01S01-9507-CV-103
01S01-9507-CV-103

03C01-9506-CR-00156
03C01-9506-CR-00156
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins

03C01-9509-CR-00273
03C01-9509-CR-00273
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer

03A01-9601-CH-00008
03A01-9601-CH-00008

Duncan v. Crawford, Maryville, For The Appellant
03A01-9602-PB-00045
Trial Court Judge: Inman

02A01-9506-CH-00124
02A01-9506-CH-00124
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis

01C01-9402-CR-00056
01C01-9402-CR-00056
Trial Court Judge: Thomas H. Shriver

01C01-9411-CC-00375
01C01-9411-CC-00375
Trial Court Judge: Rex Henry Ogle

01C01-9506-CR-00176
01C01-9506-CR-00176

01C01-9509-CR-00314
01C01-9509-CR-00314
Trial Court Judge: William M. Barker

01C01-9509-CR-00315
01C01-9509-CR-00315

Cyril v. Fraser
01C01-9511-CR-00360
Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond

01C01-9511-CR-00363
01C01-9511-CR-00363

01C01-9506-CC-00169
01C01-9506-CC-00169

01C01-9508-CC-00248
01C01-9508-CC-00248
Trial Court Judge: Cornelia A. Clark

01C01-9508-CC-00284
01C01-9508-CC-00284
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins

Autto Lee Taylor, Sr. v. Bailey-Parks Urethane, Inc.,
02S01-9602-CV-00018
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Billy Joe White
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert A. Lanier,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal the employer contends no notice was given and causation was not proven. The trial judge found proper notice and a work-related injury. This panel affirms the judgment of the trial judge. The Plaintiff testified, "A. I told him about it. He just sat there and looked at me. He didn't say nothing. Q. What did you tell him? A. I told him I hurt my back Friday. I needed to go to the doctor. Q. Did Mr. Tutor ask you any questions at that time? A. He asked me where I hurt my back. I said here at the job." (App. P. 28). Mr. Tutor testified, ". . .He had come to evidently Larry, which is his supervisor. We happened to be standing talking and he come up to us, I guess he was giving notification that he had hurt his back, that he had -- that he needed to go home or get this taken care of, but he had not said anything to Larry individually. He come up to both of us at the same time, which is the right thing for him to do. He needs to report it." (App. P. 7). The scope of review is de novo on the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the judgment of the trial court, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. T.C.A. _ 5-6-225 (e)(2). This panel finds that the preponderance of the evidence establishes notice within T.C.A. _ 5-6-21 and affirms the trial court. As to the issue of causation the treating doctor, Dr. Leventhal, testified to a history given him by the employee of a work related injury. (Leventhal Depo. P.11).

Autto Lee Taylor, Sr. v. Bailey-Parks Urethane, Inc.,
02S01-9602-CV-00018
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Billy Joe White
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert A. Lanier,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal the employer contends no notice was given and causation was not proven. The trial judge found proper notice and a work-related injury. This panel affirms the judgment of the trial judge. The Plaintiff testified, "A. I told him about it. He just sat there and looked at me. He didn't say nothing. Q. What did you tell him? A. I told him I hurt my back Friday. I needed to go to the doctor. Q. Did Mr. Tutor ask you any questions at that time? A. He asked me where I hurt my back. I said here at the job." (App. P. 28). Mr. Tutor testified, ". . .He had come to evidently Larry, which is his supervisor. We happened to be standing talking and he come up to us, I guess he was giving notification that he had hurt his back, that he had -- that he needed to go home or get this taken care of, but he had not said anything to Larry individually. He come up to both of us at the same time, which is the right thing for him to do. He needs to report it." (App. P. 7). The scope of review is de novo on the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the judgment of the trial court, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. T.C.A. _ 5-6-225 (e)(2). This panel finds that the preponderance of the evidence establishes notice within T.C.A. _ 5-6-21 and affirms the trial court. As to the issue of causation the treating doctor, Dr. Leventhal, testified to a history given him by the employee of a work related injury. (Leventhal Depo. P.11).

03A01-9601-GS-00039
03A01-9601-GS-00039
Trial Court Judge: Inman

03A01-9604-CH-00132
03A01-9604-CH-00132
Trial Court Judge: Inman

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

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

01A01-9507-CH-00318
01A01-9507-CH-00318
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray

01A01-9510-CH-00491
01A01-9510-CH-00491
Trial Court Judge: Henry Denmark Bell

01A01-9510-CH-00491
01A01-9510-CH-00491