Opinions

State vs. Eddie Coley
01C01-9707-CC-00270

State vs. Danny King
01C01-9710-CR-00487

Trial Court Judge: Thomas H. Shriver

State vs. George Kelly
01C01-9610-CC-00448

Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Sr.

State vs. Larry Dixon
01C01-9802-CC-00085

Trial Court Judge: John H. Gasaway, III

Bonnie Doss Knutson v. Dollar General Corporation
01S01-9709-CV-00207
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon.

William R. Littrell v. Lawrence County Advocate, Inc.
01S01-9710-CV-00233
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jim T. Hamilton,
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. This action was filed by the heirs at law and administrators of the estate of Edith Carolyn Littrell ["Decedent"] to recover the statutory benefits available in a non-dependency case. On August 4, 1996, the Decedent was delivering newspapers for the defendant. She was 53 years old, single, and had delivered newspapers twice weekly for four years on a 1-mile route driving her personal automobile, a Ford Bronco. The one-car accident occurred on the tertiary, non-paved Mt. Zion road in a remote section of Lawrence County at about the halfway point on her delivery route. The road was seventeen feet wide, graveled, straight, and the Decedent was west-bound, traveling up-grade. There were no witnesses to the accident, but the witness Richardson testified without objection that the Bronco "flipped over one and a-half times." The precise time of the accident was not established. The witness Richardson testified that he "learned there had been a car wreck" about 9: a.m. and went to the scene. Trooper Paul Moore testified that he received a 911 message about 9: a.m. that an accident had occurred and that he arrived at the scene 2 - 3 minutes later. Mr. Richardson testified that Trooper Moore arrived more than an hour after he - Mr. Richardson - arrived. The EMS people arrived before Trooper Moore, and were attending to the Decedent, who was taken to Crockett Hospital. Trooper Moore testified: " . . . there was a cooler inside the vehicle. There was a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage, beer . . . there was also open beer cans in the vehicle. It had a strong, strong smell of it . . . beer." 2

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

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

Jamie Hamilton vs. Gary Cook
02A01-9712-CV-00324

Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree

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

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

Jimmy Hawkins vs. Dennis Ellis
02A01-9708-CH-00203

Trial Court Judge: Dewey C. Whitenton

Randy Watkins vs. Vicki Watkins
02A01-9708-CH-00178

Trial Court Judge: Dewey C. Whitenton

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

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

Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

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

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

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

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

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

Trial Court Judge: Earle G. Murphy

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.