Willie Gooch v. Mckinnon Bridge Company
01S01-9708-CH-00169
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ellen Hobbs Lyle,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The issue on appeal is whether the denial of the employee's motion to set aside the workers' compensation settlement was an abuse of discretion. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the trial court did not err and that the trial court's action should be affirmed. The employee, Mr. Willie Gooch, a manual laborer, injured both hands on March 14, 1995 during the course and within the scope of his employment for McKinnon Bridge Company. Dr. Fred Torstrick had assigned the following impairment ratings: eight percent to the left index finger, twenty-nine percent to the left long finger, twenty-nine percent to the left ring finger, twelve percent to the left small finger, fifteen percent to the right index finger, fifteen percent to the right long finger, and twelve percent to the right ring finger. Mr. Todd Smith, a representative for the insurance adjusting agency, advised Mr. Gooch of the treating physician's disability ratings and offered him a settlement based on those ratings. However, the settlement eliminated any future medical benefits for the injury. Mr. Smith, admittedly, did not read the documents to Mr. Gooch, who cannot read and can barely write his name. The settlement proposed a lump sum payment in the sum of $11,962.19, in addition to medical expenses already paid totaling $2,766.1. Mr. James Tucker, attorney for McKinnon Bridge Company, testified that he personally called Mr. Gooch and explained the settlement, including the omission of any future medical expenses and the settlement's finality. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Gooch met and went over the prepared documents, which Mr. Gooch then signed. Mr. Tucker testified that he did not read the documents to Mr. Gooch verbatim but that he did cover the substance of the material portions in question. On October 31, 1996, McKinnon Bridge Company and the injured employee filed a Petition for Approval of Final Settlement in the Chancery Court of Davidson County. Mr. Gooch was not represented by counsel. A hearing was held that same day. The chancellor repeatedly told Mr. Gooch he would likely receive more money if he took his case to trial. The chancellor further informed Mr. Gooch that he certainly would be awarded future medical benefits if taken to trial. Moreover, the chancellor advised Mr. Gooch that he was entitled to hire an attorney. Despite the information provided by the insurance adjuster, the defendant's attorney, as well as the chancellor, Mr. Gooch still expressed a desire to settle the matter. Thus, the chancellor entered an Order Approving the Settlement, after finding the settlement to be in the employee's best interest. On his drive home from the courthouse, Mr. Gooch concluded he had made a mistake. He hired an attorney, who, on November 8, 1996, filed a timely Motion to Set Aside The Order Approving the Workers' Compensation Settlement, grounded on his lack of sophistication and illiteracy, and that he had changed his mind after considering what he had been told by the judge and 2

Jamie Hamilton vs. Gary Cook
02A01-9712-CV-00324
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree

Randy Watkins vs. Vicki Watkins
02A01-9708-CH-00178
Trial Court Judge: Dewey C. Whitenton

Jimmy Hawkins vs. Dennis Ellis
02A01-9708-CH-00203
Trial Court Judge: Dewey C. Whitenton

The City of White House vs. Whitley
01S01-9711-CH-00259

The City of White House vs. Whitley
01S01-9711-CH-00259

State vs. Dewayne Butler, Fredrick D. Butler, and Eric D. Alexander
02S01-9711-CR-00094
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

State vs. Dewayne Butler, Fredrick D. Butler, and Eric D. Alexander
02S01-9711-CR-00094

State vs Ricky Bryan
01C01-9704-CC-00136

State vs. Rachel Green
01C01-9706-CR-00223

City of Fulton vs. Hickman-Fulton
01S01-9710-FD-00215

Crittenden vs. State
01S01-9712-CR-00267

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
Trial Court Judge: Earle G. Murphy

State vs. Callahan
03S01-9711-CC-00136
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

State vs. Sweat
03C01-9708-CC-00348
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

State vs. Martin
03C01-9711-CR-00508
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner

State vs. Bivens
03C01-9711-CR-00497

Charles Garrison v. James Stamps
M2001-02900-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Robert P. Hamilton
Charles Garrison and James C. Stamps were involved in an automobile accident on October 10, 1998 wherein Garrison was seriously injured. Stamps was uninsured, and Garrison was beneficiary of uninsured motorists coverage under policies of insurance issued to his parents. With no suit ever filed against Stamps, Garrison and his parents reached an agreement with the uninsured motorists carriers whereby the carriers paid the limits of their uninsured motorists coverage. Charles Garrison being a minor, a Petition for court approval of the settlement was filed naming Stamps as the defendant, and an Order was entered approving the settlement. Garrison then filed suit against Stamps, which suit was met with a Summary Judgment Motion by Stamps claiming that he was released from liability by the settlement Order. Garrison filed a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 Motion seeking to have the settlement Order revised to reflect the true facts of the settlement. This Motion was granted, and Stamps appeals. We hold that Stamps is without standing to assert any rights under the settlement Order and, on this basis, affirm the judgment.

Mathivathani Mohan vs. Rathnasabapathy Mohan - Concurring/Dissenting
01-A-01-9708-CV-00415
Authoring Judge: Judge Walter W. Bussart
Trial Court Judge: Judge Marietta M. Shipley

This is an appeal from the final divorce decree of Rathnasabapathy Mohan ("the Husband") and Mathivathani Mohan ("the Wife") which was entered by  the lower court in December of 1996. The contested divorce action initiated by the Wife involved issues of custody, visitation, child support, alimony,  classification and division of marital property, and apportionment of marital debt. This appeal by the Husband emanates from the fact the Husband was not present when the final hearing took place.

Mathivathani Mohan v. Rathnasabapathy Mohan - Dissenting
01A01-9708-CV-00415
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because I do not think the trial judge abused her discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for a new trial. The appellant’s motion does not set out what proof he would offer at a new trial and how that might change the result below. Therefore, I think the trial judge justifiably overruled the motion.

Max Norton and Long Outdoor Advertising, v. John McCaskill D/B/A City Sign Company
02A01-9712-CH-00325
Authoring Judge: Judge David V. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joe C. Morris

This appeal involves a dispute over the duration of a lease. Defendant John A. McCaskill (McCaskill), doing business as City Sign Company (City Sign), appeals the Chancellor’s order granting partial summary judgment to plaintiffs Max Norton (Norton) and Long Outdoor Advertising (LOA).

ATS, Inc., v. James Curtis Kent and George V. Kenney, and Bill R. McLaughlin, Trustees for Union Planters National Bank, v. Keith M. Canfield, v. Mid-South Title Insurance Corp.
02A01-9802-CH-00038
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor D. J. Alissandratos

This appeal involves the enforcement of a judgment lien where, subsequent to the attachment of the judgment lien, the encumbered real property was sold to a buyer who simultaneously granted a purchase money mortgage to a financial institution.

State of Tennessee vs. Edward Anthony Joslin
01C01-9710-CR-00491
Authoring Judge: Judge John H. Peay
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth Norman

A jury found the defendant guilty of conspiracy to possess with the intent to deliver over seventy pounds of marijuana; two counts of possession with the intent to deliver one-half ounce to ten pounds of marijuana; and delivery of ten pounds, one gram to seventy pounds of marijuana. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirtynine years incarceration, with a total fine of one hundred sixty thousand dollars ($160,000). On appeal, the defendant presents ten issues for review, most of which deal with the sufficiency of the convicting evidence or the propriety of the defendant’s sentence. We affirm the defendant’s convictions and sentence.

State of Tennessee vs. Michael Orman
01C01-9710-CR-00498
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cheryl Blackburn

The defendant was found guilty by a Davidson County jury of burglary and theft of property over $1,000. The trial court sentenced defendant to Range II sentences of six years on each count and ordered them served consecutively for an effective twelve-year sentence. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding and weighing the enhancement and mitigating factors and in ordering the sentences served consecutively instead of concurrently. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the sentence as imposed.

Terry L. Baker vs. State of Tennessee
01C01-9711-CR-00522
Authoring Judge: Judge John H. Peay
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth Norman

The petitioner pled guilty to six counts of drug charges in Davidson County case number 92-A-647 on May 16, 1995. He was sentenced as a Range I offender to concurrent ten year sentences to be served in the Community Corrections program. On January 19, 1996, the petitioner was found guilty of violating his community corrections sentence and the court increased his sentence from ten years to twenty years to serve. On December 11, 1996, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The petition was dismissed by the trial court on the grounds that it was filed outside the applicable statute of limitations. The petitioner now appeals and argues the postconviction court erred when it dismissed the petition. We agree and reverse the judgment of the court below and remand this cause for a hearing on the merits of the petition.