State of Tennessee v. Darrell Davon King
M2003-00196-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth W. Norman

After being indicted on two counts of rape by force, two counts of rape, two counts of incest, and one count of sexual battery, the appellant, Darrell Davon King, pled guilty to two counts of rape, for which he received two, concurrent eight-year sentences at 100% service. The manner of the service of the sentences was left open. The trial court subsequently ordered the appellant to serve the sentences in incarceration. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying him probation or community corrections. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to state on the record its reasons for denying probation and/or a community corrections sentence. As a result we REVERSE the trial court's sentencing order and REMAND with directions that the trial court make specific findings of fact with respect to its sentencing determinations

State of Tennessee v. Joey Thomas Holland
M2003-00988-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Michael R. Jones

The Appellant, Joey Thomas Holland, appeals the judgment of the Robertson County Circuit Court denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Holland was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated sexual battery of his minor son. Holland alleges that his convictions should be set aside because the victim recanted his trial testimony. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the decision of the trial court denying the petition.

In Re: C.M.M. and S.D.M
M2003-01122-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Sidney Vinson, III

This appeal involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights with regard to two of her six children. Less than four months after the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services was granted temporary custody of the children, their foster parents filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Houston County seeking permanent custody and the termination of the parental rights of the biological parents. The children’s mother contested the petition, but the father did not. Following a hearing, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of both parents. The mother has appealed. We have determined that the order terminating the mother’s parental rights must be vacated because the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence that the Department made reasonable efforts to reunite the mother with her children.
 

State of Tennessee v. Robert Allen Crawford
E2003-00627-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Cupp

The defendant was convicted by a Washington County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder in the perpetration of an aggravated burglary; criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony; aggravated burglary, a Class C felony; aggravated assault, a Class C felony; and reckless endangerment, a Class E felony. The trial court merged the conviction for criminally negligent homicide with the conviction for first degree murder, and the defendant received concurrent sentences of life for the first degree murder conviction, four years for the aggravated burglary conviction, three years for the aggravated assault conviction, and one year for the reckless endangerment conviction. He raises two interrelated issues on appeal: whether the evidence was sufficient to support his felony murder conviction and whether the aggravated burglary count of the indictment was fatally defective for failing to name a victim for the underlying intended assault, thereby invalidating his convictions for aggravated burglary and first degree murder. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Wendell Freels and wife, Gweneth Freels v. Gus W. Chilton
E2003-01319-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel Pickens Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge Russell E. Simmons, Jr.

Plaintiffs obtained two judgments in General Sessions Court. On appeal to Circuit Court the second Plaintiffs were awarded a monetary Judgment against defendant in Sessions Court, and defendant appealed to Circuit Court, where the Court declared the Judgment void for lack of  jurisdiction, and dismissed the case judgment was vacated for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal we affirm.

Tennessee Environmental Council, Inc., et at., v. Bright Par 3 Associates, L.P., et al.
E2003-01982-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Howell N. Peoples

A conservation easement affecting property adjoining South Chickamauga Creek in Chattanooga was created in 1996. Property zoned for business and owned and developed by some of the Defendants is adjacent to the easement. The Plaintiffs allege that the development and construction activities of the Defendants adversely and unlawfully affect the easement. The complaint was dismissed upon a ruling that the Plaintiffs had no standing to enforce the easement, notwithstanding the language of the Conservation Easement Act, Tennessee Code Annotated § 66-9-301, et. seq., that it may be enforced by the “holder and/or beneficiaries” of the easement. The controversy centers on the meaning of the word “beneficiaries.” We hold that any resident of Tennessee is a beneficiary of the easement, and thus has standing to enforce it. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed and Remanded.
 

Judith A. Johnson, Surviving Widow of David C. Johnson, et al. v. Robert B. Richardson, d/b/a Richardson Landscaping & Trucking
M2002-02968-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace, 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. The defendant/appellant has appealed the action of the trial court, which overruled his motion to set aside a default judgment under the provisions of Tenn. R. Civ. P., Rule 6. The standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the judgment. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court is Reversed and Remanded JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., in which ADOLPHO A. BIRCH and WILLIAM C. KOCH, JJ., joined. Debra A. Wall, Clarksville, Tennessee, attorney for appellant, Robert B. Richardson. Timothy K. Barnes, Clarksville, Tennessee, attorney for appellee, Judith A. Johnson, Kimberly Ann Mahoney and Sean Patrick Mahoney. MEMORANDUM OPINION Facts The plaintiffs brought this compensation suit to recover benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act as a result of an accident on July 22, 1994 in which her husband and the step- father of the two minor children was killed. The suit was filed on September 7, 1994. The defendant subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. On December 3, 1994 the trial judge overruled the motion for summary judgment. There are no orders in the record before us from the date of the overruling of the summary judgment on December 3, 1994 until the entry of the default judgment which was entered on September 7, 21. The plaintiffs were awarded $167,832.. Subsequent to the order amending the motion for a summary judgment, the defendant filed a petition in the federal court declaring bankruptcy. This stayed the proceedings in the trial court. On August 1, 21, the defendant filed a motion to have a default judgment set aside which he averred was entered on May 25, 21. The motion further avers that on May 1, 21 the trial judge ordered the plaintiff to "place a document in the court file evidencing this matter had been removed from bankruptcy court" and the defendant further avers the plaintiff did not place said document in the file prior to May 25, 21, as directed by the trial judge. On the record before this court is a document designating notice as an order entered in the United States Bankruptcy Court granting relief from a stay of the proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court. This document recites that the relief from the automatic stay of this case was granted on October 2, 1998. Marked on the order was the notation "Received for Entry,"nunc pro tunc to 1/2/98." This appears to be placed there by the Bankruptcy Court. The order also shows a stamp which is "21 August 23 a.m. 9:32." This also appears to be an entry by the Bankruptcy Court. There is nothing in the record to show when this order was placed in the record in this case. There are no orders in the record memorializing any proceedings being held in the trial court on either May 1, 21 or May 25, 21. On September 7, 21 the trial judge entered a default judgment against the defendant in favor of the plaintiffs. The order recited that defendant was not present despite being duly notified of said court date. The order, approved by plaintiff's attorney for entry has a certification of service thereof on defendant's attorney which is undated. On September 19, 22, the plaintiff filed a "supplemental response to the motion to set aside the default judgment." (There is not another response to the motion to set aside the default judgment in the record.) On October 1, 21, the defendant filed another motion to have the default judgment set aside. This motions was accompanied by an affidavit from the defendant. Also on October 1, 21, the defendant filed a motion seeking to have the operation and effect of the default judgment suspended. On October 25, 22, the trial court entered an order denying the defendant's motion to set -2-

State of Tennessee v. Jared Singleton
M2002-02392-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Charles D. Haston, Sr.

The defendant, Jared Singleton, entered pleas of guilt to forgery, a Class E felony, and criminal impersonation, a Class B misdemeanor. After denying the defendant's request for judicial diversion under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313, the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of two years for the forgery and six months for the criminal impersonation. Probation was to be granted after service of 30 days in the county workhouse. In this appeal of right, the defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying judicial diversion. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the defendant is granted judicial diversion. The cause is remanded to the trial court for the imposition of conditions of the probationary term.

Roger T. Johnson, Pro Se v. State of Tennessee
M2002-02902-CCA-R3-CO
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert L. Jones

The Petitioner, Roger T. Johnson, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. James Lee Foreman, II
M2002-02595-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Michael R. Jones

A Montgomery County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, James Lee Foreman, II, of two counts of rape, a Class B felony. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the defendant as a violent offender to ten years in confinement. The defendant appeals, claiming that his sentence is excessive. Having determined that we lack jurisdiction in the case, the defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Tony G. Smith v. State of Tennessee
M2003-00598-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier

The petitioner, Tony G. Smith, appeals as of right from the order of the Davidson County Criminal Court holding that his petition for post-conviction relief was barred by the statute of limitations and dismissing the petition without appointing counsel or holding an evidentiary hearing. The petitioner is seeking relief from his convictions for attempted first degree murder and stalking and his effective twenty-nine-year sentence. The petitioner contends that the trial court erred in its finding that the petitioner did not allege any circumstances that would qualify as an exception to the one-year statute of limitations for filing post-conviction relief. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petition

State of Tennessee v. Troy Billingsley
M2003-01410-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Charles Lee

The Defendant, Troy D. Billingsley, pled guilty to Driving After Being Declared an Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender, Felony Driving Under the Influence of an Intoxicant ("DUI") and Failure to Appear in the Circuit Court for Moore County. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of fifteen years in prison. On appeal, the Defendant contends that his sentence was excessive and contrary to law. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

Catherine Claire Willcutts v. John Francis Willcutts
W2002-02636-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Martha B. Brasfield

This is an appeal of a final decree of divorce primarily as it concerns custody of the parties’ children. The trial court awarded custody to mother and provided for a supervised visitation to father. Father appeals and, in addition to the custody issue, also presents issues pertaining to the trial court’s out-of-court interview with the children and the mental examination of the parties. We affirm.
 

Carlos Williams v. State of Tennessee
W2003-01175-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bernie Weinman

The Appellant, Carlos Williams, appeals the summary dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Williams acknowledges that the instant petition was not timely filed; however, he alleges that a prior petition was timely delivered to the appropriate prison  official for filing but apparently never received by the Shelby County Criminal Court Clerk. For this reason, we find it necessary to vacate the post-conviction court's ruling and remand for a determination of whether Williams’ prior petition was timely filed.

Albert Thompson v. Patricia Chafetz
W2003-00518-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge George H. Brown

This is an appeal from an Order denying Appellant’s Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 Motion, which sought relief from the grant of Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Appellant’s attorney failed to set the Motion for hearing until some nineteen (19) months after the entry of the Order granting summary judgment. The trial court found that the attorney’s failure to prosecute resulted in prejudice to Appellee and denied the Rule 60 Motion. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Douglas Marshall Mathis - Dissenting
M2002-02291-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R. Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Burch

Whether properly assigned or not this court may consider plain error upon the record under Rule 52(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. State v. Ogle, 666 S.W.2d 58 (Tenn. 1984). Before an error may be so recognized, it must be “plain” and must affect a “substantial right” of the accused. The word “plain” is synonymous with “clear” or equivalently “obvious.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). Plain error is not merely error that is conspicuous, but especially egregious error that strikes at the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See State v. Wooden, 658 S.W.2d 553, 559 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983). In State v. Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d 626, 639 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994), this court defined “substantial right” as a right of “fundamental proportions in the indictment process, a right to the proof of every element of the offense and . . . constitutional in nature.” In that case, this court established five factors to be applied in determining whether an error is plain:

(a) The record must clearly establish what occurred in the trial court;
(b) a clear and unequivocal rule of law must have been breached;
(c) a substantial right of the accused must have been adversely affected;
(d) the accused [must not have waived] the issue for tactical reasons; and
(e) consideration of the error must be "necessary to do substantial justice."

Id. at 641-42. Our supreme court characterized the Adkisson test as a “clear and meaningful standard” and emphasized that each of the five factors must be present before an error qualifies as plain error. State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 282-83 (Tenn. 2000).

State of Tennessee v. Douglas Marshall Mathis
M2002-02291-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Burch

The defendant, Douglas Marshall Mathis, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In this appeal, he contends: (1) that the evidence is insufficient; (2) that the trial court erred by giving an irrelevant definition of "knowing" as a part of the instructions to the jury; (3) that the prosecutor's comments during closing argument were improper; (4) that he was denied the right to a fair and impartial jury; and (5) that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. William Pendergrass
M2003-01769-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Russell Heldman

The defendant was convicted of third offense driving under the influence (DUI) and driving on a revoked license. He contends on appeal that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the deputy did not have reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop, and (3) the deputy's mention of the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test during his testimony entitled the defendant to a mistrial. Concluding that no reversible error occurred, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Daniel Bilbrey
M2002-01043-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lillie Ann Sells

Following a judicial diversion revocation hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction in accordance with the terms of his plea agreement which had been negotiated at the time Defendant pled guilty to one count of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced Defendant without conducting a sentencing hearing. Defendant now appeals his sentence of confinement arguing that the terms of his plea agreement called for a probated sentence in the event his judicial diversion was subsequently revoked. Alternatively, Defendant argues that the terms of his plea agreement did not survive the revocation of his judicial diversion, and the trial court should have conducted a sentencing hearing prior to imposing Defendant's sentence. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in requiring him to report to his probation officer as a condition of bond pending appeal. Following a thorough review of the record in this matter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Nelson Keith Foster v. State of Tennessee
E2003-01411-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

Petitioner, Nelson Keith Foster, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, without affording Petitioner an evidentiary hearing. In his petition, Petitioner asserted that he was entitled to relief from his three convictions for violation of the Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender Act (HMVO) due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court dismissed the petition because Petitioner had argued in his direct appeal from the convictions that he was entitled to relief because he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction trial court.

Barbara Jean Cain v. Charles Curtis Cain
W2003-00563-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Joe C. Morris

Wife filed for divorce alleging Husband was guilty of inappropriate marital conduct. Trial court granted Wife an absolute divorce, ordered a martial property distribution, and awarded wife alimony and attorney’s fees. Husband appeals. We affirm the distribution of marital property, modify the award of attorney’s fees, vacate the requirement to provide life insurance and remand.
 

State of Tennessee v. Latasha Akins
W2003-01178-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Lee Moore Jr.

The Defendant, Latasha Atkins, appeals her jury conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to sell, contending the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

June Betty Williams v. Saturn Corporation
M2002-02916-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: James L. Weatherford, Sr.J.
Trial Court Judge: Stella L. Hargrove, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel 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 employer appeals the judgment of the trial court awarding the employee 2% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole for work-related injuries to both shoulders, and denying a set-off for disability payments paid under an employer-funded plan. The employer contends that the trial court erred: 1) in basing the employee's award on an anatomical impairment rating not based entirely on the AMA Guides; and 2) in not granting a set-off for disability payments paid by the employer pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6- 114(b). We hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings as to anatomical and vocational disability. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as to this issue. We find that this case should be remanded for further proceedings on the issue of whether a set-off is warranted in this case. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed in Part; and Remanded JAMES L. WEATHERFORD, SR.J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and JOE C. LOSER, JR.,SP.J., joined. Thomas H. Peebles, IV, Columbia, Tennessee, for the appellant Saturn Corporation. Michael D. Dillon, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee June Betty Williams. MEMORANDUM OPINION Ms. June Williams was 44 years old at the time of trial. She has a 12th grade education and completed a medical assistant course. She began working for General Motors in 1977 and worked as a punch press operator or assembly line worker for 1 to 11 years there. During layoffs from GM, she worked in fast food restaurants and worked one year as a medical office assistant. In 1991, Ms. Williams moved to Tennessee to work for Saturn Corporation. She worked on the assembly line using torque guns and doing other repetitive work with her arms above shoulder level. She gradually developed aching and soreness in her shoulders and shoulder blade area. After being treated for several years at the clinic at Saturn, she was eventually referred to Dr. Jeffery Adams, orthopedic surgeon, for treatment. When conservative treatment did not resolve her symptoms, she had surgery on her right shoulder for tendinitis of the biceps tendon on February 23, 1999. She had 2 surgeries on her left shoulder _ one for a labrum tear on June 22, 1999, and an arthroscopic synovectomy on January 19, 2. Her last day of work prior to surgery was February 8, 1999. On September 19, 2,1 Dr. David Gaw, M.D., evaluated Ms. Williams and found that her injuries were caused by her work activities. He assigned permanent restrictions which included avoiding frequent or continuous overhead or outstretched use of the hands for pushing, pulling or lifting. Dr. Gaw assigned a 4% anatomical impairment to the body as a whole for each shoulder, for a combined 8% anatomical impairment rating. He based this rating on minimal loss of motion and change in anatomy due to the 3 surgical procedures.2 Dr. Gaw acknowledged that the AMA Guides do not specifically cover the surgical procedures undergone by Ms. Williams: Well, this is one of those conditions which is not specifically covered by the Guides. There's nothing in there that says debridement of the labrum or cutting the biceps tendon and moving it around, but it's _ I think it has to do with just experience or understanding the physiology or explaining this lady's loss of function. I think that's, in my opinion, a minimal impairment, but certainly there has been some change in this person's anatomy of the shoulder. On January 8, 21, Ms. Williams returned to work at Saturn test-driving cars, a job that is within her medical restrictions, but she has concerns about low job seniority in this position. The surgical procedures significantly reduced her pain, but she "still has some trouble" when she uses her arms in an overhead position. She can not lift either arm for very long and still has pain when doing certain activities. She now has difficulty in holding the phone with her right arm, putting on clothes, and getting in or out of a bathtub. Ms. Williams is now limited in such activities as painting her house, gardening and bowling. Two vocational experts testified at trial. Ms. Patsy Bramlett assigned a 1% vocational 1He testified at his deposition that she reached maximum medical improvement on this date. 2Dr. Gaw assigned 2% to the right upper extremity and 1% to the left upper extremity for loss of motion based on pp. 43-45 of the AM A Guides. He assigned 5% impairment to each upper extremity for the surgical procedures. -2-

Deborah Johnson v. Marshall Manufacturing Corp.,
M2003-00921-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: J. B. Cox, Chancellor
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. In this appeal, the appellant, Federated Insurance Company, insists the trial court erred in determining, as a matter of law, that it was liable for the payment of workers' compensation benefits and in summarily dismissing the case as to Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. As discussed below, the panel has found no reversible error and concluded that Federated is liable under the successive injury rule. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (22 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed JOE C. LOSER, JR, SP. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and JAMES L. WEATHERFORD, SR. J., joined. Gordon C. Aulgur, Brewer, Krause & Brooks, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Federated Insurance Company Lee Anne Murray, Feeney & Murray, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Marshall Manufacturing Corporation Emil L. Storey, Jr. and Deborah A. Toon, Donald D. Zuccarello, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Deborah Johnson MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee or claimant, Deborah Johnson, has worked for the employer, Marshall Manufacturing Corporation, since 1979. She gradually developed pain and numbness in both hands and was diagnosed with mild carpal tunnel syndrome. The employer's insurer, Liberty Mutual, accepted the claim and provided medical benefits. The claimant continued working. On April 16, 2, Federated Insurance succeeded Liberty Mutual as the employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier. On August 21, 2, the claimant underwent corrective surgery for her carpal tunnel syndrome and was disabled from working. Liberty Mutual paid for the surgery but has refused to pay medical or disability benefits after that date. So has Federated. Ms. Johnson sued both carriers and the employer for the benefits provided by law. On Liberty Mutual's motion for summary judgment, the trial court dismissed the claim against Liberty Mutual and awarded Liberty Mutual a judgment against Federated for expenditures made by Liberty Mutual on behalf of the claimant. The trial court further concluded from the undisputed facts that Federated was liable to the claimant for benefits. Federated has appealed. 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). This tribunal is not bound by the trial court's findings but instead conducts an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance lies. Galloway v. Memphis Drum Serv., 822 S.W.2d 584, 586 (Tenn. 1991). Where the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses, especially if issues of credibility and weight to be given oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded those circumstances on review, because it is the trial court which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and to hear the in- court testimony. Long v. Tri-Con Ind., Ltd., 996 S.W.2d 173, 178 (Tenn. 1999). The appellate tribunal, however, is as well situated to gauge the weight, worth and significance of deposition testimony as the trial judge. Walker v. Saturn Corp., 986 S.W.2d 24, 27 (Tenn. 1998). Conclusions of law are subject to de novo review on appeal without any presumption of correctness. Nutt v. Champion Intern. Corp., 98 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Tenn. 1998). Where an employee is permanently disabled as a result of a combination of two or more accidents occurring at different times and while the employee was working for different employers, the employer for whom the employee was working at the time of the most recent accident is generally liable for permanent disability benefits. Baxter v. Smith, 211 Tenn. 347, 364 S.W.2d 936 (1962). The same doctrine applies where the employee's permanent disability results from successive injuries while the employee is working for the same employer, but the employer has changed insurance carriers. Bennett v. Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge, 714 S.W.2d 273 (Tenn. 1986). The carrier which provided coverage at the time of the last injury is liable for the payment of permanent disability benefits. Where a condition develops gradually over a period of time resulting in a definite, work-connected, unexpected, fortuitous injury, it is compensable as an injury by accident. Brown Shoe Co. v. Reed, 29 Tenn. 16, 35 S.W.2d 65 (1961). In such cases, the date of injury has been fixed as of the date on which the claimant was forced to quit work because of severe pain. Lawson v. Lear Seating Corp., 944 S.W.2d 34 (Tenn. 1997); Barker v. Home-Crest Corp., 85 S.W.2d 373, 374 (Tenn. 1991); Central Motor Exp. v. Burney, 214 Tenn. 118, 377 S.W.2d 947 (1964). In Barker, where the claimant also suffered a gradually occurring injury, this court held the insurer which provided coverage on the day the employee last worked was liable for -2-

State of Tennessee v. Roger Alexander - Concurring
M2002-02185-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Allen W. Wallace

I join with the majority in concurring that the Defendant is not entitled to the alternative sentence of Community Corrections. The Defendant is a Range II multiple offender, possessing a criminal history evincing a clear disregard for the law and whose past efforts at rehabilitation have failed. Thus, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, he is not entitled to the presumption in favor of alternative sentencing. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102(6). For this reason, I would affirm.