State., ex. rel. Sherry Mcallister vs. Goode
01A01-9510-CV-00452
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall

Jacobsen vs. Flathe
01A01-9511-CH-00510
Trial Court Judge: Henry Denmark Bell

State v. Bacon
03C01-9609-CR-00348
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

State vs. Cedric Davis
02C01-9610-CR-00352

Shepherd vs. Perkins
03A01-9701-CH-00015

State vs. Michael Gregg/Laird Payne
02C01-9611-CR-00394
Trial Court Judge: Bernie Weinman

State vs. Hastie Love
02C01-9706-CC-00214

State vs. Bobby Anderson
02C01-9707-CC-00232

State vs. Russell
03C01-9608-CR-00319
Trial Court Judge: Mayo L. Mashburn

State vs. Runako Blair
02C01-9608-CR-00277

W.J. Gray vs. State of TN
02A01-9703-BC-00055

State vs. Isaac Herron
02C01-9509-CR-00253
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

State vs. Cecil Grose
02C01-9609-CR-00310
Trial Court Judge: Carolyn Wade Blackett

Richard Deberry vs. Lexington Electric System, et al
02A01-9610-CV-00257
Trial Court Judge: Charles O. Mcpherson

Robinson vs. Omer, Sr.
01S01-9611-CV-00228

State vs. Ronald Mitchell
02C01-9702-CC-00070

Brenda Gail Howell v. Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co.
01S01-9609-CH-00176
Authoring Judge: Robert A. Lanier, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. James L. Weatherford,
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 employer insists (1) the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on sixty percent to the body as a whole is excessive, (2) the trial court applied an incorrect compensation rate, and (3) the trial court erred in commuting the award to a lump sum. The lump sum issue was withdrawn during oral argument. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the award of permanent partial disability benefits and the compensation rate should be modified. Because both issues are fact driven, appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). This tribunal is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

Abigail Hackett v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, et al.
01S01-9701-CH-00003
Authoring Judge: Robert S. Brandt, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. C. K. Smith,
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 of findings of fact and conclusions of law. This case presents the issue of whether permanent partial disability ("PPD") awards of 5% and 25% are excessive in light of anatomical disability ratings of 12% and 5%. We conclude that the awards were not excessive and affirm the trial court's decision. The employee/appellee, Abigail Hackett, slipped and fell while coming off her shift at her employer's factory. She suffered extensive injury to both knees. Dr. Robert Landsberg, the orthopaedic surgeon who operated on her knees, testified that she had a 12% impairment in her left leg and a 5% impairment in her right leg. Hackett, age 44, has a GED and has worked in the past as a maintenance worker, school bus driver and sewing machine operator. As a result of the injuries to her knees, she can no longer perform these jobs. After the surgery, Hackett returned to work as a fork lift driver. The employer, G.F. Office Furniture, has accommodated her disability by modifying assembly line procedures. The trial court awarded Hackett a lump sum of $41, 35.5, which represented a PPD assessment of 5% to her left leg and 25% to her right leg. The employer/appellant argues that the trial court's award was excessive 2

Joseph Craig v. Murray Guard, Inc., et al.
01S01-9612-CH-00251
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Walter C. Kurtz,
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. In this appeal, the employer and its insurer contend the injury did not arise out of the employment and that the award of permanent partial benefits is excessive. The employee contends the award is inadequate. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The employee or claimant, Joseph Craig, was sixty-eight years old at the time of the injury. He has a college degree in engineering but has never been employed in that field. On March 12, 1995, while working as a security guard for Murray, he slipped and fell to a linoleum floor, fracturing his left hip. The employer's contention is that the injury is not compensable because the proof does not establish that there was any slippery substance on the floor. The injured hip was surgically repaired by Dr. Daniel Phillips, who assigned no permanent impairment or limitations. Another orthopedic surgeon, Dr. John McInnis, examined the claimant and opined he would retain a permanent impairment of five percent to the whole body and advised that the claimant limit his activities to minimal squatting and walking and not more than two or three hours of standing per day. The claimant returned to work on May 5, 1995 at his previous salary. The trial court found the injury to be compensable and awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on 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). 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. McCaleb v. Saturn Corp., 91 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1995). In a workers' compensation case, the claimant is not required to establish any degree of fault by the employee, merely that the injury resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. An injury arises out of the employment when there is apparent to the rational mind, upon a consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury. Fink v. Caudle, 856 S.W.2d 952 (Tenn. 1993). The employer's contention that the fall was idiopathic is based entirely on the circumstance that no slippery substance was found on the floor where the claimant fell. The claimant was alone at the time and was not found 2

Charles H. Smith v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.
01S01-9610-CH-00207
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon.

Robert Stone v. Saturn Corporation
01S01-9610-CH-00213
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon.

State vs. John Rheaume
02C01-9607-CR-00246

State vs. Tyrone Henderson
02C01-9610-CR-00376

Timothy v. Potter, Dickson, Tennessee, For Appellant, J.M.S.
01-98-001-CC
Trial Court Judge: A. Andrew Jackson

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood