Carole Simpson v. Saturn Corp. 01S01-9607-CV-00146
Authoring Judge: Robert S. Brandt, 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 of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Saturn Corporation appeals from the trail court's award of permanent partial benefits based upon a 65% disability to the whole body. The fundamental issue is whether the plaintiff's disability from depression is caused by her work injury at Saturn. The Court concludes that it is and affirms the trial court. Carole Simpson, the plaintiff, on August 19, 1991 fell down some stairs and hurt her left shoulder, arm, and hand. She eventually came under the care of Dr. Robert F. Clendenin, III, a Nashville physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist. He concluded that she suffers from a spinal nerve root irritation and assessed her impairment at 5% to the whole body. The doctor restricted the plaintiff's lifting to twenty pounds frequently and forty pounds occasionally and instructed her not to do repetitive overhead work. With those restrictions, the plaintiff has not been able to do her normal work at Saturn. Instead, she has been assigned the less strenuous job of putting together foam clips. At the time of the trial, the plaintiff testified her work consisted mostly of waiting in the cafeteria to be called to perform some duty her injuries would allow. The problem in this case is caused by the plaintiff's depression. She believed her co-workers were constantly harassing her. She was depressed, she testified, because of "all the harassment" she was receiving and because of her pain. She felt constantly harassed by her fellow workers. When asked point blank what she attributed the depression to, the plaintiff said "the lack of a job, the harassment that I have had to endure, the doors that keep closing in my face every -2-
Ssi Services, Inc. v. Howard L. Baker 01S01-9609-CV-00191
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Gerald L. Ewell, Sr.,
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 began as one for a declaratory judgment under the workers' compensation laws that the accident suffered by the employee ("hereafter, plaintiff") resulted in minimal impairment only. The plaintiff counterclaimed, alleging that he sustained a job-related rotator cuff tear of his left shoulder with a biceps tendon tear requiring surgical repair on May 2, 1993, and that he aggravated the condition in the Spring of 1994 when further surgery was required. The plaintiff is 59 years old, employed as a painter, with an excellent work ethic. It is not controverted that he suffered the injury as alleged. He returned to full, uninterrupted employment in December, 1994 with restrictions. The trial court found that the plaintiff had sustained a 13 percent permanent partial disability to his whole body, and that the "cap embodied in the 1992 Amendment should apply since the plaintiff has returned to meaningful work activities." The plaintiff appeals, insisting (1) that the award of 13 percent permanent partial disability to the whole body is "contrary to the evidence and the law," and (2) that the plaintiff is "entitled to more than 13 percent permanent partial vocational impairment to the body as a whole." 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. TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 584 (Tenn. 1991). Where the medical testimony is presented by deposition, this Court is able to make its own independent assessment of the medical proof to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.
Coffee
Workers Compensation Panel
State vs. Robinson 03C01-9510-CC-00303
Trial Court Judge: Rex Henry Ogle
Cocke
Court of Criminal Appeals
02C01-9605-CC-00183 02C01-9605-CC-00183
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III
David H. Crenshaw, Sr. v. Ats Southeast, Inc. 01S01-9701-CH-00018
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers
Trial Court Judge: 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. This is an appeal by the employer from an order of the trial court setting aside a previously issued order of dismissal for failure to prosecute a workers' compensation case within one year under the local rules of court for Davidson County. The trial court set aside the dismissal order under Rule 6.2, TENN. R. CIV. P. The complaint for workers' compensation benefits was filed October 14, 1994. The defendant filed an answer on November 17, 1994. The trial court, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint on November 6, 1995 under the local rule for failure to prosecute. The record before us, which consists of the pleadings, orders and an affidavit of the employee's counsel in support of his Rule 6 motion, show the notice of dismissal was filed on counsel for the plaintiff on November 14, 1995. On January 22, 1996, plaintiff filed a Rule 6 motion to have the order dismissed or set aside. On February 26, 1996, the trial judge found "Plaintiff [had] not made out a sufficient showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect to justify relief under Rule 6, Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure," however "because this matter is a workers' compensation action, the Order of Dismissal will be set aside and this case shall be put back on the Court's active docket." Unless otherwise set out in the order of dismissal, such order operates as an adjudication upon the merits. Rule 41.2(3), TENN. R. CIV. P. Rule 59.4, TENN. R. CIV. P., provides for a motion to amend or alter a judgment. Such motions must be filed and served on the opposite party within 3 days of the entry of the judgment in question. A judgment becomes final in 3 days and cannot be reviewed after that time. Algee v. State Farm General Ins. Co., 89 S.W.2d 445, 447 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). The order of dismissal in this case became final 3 days after entry thereof, 2
