Clarence Edward Spinks v. State of Tennessee
W2009-01801-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Clayburn L. Peeples

After being indicted by the Gibson County Grand Jury, Petitioner, Clarence Edward Spinks, pled guilty on May 7, 2007, to three offenses. He was sentenced to an eight-year sentence, and the trial court ordered that sentence to be served consecutively to a previously-imposed sentence. On January 21, 2009, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court conducted a hearing to determine whether the petition was timely. Petitioner admitted that the petition was filed more than a year after the statute of limitations had run. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition based upon the statute of limitations. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the post-conviction court’s dismissal of the petition.

W. Curtis Jordan vs. Charles Clifford
E2009-01121-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood

W. Curtis Jordan sued his former attorney, Charles Clifford, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent conversion of property, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act ("the TCPA"). The case proceeded to a jury trial. At the close of Jordan's proof, the court dismissed the consumer protection claim based upon its holding that the TCPA did not apply to the providing of professional services by an attorney. As to the remaining claims, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Jordan for breach of contract and awarded him $2,500 in damages. On appeal, Clifford contends that the trial court erred in entering a judgment on the breach of contract claim and in failing to award him the attorney's fees he incurred in defending the consumer protection claim. We affirm.

Michael V. Morris v. State of Tennessee
M2008-02113-CCA-R3-HC
Authoring Judge: Judge Camille R. McMullen
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robbie T. Beal

The Petitioner, Michael V. Morris, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. He was sentenced as a Range III, career offender to thirty years at sixty percent in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus relief in the Hickman County Circuit Court, which was summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that his judgment is void because it violates Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004); because, alternatively, the trial court improperly sentenced him under the 2005 amended sentencing act without a waiver, which resulted in a violation of ex post facto prohibitions; and because the trial court erred in classifying him as a career offender. Upon review, we affirm the judgment summarily dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Michael Todd Highfill v. Heather (Highfill) Moody
W2009-01715-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Karen R. Williams

This case arises from a petition to enroll and modify a foreign decree on child visitation and support. Appellant/Father petitioned the Circuit Court at Shelby County to enroll and modify an Arkansas decree. Mother/Appellee contested the petition, alleging that she was still a resident of Arkansas, so that Arkansas retained exclusive, continuing subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court found that the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act was applicable, and also found that Mother was still residing in Arkansas so as to bar subject matter jurisdiction in favor of the Tennessee court. Because the case involves a petition to modify both child visitation and child support, we conclude: (1) that both the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act are applicable,(2) that the trial court erred in finding that the Mother was residing in Arkansas at the commencement of this action, and (3) the Tennessee Court has jurisdiction to modify the Arkansas decree on child support and custody, and (4) that the trial court erred in dismissing Father’s petition to enroll, and modify the Arkansas decree. Reversed and remanded.

Lakeland Commons, L.P. v. Town of Lakeland, Tennessee, et al.
W2009-01859-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Arnold B. Goldin

Developer sought approval to construct a planned development containing retail and office uses on property zoned in an agricultural district. The municipal planning commission recommended that the town’s board of commissioners deny the application for several reasons. Following a public hearing, the board of commissioners voted to deny the application based upon the recommendation of the municipal planning commission. The developer then brought a common law certiorari action, alleging that the board acted arbitrarily and illegally in denying its application. The trial court found that the board’s decision was based upon substantial and material evidence and dismissed the developer’s petition. The developer appeals. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. David Nagele
E2009-01313-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bob R. McGee

The Defendant, David Nagele, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his plea to attempted aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony, following correction of the judgment to reflect that the Defendant was subject to community supervision for life. We hold (1) that the trial court did not err in denying the motion and (2) that the Defendant is not entitled to plain error relief in his challenge to the constitutionality of the community supervision for life statute. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Kimberly Powell v. Community Health Systems, Inc. et al. - Concurring
E2008-00535-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Gary R. Wade
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Jerri S. Bryant

I concur in the judgment and in the reasoning of all but Sections III and IV.B of the majority’s opinion. In Section III, the majority holds that “the first step” in addressing whether to apply the peer review privilege set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 63-6-219(e) “is to determine whether the subject matter of the underlying proceeding is within the subject matter covered by the statute.” In Section IV.B, the majority relies on the rationale developed in Lee Medical, Inc. v. Beecher, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tenn. 2010), observing “that the privilege in [section] 63-6-219(e) applies only to peer review proceedings regarding a physician’s professional conduct, competence, and ability to practice medicine.” The majority determines “that some, but not all, of the functions of the Quality Review Committee [at Cleveland Community Hospital] were peer review proceedings involving the professional conduct, competence, and ability to practice medicine of the physicians on the hospital’s medical staff.”

Kimberly Powell v. Community Health Systems, Inc. et al.
E2008-00535-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William C Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Jerri S. Bryant

This appeal involves the evidentiary privilege in the Tennessee Peer Review Law of 1967 [Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219 (Supp. 2009)]. A former hospital employee filed suit in the Chancery Court for Bradley County against the hospital and an orthopaedic surgeon on the hospital’s medical staff. During discovery, the former employee sought to depose the hospital’s infection control director regarding the details of an investigation into postoperative nosocomial infections and her knowledge of whether the defendant surgeon had tested positive for infectious diseases. The hospital moved for a protective order on the ground that the requested information was privileged under Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e). The trial court declined to issue a protective order after determining that the information sought by the former employee was not privileged because it had been created in the regular course of the hospital’s business and because the infection control director was the “original source” of the information. After granting the hospital an interlocutory appeal, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. Powell v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. E2008-00535-COA-R9-CV, 2009 WL 17850 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 2, 2009). We granted the
hospital’s Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application for permission to appeal. We have determined that records received or made in the ordinary course of a hospital’s business apart from the operation of a peer review committee are not protected by the peer review privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219. We have also determined that documents prepared by or at the request of a peer review committee exercising its peer review function and documents prepared by third parties as part of the work of a peer review committee performing its peer review function are privileged. Finally, we have determined that the hospital did not waive its right to invoke the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) with regard to the work performed by its infection control director in the context of a peer review proceeding.

Lee Medical, Inc. v. Paula Beecher et al. - Dissenting
M2008-02496-SC-S09-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Gary R. Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jeffrey S. Bivins

While the majority’s narrow interpretation of the statutory peer review privilege has appeal, I cannot reconcile its result with the basic principles of statutory construction. I must, therefore, respectfully dissent.

Lee Medical, Inc. v. Paula Beecher et al.
M2008-02496-SC-S09-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William C Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jeffrey S. Bivins

This appeal involves the application of the Tennessee Peer Review Law of 1967 [Tenn. Code
Ann. § 63-6-219 (Supp. 2009)] to a hospital system’s business decision regarding the provision of vascular access services to patients in its member hospitals. The hospital system had customarily outsourced these services at several of its hospitals, but, following an audit, it decided to discontinue outsourcing the services and to begin providing them using nurses employed by its own hospitals. After several of the system’s hospitals cancelled their vascular access services contracts, the vendor that had been providing the services filed two suits in the Circuit Court for Sumner County against the manufacturer of the catheters used to provide the services and one of its employees, a staffing affiliate of the hospital system and two of its employees, and the chief nursing officer at one of the system’s hospitals. These suits, which were eventually transferred to the Circuit Court for Williamson County and consolidated, sought damages under numerous theories based on the vendor’s allegations that the defendants, all of whom had played a role in the audit, had disparaged the manner in which it had been providing the vascular access services and had improperly interfered with its contracts. During discovery, the vendor sought copies of various records relating to the audit of its services. The defendants claimed that these records were covered by the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e). After reviewing the disputed records in chambers, the trial court determined that most of the requested records were covered by the privilege. The trial court also granted the vendor permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals; however, the Court of Appeals declined to accept the appeal. We granted the vendor’s Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application to address the trial court’s interpretation and
application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e). We have determined that the trial court interpreted the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) too broadly. Therefore, we vacate the portions of the trial court’s discovery orders applying the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(e) and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Ella G. Alexander Wade v. Felice A. Vabnick, M.D.
W2009-02273-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Judge James F. Russell

This is an appeal from the trial court's award of discretionary costs. Appellant/Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claim without prejudice prior to trial, and Appellee/Defendant filed a motion for discretionary costs, which motion the trial court granted. Finding that Appellee/Defendant did not meet her burden of proof, and that the trial abused its discretion in awarding certain discretionary costs that are not contemplated by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.04, we modify the award to reflect a total discretionary fee award of $3,851.15. Affirmed as modified herein.

Lee Medical, Inc. v. Paula Beecher et al. - Dissenting
M2008-02496-SC-S09-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Gary R. Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jeffrey S. Bivins

While the majority’s narrow interpretation of the statutory peer review privilege has appeal, I cannot reconcile its result with the basic principles of statutory construction. I must, therefore, respectfully dissent.

Lee Medical, Inc. v. Paula Beecher et al.
M2008-02496-SC-S09-CV
Authoring Judge: William C. Koch, Jr., J.
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey S. Bivins, Judge
This appeal involves the application of the Tennessee Peer Review Law of 1967 [Tenn. Code Ann. _ 63-6-219 (Supp. 2009)] to a hospital system's business decision regarding the provision of vascular access services to patients in its member hospitals. The hospital system had customarily outsourced these services at several of its hospitals, but, following an audit, it decided to discontinue outsourcing the services and to begin providing them using nurses employed by its own hospitals. After several of the system's hospitals cancelled their vascular access services contracts, the vendor that had been providing the services filed two suits in the Circuit Court for Sumner County against the manufacturer of the catheters used to provide the services and one of its employees, a staffing affiliate of the hospital system and two of its employees, and the chief nursing officer at one of the system's hospitals. These suits, which were eventually transferred to the Circuit Court for Williamson County and consolidated, sought damages under numerous theories based on the vendor's allegations that the defendants, all of whom had played a role in the audit, had disparaged the manner in which it had been providing the vascular access services and had improperly interfered with its contracts. During discovery, the vendor sought copies of various records relating to the audit of its services. The defendants claimed that these records were covered by the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. _ 63-6-219(e). After reviewing the disputed records in chambers, the trial court determined that most of the requested records were covered by the privilege. The trial court also granted the vendor permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals; however, the Court of Appeals declined to accept the appeal. We granted the vendor's Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application to address the trial court's interpretation and application of Tenn. Code Ann. _ 63-6-219(e). We have determined that the trial court interpreted the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. _ 63-6-219(e) too broadly. Therefore, we vacate the portions of the trial court's discovery orders applying the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. _ 63-6-219(e) and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Kimberly Powell v. Community Health Systems, Inc. et al. - Concurring
E2008-00535-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Gary R. Wade
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Jerri S. Bryant

I concur in the judgment and in the reasoning of all but Sections III and IV.B of the majority’s opinion. In Section III, the majority holds that “the first step” in addressing whether to apply the peer review privilege set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 63-6-219(e) “is to determine whether the subject matter of the underlying proceeding is within the subject matter covered by the statute.” In Section IV.B, the majority relies on the rationale developed in Lee Medical, Inc. v. Beecher, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tenn. 2010), observing “that the privilege in [section] 63-6-219(e) applies only to peer review proceedings regarding a physician’s professional conduct, competence, and ability to practice medicine.” The majority determines “that some, but not all, of the functions of the Quality Review Committee [at Cleveland Community Hospital] were peer review proceedings involving the professional conduct, competence, and ability to practice medicine of the physicians on the hospital’s medical staff.”

Kimberly Powell v. Community Health Systems, Inc. et al.
E2008-00535-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Jerri S. Bryant

This appeal involves the evidentiary privilege in the Tennessee Peer Review Law of 1967 [Tenn. Code Ann. _ 63-6-219 (Supp. 2009)]. A former hospital employee filed suit in the Chancery Court for Bradley County against the hospital and an orthopaedic surgeon on the hospital's medical staff. During discovery, the former employee sought to depose the hospital's infection control director regarding the details of an investigation into post-operative nosocomial infections and her knowledge of whether the defendant surgeon had tested positive for infectious diseases. The hospital moved for a protective order on the ground that the requested information was privileged under Tenn. Code Ann. _ 63-6-219(e). The trial court declined to issue a protective order after determining that the information sought by the former employee was not privileged because it had been created in the regular course of the hospital's business and because the infection control director was the "original source" of the information. After granting the hospital an interlocutory appeal, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. Powell v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No.E2008-00535-COA-R9-CV, 2009 WL 17850 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 2, 2009). We granted the hospital's Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application for permission to appeal. We have determined that records received or made in the ordinary course of a hospital's business apart from the operation of a peer review committee are not protected by the peer review privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. _ 63-6-219. We have also determined that documents prepared by or at the request of a peer review committee exercising its peer review function and documents prepared by third parties as part of the work of a peer review committee performing its peer review function are privileged. Finally, we have determined that the hospital did not waive its right to invoke the privilege in Tenn. Code Ann. _ 63-6-219(e) with regard to the work performed by its infection control director in the context of a peer review proceeding.

Judy K. Flake v. Samuel Guy Flake
W2010-00165-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor William C. Cole

This is an appeal from the trial court's order on Appellant/Husband's Petition for Release of Funds. After the trial court entered a Final Decree in this divorce action, the Appellant filed a petition for the release of his portion of the funds received from the sale of the marital home, which are currently being held by the clerk of the trial court. After a hearing, the trial court ordered that only part of the money may be released. The trial court ordered that the remainder be held until the conclusion of a separate tort action filed by persons not parties to the divorce action, in which Appellant was named as a defendant. Finding that no final judgment exists in this action, this Court dismisses the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

State of Tennessee v. Lawrence Hailey
W2009-00759-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Camille R. Mcmullen
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris B. Craft

Defendant-Appellant, Lawrence Hailey, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of one count of robbery, a Class C felony. He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to serve nine years and six months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, Hailey argues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, and (2) his sentence is excessive. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Kevin McDougle
W2007-01877-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Mark Ward

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Kevin McDougle, was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and one count of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, in case no. 06-04209. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to twelve years for each aggravated robbery conviction and six years for his aggravated assault conviction. Defendant was convicted in case no. 07-01739 of the offense of unlawful possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant to two years for this conviction. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve all of his sentences consecutively for an effective sentence of thirty-two years. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever; (2) the trial court erred in providing a jury instruction on flight; (3) the imposition of consecutive sentencing violates his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury; and (4) the trial court erred in finding that Defendant was a dangerous offender for consecutive sentencing purposes. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Maurice Darnell Tyler v. State of Tennessee
M2008-02199-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

Petitioner, Maurice Darnell Tyler, was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and received a total effective sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Subsequently, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and Petitioner now appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Bailey Tool & Manufacturing Co. v. Forrest Butler et al.
M2009-00685-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Carol L. McCoy

This is a dispute between two companies that supply parts in the automotive industry. Company A claims that Company B tortiously interfered with its contract and with its business relationships. The trial court granted summary judgment on the grounds that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to causation and that Company B conclusively established the affirmative defense of justification. We affirm the decision of the trial court because Company B negated the element of causation.

Travis Jay Lester v. State of Tennessee
M2009-00523-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane Wheatcraft

The Petitioner, Travis Jay Lester, pled guilty in the Wilson County Criminal Court to introduction of contraband into a penal facility, resisting arrest, and two counts of assault. He received a total effective sentence of four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner now appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

State of Tennessee v. William Ladonte Davis
M2009-00138-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert Crigler, Judge

The appellant, William Ladonte Davis, pled guilty to possession of .5 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine with the intent to sell and conspiracy to sell cocaine, receiving sentences of eleven years and five years, respectively. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing, specifically contending that he should have been sentenced to probation or community corrections. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Ronald Lee Stewart
M2008-00337-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert Crigler

A Marshall County Circuit Court Jury found the appellant, Ronald Lee Stewart, guilty of aggravated burglary, theft, and vandalism. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range III persistent offender to a total effective sentence of thirteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant argues that his convictions "violate[] the Sixth Amendment because of juror fatigue" and that the trial court erroneously found him to be a persistent offender. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Sidney Leonard Pigg, III
M2009-01339-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert Crigler, Judge

The Defendant, Sidney Leonard Pigg, III, was convicted by a Marshall County jury of Class D felony theft of property. See Tenn. Code Ann. _ 39-14-103. The trial court imposed a three-year sentence for this conviction, which was to be suspended following service of sixty days. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Lucy M. Ray v. Swanson Realty, LLC, et al.
M2009-01469-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Royce Taylor

The plaintiff home builder filed a complaint for breach of contract against a woman who refused to close on the sale of a home she had contracted to purchase. When the defendant failed to timely respond, the plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment and served the motion on the defendant by mailing a copy to her. She did not open the envelope, but wrote "return to sender" on it, and placed it back into the mail. The trial court granted the plaintiff a default judgment. The defendant subsequently filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, which the trial court denied. The defendant argues on appeal that she did not receive actual notice of the motion for default judgment, and that the trial court should have granted her motion to set it aside amend because of "mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect." We affirm the trial court.