Thomas v. White
01A01-9610-CH-00479
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

American Color vs. Innovo
01A01-9703-CH-00120
Trial Court Judge: Alex W. Darnell

Jones vs. Rudolph
01A01-9611-CH-00513
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

American Color vs. Innovo
01A01-9703-CH-00120
Trial Court Judge: William C. Koch

Gary Mayes vs. State
01C01-9704-CR-00137
Trial Court Judge: Thomas T. Woodall

Wolf vs. The University of TN.
01A01-9611-CH-00514
Trial Court Judge: William M. Dender

Fetterolf vs. Fetterolf
01A01-9704-JV-00171
Trial Court Judge: John P. Hudson

State of Tennessee Department of Human Services, v. Sylvia Fetterolf Ford, and Stanley Fetterolf
01A01-9704-JV-00171
Authoring Judge: Judge Walter W. Bussart
Trial Court Judge: Judge John Hudson

This is an appeal by respondents/appellants, Stanley Fetterolf and Sylvia Fetterolf Ford, from a decision of the Putnam County Juvenile Court terminating their parental rights. Ms. Ford argues petitioner/appellee, State of Tennessee Department of Human Services (“Department”), filed its petition for termination of parental rights in the wrong court and contends the proper venue was the Overton County Juvenile Court which had handled the initial custody proceedings.1 The pertinent facts are as follows.

Nelson vs. The Application Group
01A01-9703-CV-00137

Nelson vs. The Application Group
01A01-9703-CV-00137
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

Willie M. Nutt v. Angelica Uniform Group
01S01-9609-CH-00195
Authoring Judge: W. Michael Maloan, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. William B. Cain
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 plaintiff, Willie M. Nutt, appeals the judgment of the trial court in dismissing her complaint as being barred by the statute of limitations. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Willie M. Nutt worked for the defendant, Angelica Uniform Group, from 1982 to 1989 when she quit due to pain in her shoulders and back. She then worked for Tennessee River for several months, but again had to quit due to the physical inability to do her job. In November 1989, she was advised by Dr. Howard Fuchs that her shoulder problems were work- related. With the encouragement of the plant manager, and the assurance of light duty, Ms. Nutt returned to work for Angelica Uniform in July, 199. She was able to handle small parts for a few days, but her shoulder symptoms returned when she was assigned to heavier work. She was terminated because she was unable to perform her job. Plaintiff filed suit on January 28, 1991, and alleged on or about July 31, 199, she became aware she had suffered an injury to her shoulders. The defendant answered and pled the statute of limitations as a defense. After a trial on October 2, 1994, the trial court took the matter under advisement and entered judgment on December 16, 1994, dismissing plaintiff's cause of action. The trial court found: The shoulder problems suffered by Ms. Nutt, however, were long standing problems and were not caused by a work-related injury during her brief period of employment at Angelica's plant in July of 199. The Court further finds that Ms. Nutt was aware of her shoulder problems and aware that those shoulder problems were work related several years before the complaint in this action filed. The statute of limitations applicable to her claims, therefore, expired prior to the filing of this action on January 28, 1991, and Ms. Nutt's action was untimely and barred by the statute of limitations. The scope of review of issues of fact is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of evidence is otherwise. Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Lollar v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 767 S.W.2d 143 (Tenn. 1989). When a trial court has seen and heard witnesses, especially where issues of credibility and weight of oral testimony are involved, considerable deference 2

State vs. Nassel Brown
02C01-9606-CR-00187
Trial Court Judge: Bernie Weinman

State vs. Clifton Epps
02C01-9601-CR-00022

Stat e vs. Michael Moore
02C01-9705-CR-00180
Trial Court Judge: Bernie Weinman

State vs. David Hassell
02C01-9611-CR-00396
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

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

Jewell Maness vs. Estate of Acie Maness
02A01-9611-CH-00270
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris

Raymond Morris vs. Voil Morris
02A01-9610-CH-00236
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis

Lasalle Dudley vs. Raye Dudley
02A01-9705-CH-00104

State vs. Michael Walton
01C01-9509-CR-00290
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman

Terry Phelps vs. State
01C01-9610-CC-00451
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee

Shirley Shelburne v. Frontier Health
E2000-02551-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.
Plaintiff, both individually and as next friend of her minor son, brought suit against Carter County, Frontier Health, and Woodridge Hospital for the wrongful death of her husband. The trial court granted summary judgment to Frontier and Woodridge. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Frontier and Woodridge could not be held vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of their employee because he was entitled to immunity as a state employee. We granted review to determine whether summary judgment was properly granted in light of our decision in Johnson v. LeBonheur Children's Medical Center, 74 S.W.3d 338 (Tenn. 2002). We hold that Johnson governs the present case and that Frontier and Woodridge are not immune from liability for the acts or omissions of their immune employee. Accordingly, summary judgment was not appropriate.

Margaret Williamson v. Clarksville Memorial Hospital
01S01-9703-CV-00066
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. James E. Walton,
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 judge found that the plaintiff had a 1 percent anatomical impairment which, extrapolated by the multiplier of 2.5, resulted in a permanent partial disability of 25 percent and awarded benefits accordingly. The employer appeals, insisting that there is no basis for a finding of an anatomical impairment of 1 percent.1 The thrust of the Hospital's argument is directed to the alleged discrediting of Dr. Fishbein's testimony by the Chancellor.2 It is conceded that the plaintiff, a nurse, sustained a neck and shoulder injury on July 8, 1993 while lifting a patient at the defendant Hospital. She was initially seen by Dr. Douglas Porter, an orthopedist of Clarksville, who referred her to Dr. G. B. Lanford, a neurosurgeon, whom we assume practices in Nashville.3 Dr. Lanford testified that the plaintiff had some disc bulging and spondylosis, but no nerve root compression and no operative problems. Because of continuing arm and back pain Dr. Lanford assessed her anatomical impairment at 5 percent. Dr. Richard E. Fishbein, orthopedist, practicing in Antioch, testified that at the request of plaintiff's counsel he examined the plaintiff on July 7, 1994. Before that time he had been furnished with copies of Dr. Porter's and Dr. Lanford's evaluations, and had reviewed the x-ray and myelogram reports. He referred to Dr. Porter's report that the plaintiff had suffered an acute herniation of a disc; he found exquisite tenderness over the para cervical muscles, weakness of grip strength, "and basically I noted that she had a herniated disc as noted, and that her history and physical findings were consistent with it." Dr. Fishbein opined that she had a 1 The record consists only of the depositions of Dr. Lanford and Dr. Fishbein, and the memorandum of the Chancellor. 2 As observed by a different Panel on another occasion, the plaintiff, in this Montgomery County case, travelled a long distance in employing Dr. Fishbein, overlooking many dozens of orthopedic specialists in the process. 3 Neither his deposition nor his CV reveal this information.