Jill Michelle Kaufmann Rabuck v. Robert Lewis Rabuck
E2000-0474-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Frank V. Williams, III

State vs. Scott
M1997-00088-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Cheryl A. Blackburn
The appellant in this case was arrested and charged with the rape and aggravated sexual battery of a nine-year-old child in Davidson County. Prior to trial, the State conducted various types of DNA analysis on several pieces of evidence, and the appellant, who is indigent, requested state-funded expert assistance in the field of DNA analysis to prepare his defense. The trial court denied the appellant's motion for expert assistance and declined to hold a hearing to establish the reliability of mitochondrial DNA analysis. The trial court also held that the State properly established the chain of custody for certain hairs removed from the victim during her physical examination. The appellant was found guilty by a jury on both charges, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. On appeal to this Court, we address the following issues: (1) whether the appellant was entitled to expert assistance in the field of DNA analysis under State v. Barnett, 909 S.W.2d 423 (Tenn. 1995) and Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 13; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to hold a pre-trial hearing on the reliability of mitochondrial DNA analysis; and (3) whether the State's failure to establish a chain of custody as to certain hairs retrieved from the victim was error. For the reasons given herein, we hold that although the appellant was not entitled to a pre-trial hearing on the reliability of mitochondrial DNA analysis, he was entitled to receive expert assistance in the field of DNA analysis. We also hold that the State failed to properly establish the chain of custody of the hair samples. We reverse the appellant's convictions and sentences, and we remand this case to the Davidson County Criminal Court for a new trial on both counts of the indictment.

Bryant vs. Genco Stamping & Mfg. Co., Inc.
M1999-01762-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull
The sole issue in this case is whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-208(a) applies to a pre-existing permanent mental disability. The employee suffered a work-related shoulder injury, treatment for which resulted in aggravation of a pre-existing mental disorder. The trial court concluded that the previous mental disability is included within the purview of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-208(a). The court thereby found both the employer and the Second Injury Fund liable for disability benefits. On appeal, the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel reversed the trial court's apportionment of liability to the Second Injury Fund, holding that section -208(a) does not contemplate pre-existing mental disorders. We affirm the judgment of the Special Appeals Panel and find the employer liable for the full amount of benefits due the employee.

State vs. Carruthers and Montgomery
W1997-00097-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

State vs. Carruthers and Montgomery
W1997-00097-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

Harold W. Ferrell, Sr v. CIGNA Property & Casualty Insurance CO., et al.
M1999-01669-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Clerk and Master Richard McGregor

This workers' compensation case presents two issues for review concerning the merits of the employee's claim for benefits. The first is whether this action is barred by the statute of limitations. The second is whether the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the employee's injury was work-related. The trial court ruled that the statute of limitations had expired, and it also addressed the merits and found that the employee failed to prove that his injury was work-related. We hold that the statute of limitations had not expired, and we further hold that the trial court's dismissal of the employee's claim should be affirmed on the merits because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's finding that the employee's injury was not work-related. In addition to the merits of this suit, we also granted review to determine the legality of the trial court's practice of referring workers' compensation cases to a clerk and master for trial. We hold that the proper procedure for appointing a special/substitute judge was not followed; however, reversal is not required because the Clerk and Master was acting as a de facto judge.

Local Union 760 of the IBEW, et al v. City of Harriman and Harriman Utility Board
E2000-00367-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Frank V. Williams, III

This appeal from the Roane County Chancery Court concerns whether the Chancery Court erred in determining that a collective bargaining agreement entered into between Appellant, Local Union 760 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Appellees, the City of Harriman and the Harriman Utility Board, is null and void. We affirm the decision of the Chancery Court and remand for further proceedings, if any, consistent with this opinion. We adjudge costs of the appeal against the Appellants.

Gerald M. Reed v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company,
W1999-00184-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: George R. Ellis, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: W. Michael Maloan, Chancellor
This case involves injuries sustained to the neck and body as a whole by Gerald Reed on August 8, 1994 while in the employ of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. The employee brought suit against the employer and its insurer, The Travelers Insurance Company. The trial court determined that Mr. Reed sustained a compensable work injury and awarded permanent partial disability in the amount of 15% to the body as a whole. The defendant presented one issue on appeal: whether the plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his injuries were sustained during the course and scope of his employment. After careful review, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

State Automobile Mutual Ins. Co. v. Natalie Hurley
W1999-01765-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: W. Michael William Michael Maloan, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: John R. Mccarroll, Jr., Judge
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 plaintiff, State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company (State Auto), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Shelby County which ordered State Auto to pay to the defendant, Natalie Hurley (Hurley), $28,873.91 being the total of her medical bills. For the reasons stated in the opinion, we find the trial court erred and reverse the judgment of the trial court.

In re: Stephanie Ann Linville, a Minor
M2000-01097-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ben Hall McFarlin, Jr.

This appeal arises from the trial court's grant of an award of child support to the appellee, the child's paternal grandmother and legal custodian, from the child's mother. For reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Jesse C. Goodman, Jr.
M1999-02132-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter

The defendant, Jesse C. Goodman, Jr., was convicted by a Hickman County jury of one count of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, three counts of reckless endangerment, a Class E felony, and one count of assault, a Class A misdemeanor. All counts arose out of a single incident of domestic violence, with ramifications that included a four-hour standoff between the defendant and five law enforcement officers. The defendant was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to nine years for aggravated assault; two years for each of the reckless endangerment convictions; and eleven months and twenty-nine days for assault. The sentences for aggravated assault and reckless endangerment were ordered to be served consecutively, and the misdemeanor conviction was ordered to be served concurrently as to the other sentences, for an effective sentence of fifteen years in confinement. In this appeal as of right, the defendant presents two issues: (1) Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict him of either aggravated assault or assault; and (2) Whether the sentences were appropriate, both as to length of the aggravated assault sentence and the consecutive manner of service of the aggravated assault sentence and the reckless endangerment sentences. We conclude that the convicting evidence was sufficient, both as to the aggravated assault charge and the assault charge. We further conclude that the nine-year sentence for aggravated assault was appropriate, as was the consecutive manner of service of the sentences for aggravated assault and reckless endangerment. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Robert Lafferty, et al., v. City of Winchester, et al.
M1997-00224-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Curtis Smith

This appeal involves a dispute between the owners of a bed and breakfast and the City of Winchester regarding a proposed expansion of the business's bar and banquet facilities. When the city's Board of Zoning Appeals declined to approve the expansion, the owners of the bed and breakfast filed a petition for a common-law writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court for Franklin County challenging the Board's decision. After reviewing the record of the proceedings before the Board, the trial court determined that the Board acted within its discretion when it declined to approve the proposed expansion of the bed and breakfast. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Harry Barnett and Elizabeth Barnett, vs. Gary L. Lane and Donna L. Lane
E2000-00967-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor John F. Weaver

Plaintiffs, purchasers of house from defendants, were awarded damages for defects in house not revealed by defendants. Plaintiffs appeal, asking punitive damages and an increase in compensatory damages. We affirm.

Harry Fletcher, et al., v. Anthony Edwin Bickford, et al.
E2000-01020-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Neil Thomas, III

Plaintiff's car was caught between the minivan in front of him and the dump truck behind him when the minivan and Plaintiff's car stopped to avoid an obstruction in the roadway. The dump truck was unable to stop and hit Plaintiff's car. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff for $225,000. The jury allocated 80 percent of the fault against the dump truck driver and owner and 20 percent of the fault against Plaintiff's uninsured motorist insurance carrier on behalf of the unknown driver of a truck which dropped the obstruction onto the road. The dump truck driver and owner appeal, raising issues of law including the introduction of claimed inadmissible evidence, prejudicial final argument, improper and incomplete jury instructions, jury misconduct and the failure of the Trial Court to grant Defendants' motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

Debra Michelle Lambert v. Famous Hospitality, Inc. A/K/A A.S. Hospitality A/K/A M W M Dexter, Inc. and American Motorist Insurance Company
02S01-9511-CV-00112
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Wyeth Chandler

In this workers’ compensation action, the employer, Famous Hospitality, Inc., defendant-appellant, has appealed from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Shelby County finding that the employee, Debra Lambert, plaintiff-appellee, sustained a 60 percent permanent impairment to the whole body due to a workrelated shoulder injury. The trial court also directed the employer to pay various medical and litigation related expenses incurred by the employee, but did not require the employer to pay for future medical treatment by doctors that had been selected by the employee and who had treated her before trial. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel, upon reference for findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(5), affirmed the trial court. Thereafter, the employer filed a motion for full Court review of the Panel’s decision pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §50-6-225(e)(5)(B). We granted the motion to determine whether the employee should have been authorized to seek future medical treatment, at the employer’s expense, from doctors selected by her who had treated her injuries. After carefully examining the record before us and considering the relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment except to the extent that the judgment does not authorize future medical treatment by the employee’s treating physicians at the employer’s expense.

State of Tennessee v. Eddie Arcaro Williams
01S01-9503-CR-00033
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ann Lacy Johns

We granted the State's appeal to consider whether the defendant's federal or state constitutional right of confrontation was violated by the admission into evidence of surveillance photographs taken at the scene of the robbery. The Court of Criminal Appeals decided that the defendant's constitutional right of confrontation was violated and that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, they reversed the trial court's judgment of conviction.

Lenore Berry Ross Storey, Debtor v. Bradford Furniture Company, Inc.
93-08973-KL3-7
Authoring Judge: Justice Penny J. White
Trial Court Judge: Judge Keith N. Lundin

QUESTION CERTIFIED Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Tennessee Supreme Court Rules,1 we have accepted a question certified to us by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The bankruptcy court has asked: Which of the following is the correct interpretation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-111(1)(E): (1) Once asserted in any judicial proceeding, the exemption in alimony described in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-111(1)(E) is effective with respect to all subsequent executions, seizures or attachments of alimony; or (2) The exemption in alimony described in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-111(1)(E) is effective only if claimed in each judicial proceeding in which execution, seizure or attachment of alimony is sought. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the alimony exemption set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated Section 26-2-111(1)(E) is effective only if claimed in each judicial proceeding in which execution, seizure, or attachment of alimony is sought.

Jack and Nancy Ritter, Thomas H. and Debra Kitts, and Fred A. and Donna J. Sykes v. Custom Chemicides, Inc.
01S01-9408-OT-00092
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge Harry W. Welford

The Court has accepted for decision two questions of law certified by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, pursuant to Rule 23, Supreme Court Rules, which questions are as follows:

( l ) Whether the tort of negligent misrepresentation applies only to professinals and others who  specialize in providing information as a service; and not to commercial entities or businesses which allegedly supply misleading information for the guidance of others in their business transactions; and

(2) Whether a party alleging negligent misrepresentation, in order to recover 'economic losses," must be in privity of contract with the defendant. The decision of the Court is that liability for the tort of  negligent misrepresentation is not limited to 'professionals'; however, the record in this case does not establish the essentials of that cause of action.

Linda Bogle v. Toshiba America Consumer Products, Inc.
M2000-00247-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John A. Turnbull, Sp.J.
Trial Court Judge: Hon. James O. Bond, Judge
In this case, the defendant-employer contends (1) that the evidence does not support the trial court's finding that the plaintiff-employee's closed head injury and herniated cervical disc arose out of and in the course of her employment with the defendant, (2) that the trial court erred in determining the plaintiff's permanent partial impairment of 52.5%, and (3) that the trial court erred in determining that the defendant is entitled to an offset for the net short-term disability benefits provided to the plaintiff rather than for the gross amount that was paid by the provider. As discussed below, the Panel concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in all respects.

Harold W. Ferrell, Jr. v. Apac-Tennessee, Inc. and Cigna Property & Casualty Insurance Co.
M1999-02260- WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John A. Turnbull, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: J. Richard McGregor, Special Judge
The employer contends the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff suffered a vocational disability of 12% to the body as a whole from his back injury, and an additional 15% to the left arm from his wrist injury which occurred two months later. As discussed below, the panel concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The panel further concludes that the appeal was frivolous or for the purpose of delay and remands the case to the trial court for imposition of appropriate penalty.

Harold W. Ferrell, Jr. v. Apac-Tennessee, Inc. and Cigna Property & Casualty Insurance Co.
M2000-00223- WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John A. Turnbull, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: J. Richard McGregor, Special Judge
The employer contends this claim for work related hearing loss is time barred by notice and statute of limitations provisions, and that the award is excessive. We conclude that notice was timely given, suit was timely filed, and the award is supported by the evidence.

Linda Bogle v. Toshiba America Consumer Products, Inc.
M2000-00247-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John A. Turnbull, Sp.J.
Trial Court Judge: Hon. James O. Bond, Judge
In this case, the defendant-employer contends (1) that the evidence does not support the trial court's finding that the plaintiff-employee's closed head injury and herniated cervical disc arose out of and in the course of her employment with the defendant, (2) that the trial court erred in determining the plaintiff's permanent partial impairment of 52.5%, and (3) that the trial court erred in determining that the defendant is entitled to an offset for the net short-term disability benefits provided to the plaintiff rather than for the gross amount that was paid by the provider. As discussed below, the Panel concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in all respects.

Debra Ward v. Kantus Corporation
M1999-01718-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Weatherford, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Lee Russell, Judge
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The defendant, Kantus Corporation, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court for Marshall County, where the trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits of $32,879.6, representing a permanent partial disability of thirty-two and one-half percent (32.5%) to the body as a whole, and representing two and one-half times the plaintiffs impairment rating of thirteen percent (13%) with open future medical benefits. The trial court commuted the award to a lump sum, and taxed court costs to Kantus. The defendant submits that: (1) Ms. Ward's claim is barred by the statute of limitations; (2) she failed to give notice to her employer of her injury; (3) Ms. Ward did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course and scope of her employment; (4) the trial court's award of thirty-two and one-half (32.5%) permanent partial disability to the body as a whole was excessive and contrary to the weight of the evidence; and (5) the trial court erred in affording equal or greater weight to the opinion of the evaluating physician than that of the treating neurosurgeon in determining permanent partial impairment and disability. For the reasons stated in this opinion, We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

James R. Hyde v. All American Homes, Llc.
M2000-00899-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Howell N. Peoples, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: James E. Walton, Circuit Judge
The trial court awarded the employee thirty-five percent disability to both arms and ordered the award to be paid in a lump sum. The employer contends the award is excessive and the lump sum is not in the employee's best interest. We affirm.

George Thomas Carter v. Kenneth O. Lester Company
M2000-00651-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: C. K. Smith, Chancellor
In this appeal, the employer insists the trial court erred in accrediting the testimony of an examining physician over that of the treating physician and by exceeding the multiplier applicable in cases where the employee returns to work at the same or greater wage. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed.