana Phelps, individually and as next friend/guardian of her two minor children, Kurtis Tyler Phelps and Amanda Lee Phelps. MEMORANDUM OPINION The decedent, Joseph Phelps, was employed by Tennessee Woolen Mills, Inc. on January 2, 1995 as an electrician. He was married to Lana Phelps and they had two minor children, Kurtis Tyler Phelps and Amanda Lee Phelps, at the time of Mr. Phelps' death at age 56. According to Safety Manager, Roger Osborn's report at approximately 1:1 to 1: 15 p.m., on January 2, 1995, Joseph Phelps was "engaged in the process of installing a folding machine in the finishing department on the second floor. In particular he was installing a metal support to which a folding machine would later be attached." Apparently, as described by workers in this area, Mr. Phelps was climbing up a ladder and about half way up when he fell. Judy Williams (sewing machine operator in the nearby area) observed Mr. Phelps falling via peripheral vision. Mrs. Williams also mentioned that she thought Mr. Phelps was carrying something in his hand. At the time Mr. Phelps made impact with the floor, a loud "bang" occurred. Several employees responded to the area after hearing this noise. Sometime thereafter, employees began to perform CPR. Approximately five to ten minutes later the ambulance arrived and transported Mr. Phelps to University Medical Center. The report also stated that, "Mrs. Hardin was the first person to see Mr. Phelps on the floor [and stated] that he `may have' hit his head on the hitch of a blanket truck in the near vicinity of the ladder." Scott Giles, D.O., Emergency Medicine Physician, treated Joseph Phelps in the Emergency Room in Lebanon, Tennessee. Dr. Giles testified that Mr. Phelps essentially had no vital signs when he arrived at the hospital and none of their resuscitative efforts were successful. Mr. Phelps was pronounced dead approximately ten minutes after his arrival. Dr. Giles assessed Mr. Phelps cause of death as "sudden cardiac death" which is caused by a massive heart attack or "an arrhythmic event." The plaintiff filed her complaint for workers' compensation benefits on April 19, 1995 alleging that the decedent sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and as a consequence of the accident, plaintiff claimed that the decedent suffered a cardiac arrest which caused his death shortly after the accident. On October 19, 1995, the plaintiff moved to amend her complaint to add that the decedent's sudden cardiac death was (1) an accidental injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment with Woolen Mills, and alternatively (2) an occupational disease pursuant to Tenn. Code Annotated _5-6-31 et seq. The trial court granted the motion by order entered November 22, 1995. On April 2, 1996, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that she was entitled to judgment for statutory benefits due them as a matter of law, and filed the deposition of -2-
Smith
Workers Compensation Panel
John Paul Miller v. Fleetwood Homes of Tennessee and M1999-00275-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Weatherford, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Thomas E. Gray, Chancellor
The plaintiff, John Paul Miller, appeals the judgment of the Chancery Court of Sumner County, where the trial court found: (1) that Mr. Miller failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a neck injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with Fleetwood Homes on or about August 4, 1997; (2) that had the neck injury occurred as alleged by Mr. Miller it was due to his own willful misconduct and his claim was otherwise barred under Tennessee Code Annotated _5-6-11 (a); (3) and that Mr. Miller was not entitled to any further benefits for his hand/wrist injury of June 13, 1997. For the reasons stated in this opinion, We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Sumner
Workers Compensation Panel
Shelby Abbott, et al. v. Blount County, Tennessee, et al. E2004-00637-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
This Court granted permission to appeal in this case pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure to determine whether summary judgment was appropriately granted by the trial court. Upon review, we affirm the holding of the Court of Appeals that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the plaintiffs were made whole by the amounts paid by Blount County and the tortfeasors. As part of this determination, we find that issues of material fact also exist regarding whether Blount County has a right to reimbursement. Additionally, we affirm the holding of the Court of Appeals that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether Blount County waived its claim to subrogation. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals that summary judgment was inappropriate and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Blount
Supreme Court
Clarence Lewis vs. State M2000-01529-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
A prisoner in the custody of the Department of Correction suffered a severe hand injury while working in a prison industries workshop. He submitted a claim to the Tennessee Claims Commission, contending that negligence on the part of his supervisors caused his injuries. Following a hearing, the Commissioner dismissed his claim, finding that the prisoner's own negligence was more than 50% of the cause of his injuries. We affirm.
Court of Appeals
Omawali Ashanti Shabazz, a/k/a Fred Dean vs. Donal Campbell, et al M2000-01780-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
Appellant, a prison inmate, filed suit under the Tennessee Public Records Act against the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and others seeking disclosure to him of various records alleged to be public records, together with injunctive relief. The Chancellor dismissed the complaint with prejudice and we affirm the Chancellor.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
State Dept. of Children's Services vs. T.M.L. M2000-01785-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Betty Adams Green
The juvenile court granted a petition to terminate parental rights to three of the children of a Nashville woman. On appeal, the mother challenges the termination in regard to her oldest child only, on the ground that it is not in the child's best interest to be permanently separated from her. We affirm the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Lon Walker v. William Cameron M2000-01903-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: John J. Maddux
This is a legal malpractice action which was dismissed on motion for summary judgment. Fourteen months before suit was filed the plaintiff sent a holographic letter to the Disciplinary Counsel complaining, in considerable detail, of the defendant's purported shortcomings. The trial judge held that the action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Judgment affirmed.
