State vs. Arnold Potter
03C01-9810-CC-00347

Billy Joe Sisk vs. State
03C01-9807-CC-00256
Trial Court Judge: Ben W. Hooper, II

State vs. Timothy Wayne Tipton
03C01-9805-CR-00189
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Baumgartner

State vs. Jerry Pendergrass, et al
03C01-9810-CR-00371
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer

State vs. Donald Schweitzer
03C01-9808-CR-00299

Darrell Lamar Fritts vs. State
03C01-9803-CR-00116
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer

David McNish vs. State
03C01-9712-CR-00550

Gayle Penley vs. Honda Motor
02A01-9805-CV-00131
Trial Court Judge: Whit A. Lafon

White's Electric vs. Lewis Constr.
02A01-9803-CH-00064
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris

Sylvia Miller vs. City of Lafollette
03A01-9809-CV-00290

Mid-South Builders vs. Delores Williams
02A01-9805-CH-00126
Trial Court Judge: C. Neal Small

State vs. Kevin Halter
02C01-9809-CC-00266

State vs. Glenn Lucas
02C01-9801-CR-00005
Trial Court Judge: Chris B. Craft

Melvin Glover vs. Todd Kaplan
02A01-9808-CV-00228
Trial Court Judge: Karen R. Williams

State vs. Andrew Lee Moats
03C01-9805-CR-00184
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins

State vs. Jermaine Hurst
03C01-9804-CR-00127
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Baumgartner

State vs. Steve Hill
03C01-9806-CR-00196

Alonzo C. Williams vs. State
03C01-9806-CR-00203
Trial Court Judge: Mary Beth Leibowitz

Clarice Talley v. Sumner County, Tennessee
01S01-9807-CH-00143
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Hon. J.O. Bond

David Aaron Goodman v. Halle Lynn Hirsh Goodman
02A01-9809-CV-00255
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kay S. Robilio

David Aaron Goodman (“Husband” or “Appellant”) appeals the judgment of the trial court which awarded a divorce to Halle Lynn Goodman (“Wife” or “Appellee”), found Wife to be incapable of being rehabilitated and ordered Husband to pay the sum of $2,200.00 per month to Wife as alimony in futuro, and the sum of $16,961.25 as alimony in solido for Wife’s attorney fees, and further ordered Husband to pay credit card debt in the amount of $22,000.00 incurred by Wife after separation.

State of Tennessee vs. Travis E. Sharpe
03C01-9808-CR-00290
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge James E. Beckner

The defendant, Travis E. Sharpe, appeals as of right from the judgment of the Hamblen County Criminal Court. The defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and was sentenced to eight years as a Range I standard offender, with a release eligibility date of thirty percent. The defendant appeals the trial court’s sentencing decision, arguing the trial court erred in not sentencing him as an especially mitigated offender pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-109 (1997). Based upon our review of this matter, we affirm the sentencing decision of the court below.

State of Tennessee vs. Paul Swanson
03C01-9711-CC-00501
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ben W. Hooper, II

The appellant, Paul J. Swanson, appeals the sentencing decision of the Grainger County Criminal Court following his guilty pleas to three counts of attempted aggravated sexual battery, class C felonies. Pursuant to the terms of the negotiated plea agreement, the appellant agreed to an effective six year sentence. The agreement further provided that the manner of service of the sentences was to be submitted to the trial court for determination. The trial court ordered total confinement. The appellant appeals this decision contending that the trial court erred in failing to grant alternative sentences and in failing to credit the appellant with time spent in a residential sexual offender treatment center prior to entry of his guilty pleas.

C. Douglas Gibson v. Morristown Drivers
03S01-9806-CV-00064
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ben K. Wexler,
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 employee, C. Douglas Gibson, has appealed from the action of the trial court in dismissing his claim for permanent disability benefits. The sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence preponderates against the conclusion of the trial court. Plaintiff was 47 years of age and had completed the 9th grade. He was employed by defendant, William Gibson, as a truck driver. On August 9, 1995, he fell while descending from his truck. He testified he felt immediate pain in his low back and felt it resulted more from the twisting movement of his body rather than the impact with the ground. He reported the incident to his employer, saw a doctor shortly thereafter and was eventually seen by several doctors between the date of the accident and the trial during September 1997. Plaintiff's wife and daughter testified as to his physical limitations since the incident and the record indicates plaintiff never returned to work for defendant. Dr. Christopher R. Morris, a physician specializing in internal medicine and rheumatology, first saw plaintiff on October 24, 1995 and found some tenderness in his back muscles but thought he had a good range of motion. He saw him on several occasions and testified by deposition stating that all studies (x-ray and C.T. Scan) were normal. He felt his back pain was of a chronic nature and opined he had some permanent impairment but did not have an opinion as to any percentage of impairment. Dr. John M. Marshall, a physical medicine and rehabilitation doctor, first saw plaintiff on December 6, 1995 upon referral by Dr. Morris. He testified by deposition and stated there were no positive findings from his examination and the various studies performed. He was of the opinion he probably had a strain which would eventually clear up. He could not relate any of his symptoms to the incident at work and stated there was no permanent impairment. 2

Linda Gray v. Tn Restaurant Assoc.
03S01-9807-CH-00075
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Teleford E. Forgety,
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. Plaintiff, Linda Gray, has appealed from the action of the trial court in dismissing her claim by sustaining a motion for summary judgment filed by defendants. The complaint alleges plaintiff was injured on June 26, 1995, while on the business of her employer, when she was severely burned by hot coffee and that the burn caused permanent physical injury and psychological injury. The summary judgment record consists of the plaintiff's deposition, numerous expert medical depositions of doctors seeing plaintiff both before and after the event in question, and other records. Plaintiff's deposition states that on June 26, 1995, while at her business office, she realized she had left a map at home which she needed to assist her in obtaining a city permit to build a gazebo for weddings; that while she was in route to obtain the map, she stopped at a McDonald's restaurant to purchase coffee; that she remembered getting the coffee and putting it in a coffee holder in her car and then "going back to the road and making a right turn on the main road to Pigeon Forge and then I started feeling sick and I pulled over and that's all I remember until I get to Vickie's office." She stated she had not worked since being injured and that she is not able to work. The record indicates there was no eyewitness to the event and she had been treated for epileptic-like seizures and psychological difficulties prior to the time in question and she continues to experience such problems. Plaintiff contends there is medical evidence in the record indicating she spilled the coffee on herself and then blacked out as a result of the pain produced by the coffee spill; that when the record is considered in its most favorable light to her, summary judgment should not have been granted; and that the trial court was in error in weighing evidence in order to reach its conclusion. Defendants contend she had an idiopathic seizure and then spilled the coffee as a result of the seizure; that the court acted properly in sustaining the motion as 2

Deborah Barnes v. Rittenhouse
03S01-9804-CV-00043
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Rex Henry Ogle,
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 employer, Rittenhouse, Inc., has appealed from the trial court's award of permanent disability to each arm. The award was fixed at 75% to the right arm and 6% to the left arm. The employee, Deborah Barnes, was 46 years of age and is a high school graduate. She had worked for Rittenhouse for a number of years when she began to develop numbness and tingling in her hands. She was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and had surgery on each hand. After some period of recovery, she returned to work and was working at the time of the trial. She testified that surgery helped to some extent but she was still experiencing problems especially with her right hand. She said she still had a great deal of pain, finger numbness and trouble holding objects unless she used both hands. She said she could not do much housework and that co-workers assisted her in performing work duties. She also complained that her treating doctor (Dr. Ambrosia) did not want to listen to her about what her work duties required and that he released her to return to work without notifying her about the release and that he also released her to return to work without any physical restrictions. The medical notes of Dr. John M. Ambrosia were filed in evidence. He performed the surgical procedures on each hand and gave a 4% medical impairment to each arm. His medical notes seem to support plaintiff's contention she was released to work without any restrictions on her work activity. Dr. Wayne C. Page, a family practice doctor specializing in occupational medicine, examined plaintiff. He testified by deposition and gave a diagnosis of (1) bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome with residual symptoms and (2) tendinitis, hands and wrists. He opined she had 36% impairment to her right arm and 28% impairment to the left arm. He was also of the opinion she should not do any repetitive tasks with her hands and imposed restrictions of lifting, etc. 2