01A01-9603-CH-00116
01A01-9603-CH-00116
Trial Court Judge: Robert S. Brandt

Thomas v. White
01A01-9604-CH-00154
Trial Court Judge: Henry Denmark Bell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

02A01-9501-CH-00006
02A01-9501-CH-00006
Trial Court Judge: Hansel J. Mcadams

02A01-9506-CH-00127
02A01-9506-CH-00127

02A01-9506-CV-00141
02A01-9506-CV-00141
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown

02A01-9505-CH-00104
02A01-9505-CH-00104
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.

01A01-9601-CH-00028
01A01-9601-CH-00028
Trial Court Judge: Horace Pierotti

01A01-9603-CH-00133
01A01-9603-CH-00133
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

01A01-9510-CH-00444
01A01-9510-CH-00444
Trial Court Judge: Cornelia A. Clark

01A01-9603-CH-00135
01A01-9603-CH-00135
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

01A01-9604-CH-00189
01A01-9604-CH-00189
Trial Court Judge: Robert S. Brandt

Anthony Ray Morris v. Keebler Company, Inc., et al
02S01-9511-CV-00119
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Anthony Ray Morris,
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. The trial court held that plaintiff failed to provide timely notice as required by TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-21 and that he failed to meet his burden of proving that his injury arose in the course and scope of his employment. The plaintiff appeals these findings. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Plaintiff, 28 at the time of trial, worked for defendant as a route salesman. He testified that in early October 1992, he felt "a sudden pain--not pain, but tingling." He testified that he first felt this when his leg hit the ground getting out of the delivery truck he drove for defendant. After the initial onset of symptoms, plaintiff began to feel that his leg was losing strength. At one point early in the same month, his supervisor noticed him limping and asked him about it. Plaintiff reported feeling numbness and tingling in his leg and that he thought he was losing strength in his leg. The supervisor felt his leg and testified that it felt like "mush." Plaintiff did not report any injury or onset of symptoms at work at this time. Plaintiff testified that his left leg gave out on him in early November while he was shooting baskets. On November 1, 1992, he saw his wife's family practitioner, Dr. Walter Verner. He told Dr. Verner that he had pain in his left thigh and that he had been losing muscle strength in his left leg for about a month. Dr. Verner testified that his notes do not indicate a work-related injury, although that is something that he would normally record. Dr. Verner noted a marked reduction in the plaintiff's deep tendon reflex in his left knee and referred him to Dr. Barry Thompson, a neurologist. Dr. Thompson found left quadriceps weakness and ordered a variety of tests, including an EMG which indicated a possible L4-5 radiculopathy and an MRI which indicated a possible L3 herniated disc on the left. He referred plaintiff to Dr. Joseph Buchignani, a neurosurgeon. 2

Anthony Ray Morris v. Keebler Company, Inc., et al
02S01-9511-CV-00119
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Anthony Ray Morris,
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. The trial court held that plaintiff failed to provide timely notice as required by TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-21 and that he failed to meet his burden of proving that his injury arose in the course and scope of his employment. The plaintiff appeals these findings. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Plaintiff, 28 at the time of trial, worked for defendant as a route salesman. He testified that in early October 1992, he felt "a sudden pain--not pain, but tingling." He testified that he first felt this when his leg hit the ground getting out of the delivery truck he drove for defendant. After the initial onset of symptoms, plaintiff began to feel that his leg was losing strength. At one point early in the same month, his supervisor noticed him limping and asked him about it. Plaintiff reported feeling numbness and tingling in his leg and that he thought he was losing strength in his leg. The supervisor felt his leg and testified that it felt like "mush." Plaintiff did not report any injury or onset of symptoms at work at this time. Plaintiff testified that his left leg gave out on him in early November while he was shooting baskets. On November 1, 1992, he saw his wife's family practitioner, Dr. Walter Verner. He told Dr. Verner that he had pain in his left thigh and that he had been losing muscle strength in his left leg for about a month. Dr. Verner testified that his notes do not indicate a work-related injury, although that is something that he would normally record. Dr. Verner noted a marked reduction in the plaintiff's deep tendon reflex in his left knee and referred him to Dr. Barry Thompson, a neurologist. Dr. Thompson found left quadriceps weakness and ordered a variety of tests, including an EMG which indicated a possible L4-5 radiculopathy and an MRI which indicated a possible L3 herniated disc on the left. He referred plaintiff to Dr. Joseph Buchignani, a neurosurgeon. 2

Jeffrey Wolfe v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
02S01-9602-CV-00016
Authoring Judge: Cornelia A. Clark, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. James M. Tharpe
This case is before the Court upon the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, and the Panel's Memorandum Opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are incorporated herein by reference. Whereupon, it appears to the Court that the Memorandum Opinion of the Panel should be accepted and approved; and It is, therefore, ordered that the Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law are adopted and affirmed, and the decision of the Panel is made the judgment of the Court.

Jeffrey Wolfe v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
02S01-9602-CV-00016
Authoring Judge: Cornelia A. Clark, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. James M. Tharpe,
This case is before the Court upon the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, and the Panel's Memorandum Opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are incorporated herein by reference. Whereupon, it appears to the Court that the Memorandum Opinion of the Panel should be accepted and approved; and It is, therefore, ordered that the Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law are adopted and affirmed, and the decision of the Panel is made the judgment of the Court.

03C01-9510-CR-00309
03C01-9510-CR-00309
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil

Ali Agha Batebi, v. Patrick Wayne Clark and The Krystal Company
02A01-9410-CV-00228
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Judge James M. Tharpe

In this case, the defendant, The Krystal Company (Krystal), appeals a jury verdict holding it liable for personal injuries received by the plaintiff, Ali Agha Batebi (Batebi), from a criminal assault by a third party while on Krystal's property. We affirm.

State of Tennessee vs. Phillip Craig Mangrum
01C01-9508-CR-00259
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft

The appellant, Phillip Mangrum, pled guilty in the Criminal Court of Sumner County to aggravated burglary, a class C felony. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-403 (1991). The trial court sentenced the appellant as a multiple offender within range II to eight years incarceration in the Department of Correction. The appellant appeals from this sentence, contending, in essence, that (1) the appellant’s status as a multiple offender is not supported by the record; (2) the State’s notice of enhanced sentencing was inadequate under the Sentencing Act and Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12.3; and (2) his sentence is excessive.