Opinions

State vs. Woods
03C01-9707-CR-00287
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins

Janet Arwood Sartain, et al vs. John Ross Sartain
E1999-00556-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: T. E. Fogerty

United Steelworkers of America vs. Air Pollution Control Board
01A01-9605-CH-00235
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

State vs. Blake Hallum & Richard Halfacre
01C01-9703-CR-00083
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

State vs. Antonio J. Shelton
01C01-9707-CR-00316
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman

State vs. Allan Brooks
01C01-9510-CC-00324
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

Michael Bass vs. Jack Morgan, Warden
01C01-9802-CC-00066
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris

Becky Sanders vs. George Gray/John Curtis
02A01-9710-CV-00268
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III

State vs. William Brewer
02C01-9710-CC-00400
Trial Court Judge: J. Curwood Witt

Allen Lawrence vs. Town of Brighton
02A01-9801-CV-00020
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III

Margaret Barnes vs. Bright Glade Home
02A01-9801-CV-00011
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio

01C01-0708-CC-00376
01C01-0708-CC-00376
Trial Court Judge: Don R. Ash

Lance vs. Lance
01A01-9801-CV-00036
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall

Dwight Mayton vs State
01C01-9708-CC-00376

State vs. Steve Houston
01C01-9711-CC-00510
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Jones

Gary Green vs. State
01C01-9709-CR-00393
Trial Court Judge: Thomas H. Shriver

State vs. Katherine Warren
01C01-9710-CC-00455

Bob T. Souder v. Health Partners, Inc. - Concurring
02A01-9712-CH-00321
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Joe C. Morris

This case involves a contract arbitration clause and the Tennessee Open Meetings Act (Act). Defendant, Health Partners, Inc. (HP), appeals the Chancellor’s order denying its motion to compel arbitration and granting the Plaintiff’s, Dr. Bob T. Souder, M.D. (Souder), motion for judgment on the pleadings.

01A01-9709-CH-00557
01A01-9709-CH-00557
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

Griffin vs. Griffin
01A01-9802-CH-00084
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano

Thompson vs. Thompson
01A01-9712-CV-00695
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall

Smith vs. Kelley
01A01-9711-CH-00657
Trial Court Judge: Henry Denmark Bell

Bruce W. Link v. The Aerostructures
01S01-9710-CH-00217
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Carol L. Mccoy,
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. A finding of 12 percent disability to the plaintiff's left leg is derided by the employer who strenuously argues that the evidence strongly weighs against the judgment and that the claim for permanent, partial disability should be denied. The plaintiff is 56 years old, and is a resident of Bowling Green, Kentucky. His vocational history reveals his talents for things mechanical: mill operator, aircraft assembler, machine shop supervisor, fabricator, turbine repair, back dump operator, precision grinder. He has also worked as an insurance salesman, automobile salesman and manager of a truck stop. He is experienced in computer fundamentals, blueprint and problem solving. All of this by way of his own testimony. He alleged that he injured his left knee and hip as a result of slipping which jammed his knee into a machine. His testimony was divergent; he testified that he slipped on a "metal thing" and fell, and complained only of his left knee. The first report of work injury recites that the plaintiff reported a twinge in his left knee while stepping down from a machine on October 12, 1994. Several months earlier, in April, he complained of slipping and striking a fixture. He was treated by Dr. William Gavigan, an orthopedic specialist, who testified that x-rays of the plaintiff's knee were normal and an MRI study revealed no problems. An arthroscopic examination revealed no evidence of a 2

William Mcdowell v. Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc. and Royal Insurance Co.
02S01-9710-CV-00088
Authoring Judge: F. Lloyd Tatum, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. C. Creed Mcginley, 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 trial judge found that the plaintiff had sustained thirty percent permanent partial disability to each arm and entered judgment accordingly. The defendant employer, Henry I. Siegel Company, Inc. (HIS), and its insurance carrier, Royal Insurance Company, present issue that the thirty percent permanent partial disability to each arm is excessive and should be reduced to approximately ten percent permanent disability to each arm. It was stipulated before trial that the plaintiff had a gradually occurring injury in both arms. The only question that was presented to the trial court was the extent of the disability. The plaintiff testified that he is a high school graduate. He was 47 years of age at the time of his injury. He has worked for the defendant since May, 1967 and continues to work for the defendant as a "packer." The plaintiff testified that in October, 1994 his hands and wrists began hurting. His right hand and wrist hurt more than the left. His hands and wrists continued to hurt, but he continued to work until he had surgery on the right hand on January 9, 1995. After surgery to his right hand, his left hand and arm became much worse. Ultimately he had surgery on the left hand and arm on February 8, 1995. After the surgery on his left hand, both hands continued to pain but the left hand was much worse than the right hand. He went to see Dr. Eugene F. Gulish who performed a second surgery on the left hand on March 12, 1996. Plaintiff testified that after the repeat surgery on the left hand, it improved. However, he continued to have wrist pain and tingling running down three fingers. It was not as bad at the time of trial as before the second surgery, but at times he could not pick up a cup of coffee, open cans of Coke, or open jars. He does not have the grip strength he once had in the left hand. 2

Norma J. Baker v. Sally Beauty Supply and The Travelers Insurance Co.
02S01-9709-CH-00078
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Joe C. Morris,
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 the plaintiff had suffered a 55 percent vocational impairment to her left leg and also awarded medical expenses in the amount of $1,112., which the defendant says were unauthorized. The defendant raises the following issues: I. Whether the evidence presented at trial preponderates against the trial court's award of 55% permanent partial disability to plaintiff's left lower extremity as a result of plaintiff's work related accident? II. Whether the medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff were reasonable, necessary and causally related to an injury arising out of the course and scope of employment? We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff was injured on December 14, 1994 when a car backed into her and penned her legs between the bumpers of two cars. The plaintiff was performing duties in the course of her work for the defendant when this occurred. The plaintiff had significant injuries to her left leg. As near as we can tell from this record, the plaintiff was absent from work for a week. W hen she wished to return to work, the employer told her she would have to have a release from a physician to return. The employer had not then, nor so far as this record shows never, furnished the plaintiff with a panel of doctors for examination or treatment. The plaintiff was 53 years of age at the time of trial, has a high school education, and has nine months of beauty training. She testified that she continued to work for the defendant for one and a half years after her injury but had difficulty in doing the work because she could not stand for long periods of time and had trouble stooping and bending. We are of the opinion that the resolution of this case turns upon whether the medical evidence offered by the defendant was admissible. The defendant offered as medical proof a memorandum report by James G. Warmbrod, an orthopedic surgeon, as well as various reports from physical 2