Virginia Mcconnell v. The Travelers Insurance Co.
02S01-9810-CH-00098
Authoring Judge: F. Lloyd Tatum, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Charles Mcpherson
This workers' compensation appeal was referred to the Special W orkers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e)(3) (Supp. 1998) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. This case arises from a back injury that plaintiff sustained on the job. The court found that plaintiff made a meaningful return to work and gave her the maximum award of six (6) times the anatomical rating (6 percent vocational disability to the body as a whole) pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(b), rather than limiting the award to the two and one-half (2_) times cap found in _ 5-6-241(a). The defendant appealed to this Court on three issues: (1) whether the evidence presented at trial preponderates against the trial court's finding that Anderson Hickey did not return the plaintiff to her employment at wage equal to or greater than the wage plaintiff was receiving at the time of the injury as required by Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(b); (2) whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that plaintiff sustained a 6 percent vocational impairment rating; and (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6- 241(c) when awarding plaintiff a vocational impairment rating of six (6) times the anatomical rating? We find that plaintiff's award is not limited by the two and one-half (2_) times cap found in Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(a); however, plaintiff's award is reduced to four (4) times the medical impairment rating pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(b) and (c). We, therefore, modify and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Our standard of review on appeal in workers' compensation cases is de novo on the record with a presumption of correctness of the trial court's findings, unless the evidence presented preponderates otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2) (Supp. 1998); Henson v. City of Lawrenceburg, 851 S.W.2d 89, 812 (Tenn. 1993). Under this standard of review, we are required to conduct an in-depth examination of the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

McKinley Brown vs. TN Dept. of Correction, et al
M1999-02519-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This appeal involves a dispute between an inmate and the Department of Correction regarding the Department's calculation of the inmate's sentence reduction credits. The inmate claims that when the Class X Felony Act was repealed in 1989, prior sentence reduction credit schemes were revived, and he became retroactively eligible for those credits. The inmate appeals the dismissal of his complaint seeking declaratory relief and damages. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of his case.

State vs. George Pilkinton
01C01-9809-CC-00368
Trial Court Judge: Judy G. Callahan

State vs. Marshall Simon
02C01-9902-CC-00069

State vs. Jimmy Matlock
02C01-9902-CC-00079
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood

State vs. Michael A. Braswell
01C01-9807-CC-00304
Trial Court Judge: Henry Denmark Bell

Cyrus Wilson vs. State
01C01-9811-CR-00448
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman

State vs. Carlos Porto-Saes
02C01-9901-CR-00030
Trial Court Judge: Arthur T. Bennett

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins

State vs. Steven Deadrick
03C01-9806-CR-00219

State vs. Ricky Aaron
M2002-02288-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
On October 28, 1999, the defendant, Ricky Grover Aaron, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor and especially aggravated kidnapping. Following a jury trial in June of 2001, the defendant was convicted of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor and false imprisonment. The trial court sentenced the defendant to eleven years for especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor and eleven months, twenty-nine days for false imprisonment. The sentences were to run concurrently to each other and consecutively to a federal sentence the defendant was serving at the time of trial. The defendant argues eight issues on appeal:(1) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss due to unnecessary delay; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's pretrial motion to suppress his alleged admissions to police because the defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation without having been given Miranda warnings; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress a handgun seized by police from his vehicle; (4) whether the evidence in the record is sufficient to support a finding by a rational trier of fact that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor and false imprisonment; (5) whether the trial court erred in admitting alleged hearsay testimony related to the alleged victim's mother's response to her daughter's characterization of the defendant as a "pervert"; (6) whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence that another person had been convicted of a sexual offense involving the alleged victim in an unrelated case; (7) whether the trial court erred in failing to declare a mistrial when the prosecutor, in direct violation of the trial court's pretrial ruling, elicited testimony from a police detective that the defendant admitted having child pornography on his computer; and (8) whether the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence for the defendant's conviction for especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, and did the court further err in ordering that the sentences in this case be served consecutively to the defendant's federal sentence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State vs. Joyce Lindsey
02C01-9804-CR-00110
Trial Court Judge: James C. Beasley, Jr.

State vs. Fred Smith
02C01-9906-CC-00185
Trial Court Judge: R. Lee Moore Jr.

Dwayne Gentry vs. State
01C01-9904-CC-00117

Daniel Benson Taylor vs. State
01C01-9904-CC-00132
Trial Court Judge: Jerry L. Smith

State vs. Derrick Jenkins
01C01-9811-CC-00467
Trial Court Judge: John H. Gasaway, III

State vs. Wanda E. Davis
01C01-9811-CR-00446

Clinard vs. Blackwood
01A01-9801-CV-00029
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

Allstate Ins. Co. vs. Lavin
01a01-9810-CH-00552
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

Calabro vs. Calabro
01A01-9902-CH-00116
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

Foley vs. Foley
01A01-9903-CH-00187
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman

Catignani vs. Catignani
01A01-9806-CV-00269

Bradley vs. Bradley
01A01-9806-CV-00317
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall

Mason vs. Capitol Records, Inc.
01A01-9807-CH-00389
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

L.M. Berry & Co. vs. Huddleston
01A01-9809-CH-00487
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.