State vs. Alfonzo Chalmers W2000-00440-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Chris B. Craft
The defendant appeals from his conviction for first degree premeditated murder. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court erred by impermissibly commenting on the evidence in violation of article VI, section 9 of the Constitution of Tennessee. We affirm the judgment of conviction.
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Deborah Dunn 01S01-9707-CH-00160
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. J. Richard Mcgregor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. This declaratory judgment action likely created an interest that otherwise might not have existed or, perhaps, might not have manifested itself. The employer filed the action alleging that its employee reported that she experienced pain in her neck on August 17, 1995, that she was successfully treated and returned to work on September 12, 1995, that her medical expenses had been paid, and that the plaintiff [employer] should be "discharged from responsibility to defendant [employee]." A counter-claim followed in course, with the employee alleging that her neck injury resulted in temporary total disability, temporary partial disability, permanent impairment and disability, together with the incurrence of medical expenses. The trial court found the issues in favor of the employee and awarded her benefits based upon a twelve and one-half percent disability to her whole body, thus entitling her to a recovery of $2,793.5 to be paid in a lump sum. By separate order the employee was awarded $6. discretionary costs. The propriety of these awards is questioned on appeal. Our review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The claimant is 37 years old, with limited marketable skills. She was initially employed in 1991 or 1992, according to her testimony. In 1992 "something happened to my neck" while loading a spool of wire. Two or three
James Peeler v. Methodis Medical Center 03S01-9704-CH-00045
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Frank V. Williams, III,
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)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellant contends the trial court erred (1) in finding a causal relationship between the claimant's employment and his injury and (2) in finding the claimant will retain permanent partial disabilities of forty-five percent to the right arm and thirty percent to the left arm. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The claimant or employee is thirty years old with a GED. He is a certified nursing assistant and had, at the time of his injury, worked for the employer, Methodist Medical Center, since 1991 as an attendant. His duties included turning, bathing, weighing and walking patients and pushing stretchers and wheel chairs of patients. He gradually developed carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Eugenio Vargas treated the claimant and ultimately performed bilateral carpal tunnel surgery. He testified the injuries were causally related to the claimant's job and that he would retain a ten percent permanent impairment to both arms. Dr. Clifford Posman viewed the claimant's medical records, including the reports of Dr. Vargas, and opined that the claimant's injuries were not work-related. Rodney Caldwell, a vocational consultant, opined the claimant was forty-seven percent vocationally disabled. The trial court found the injuries to be compensable and fixed the claimant's permanent partial disability at thirty-seven and one-half percent to both arms.1 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. section 5-6- 225(e)(2). From a careful consideration of the medical and lay proof in this case, the panel is unable to say the evidence preponderates against the trial judge's finding that the injuries are work-related. The first issue is resolved in favor the employee. 1 More precisely, the trial judge awarded benefits on the basis of 45% to the right arm and 3% to the left arm, which equates to 37 1/2% to both arms, a scheduled injury. 2/24/98
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Michael Lee Proffit v. Superior Industries, Inc. 03S01-9701-CH-00008.
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. G. Richard Johnson,
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)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employer has appealed from an adverse judgment, contending the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive. The employee contends the appeal is frivolous. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The employee or claimant, Proffitt, is 37 years old with a fifth grade education and experience as a mason's helper, a painter, a farm worker and a sawmill operator. He began working for the employer in 1993 as a janitor. On April 25, 1994, he was assisting another worker to empty a heavy trash barrel when he felt a sudden pulling sensation in his back. He continues to have sharp pain in his back and numbness in his back and legs. He no longer works for Superior Industries. Four medical doctors testified at the trial. Dr. Henry J. Williams treated the claimant in the emergency room shortly after the accident and diagnosed lumbar strain. The doctor first assigned no permanent impairment. After further visits, however, he assessed a permanent impairment of one percent to the body as a whole. Dr. Matthew Wood, Jr. examined the claimant and found no permanent impairment. Dr. Fred Killefer agreed with Dr. Wood. Dr. Calvin J. Johnson examined the claimant and found objective evidence of injury in the form of muscle spasm. He diagnosed chronic low back syndrome with facet arthritis and assessed ten percent permanent impairment to the whole body. He restricted the claimant from repetitively bending, stooping, squatting or lifting more than twenty pounds. The trial judge awarded permanent partial disabilitybenefits on the basis of twenty-five percent to the body as a whole. 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. section 5-6-225(e)(2). Once the causation and permanency of an injury have been 2
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Ulyes Williams v. City of Knoxville 03S01-9706-CV-00070
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Dale C. Workman
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)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The City of Knoxville contends (1) the claim is barred by the statute of limitations and (2) the trial court erred in not accepting the opinion testimony of the treating physician. The claimant contends the trial court erred in allowing credit for overpaid temporary total disability benefits. The panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The claimant, Williams, has less than an eighth grade education, little or no reading or writing skills and no vocational training. He was 39 years old at the time of the trial. He has worked for the city since about 1988, first as a laborer and later as tractor-mower operator. In 1992, he suffered a compensable back injury, was temporarily disabled and returned to work until September 18, 1995, when he re-injured his back at work. Back surgery was performed on or about November 18, 1995 and he returned to work around March 1, 1996 for a few weeks, quit because of post-surgical problems, then returned again around July 1, 1996. He has since been terminated. This civil action was commenced on March 29, 1996. The defendant filed and served its answer on April 26, 1996, but did not aver therein that the claim was barred by any statute of limitations. That a claim is so barred is an affirmative defense and the facts constituting such defense must be set forth in short and plain terms in a defendant's answer. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.3. Moreover, the record fails to establish that the claimant had fair notice of the employer's intention to assert the statute of limitations as a defense. The defense was thus waived. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.8. Additionally, the panel finds the defense to be without merit. The first issue is resolved in favor of the appellee. As the employer insists, citing Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 83 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tenn. 1991), the trial judge must choose which of conflicting expert medical opinions to accept. We are aware of no rule which 2
