State vs. Richard Madkins
02C01-9511-CR-00351
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

Mcdaniel v. Universal
03S01-9612-CV-00121
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior 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. T. C. A. _ 5-6-241(a)(2) authorizes the Court to "reconsider upon the filing of a new cause of action the issue of industrial disability" and enlarge a previous award in appropriate cases where the employee is no longer employed by the pre-injury employer and files a timely application for an increase in benefits. This complaint was filed September 1, 1994. The plaintiff alleged that she had suffered a job-related back injury in 1993 which was resolved under the workers' compensation law on July 18, 1994 by a judgment approving a lump-sum settlement based on a finding of 2 percent vocational disability, with the proviso that she be allowed to return to work "within her medical restrictions."1 The judgment provided for the payment of future medical expenses provided the plaintiff consulted the defendant before seeking treatment from an authorized medical provider. She further alleged that she returned to work on July 11, 1994 and on August 17, 19942 during the course of her employment she again injured her back which resulted in total disability for which she sought an enlargement of the previous award. The plaintiff's job was sedentary. It involved "putting screws in bags." Upwards of eight one-inch screws were placed in a small glassine bag, total weight less than one ounce. She testified that owing to the laziness of fellow workers she occasionally had to stretch her arms in order to reach the materials and on August 17, 1994 "pulled her back" resulting in the alleged new injury and increased disability. The defendant denied that the plaintiff was injured as alleged and asserted that her anatomical impairment was no greater than as found by the Court on July 18, 1994. The trial judge found that this was not "an appropriate case under the provisions of T. C. A. _ 5-6-241(a)(2)" and dismissed the case. The plaintiff 1These "medical restrictions" are not otherwise defined or explicated. 2Twenty-nine days after the settlement. 2

Ebasco v. Rice
03S01-9701-CH-00009
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jeffrey F. Stewart,
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 paraphrased issue in this case is whether the finding of 15% permanent partial disability is supported by a preponderance of the evidence under our standard of review as mandated by Rule 13(d), T.R.A.P. and T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). It is not disputed that the appellee suffered a job-related accidental back injury on August 12, 1993, while using a 2-pound drill with one hand because of close working quarters. Officially, he lost no time from work but was assigned to lighter duties until he was laid off in July 1994. He testified that during the year following his injury, he missed about 25-3 days because of back pain. In October 1994 he was employed by another company as a pipefitter but was laid off after only three weeks because he could not do heavy lifting. He took re-training courses in valve technology and obtained satisfactory employment not involving the lifting of heavy materials. He testified that he can no longer engage in physical activities which require heavy lifting. Dr. Herbert Dodge was his treating physician. He initially prescribed conservative treatment for a spondylolisthesis at the lowest part of the low back, with accompanying muscle spasms. He did not relate the spondylolisthesis to an injury, because it was congenital, but said the muscle spasm was caused by trauma. Dr. Dodge continued to see the appellee who complained of pain but followed instructions with respect to light work. He opined that the appellee had a three (3%) percent medical impairment to his whole body as a result of his injury. Dr. Lester Littell examined the appellee on one occasion, March 2, 1994, for the purpose of evaluation. He concurred in the diagnosis of spondylolisthesis and testified that if the condition is symptomatic, i.e., if the patient suffered a reported injury which was documented and if he complains of pain, the AMA Guidelines call for a seven (7%) percent impairment rating. 2

State vs. Dunlap
03C01-9607-CR-00251
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins

State vs. Jimmy L. McCurry
02C01-9706-CC-00201

State vs. Jerry Blaylock
02C01-9602-CC-00069
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley

Ronald Merriman v. Dekalb County Highway Dept. & Aetna Casualty Ins. Co.
01S01-9610-CH-00221
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon.

Ronald Wade Allen v. Bosch/General Electric d/b/a B.G.A.M., Inc.
01S01-9504-CH-00062
Authoring Judge: John Maddux, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Tom E. Gray,
This workers' compensation appeal from the Sumner County Chancery Court has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-225(e) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The dispositive issue before us is whether the chancellor erred in dismissing plaintiff's suit for benefits due to plaintiff's failure to provide timely notice of his injury to the employer as required by Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-21. For the reasons set forth below, We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff, Ronald Wade Allen, began working for the defendant, Bosch/General Electric, d/b/a B.G.A.M., Inc., on November 8, 199. Plaintiff claims that on December 2, 199, he was lifting a tray of motors with two other employees, Clara Branham and Marilyn Rogan, when he felt a sharp pain and burning sensation in his back. According to plaintiff, he put the motors down and told Branham and Rogan that he had hurt his back. He then left the employer's place of business and went home without telling the employer's nurse or the plaintiff's supervisors about the injury. Plaintiff testified that on the following day, December 21, 199, he told his supervisors, Donald Felts and Cornise Gillespie, about the incident lifting the motors the day before. Gillespie purportedly told plaintiff that he needed to see Jill Richardson, the company nurse. According to plaintiff, he saw Richardson who gave him ice packs for his back. Rogan, one of the employees working with plaintiff at the time he claims 2

Beard v. Quadrex
03S01-9610-CH-00109
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Frank V. Williams, III,
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. Defendants, Quadrex Corporation and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, have appealed from the trial court's award of 5% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. They contend the court was in error in fixing any disability for plaintiff's psychological injury and that the award exceeded the statutory cap of six times the medical impairment rating of 5%. Plaintiff, Timmy Ray Beard, sustained a low back injury in a work-related accident on December 13, 1993. He was 36 years of age at the time of the trial and had completed the 11th grade. He was qualified to do manual labor jobs. He returned to work during June 1994 but had to stop working because he said he was hurting so much he could not work. He has not returned to work. Plaintiff came under the care of Dr. Donald D. Dietze, a neurosurgeon, who testified by deposition. He stated the lumbosacral injury resulted in a 5% medical impairment. Plaintiff was treated with medication and therapy followed by a work- hardening program. The doctor placed certain restrictions on his lifting, standing, stooping, etc. activities. Plaintiff eventually was seen by Dr. Catherine E. Gyurik, a psychiatrist, whose testimony was presented by two depositions. The first deposition was taken on December 4, 1995 and the second deposition was recorded on June 27, 1996. Dr. Gyurik first saw plaintiff on June 12, 1995, which was about eighteen months after the accident. She told the court plaintiff had gained about fifty pounds; he was not sleeping; he was not socially active; and he was irritable and agitated. She gave a diagnosis of classical depression with moderate impairment, which meant he was greatly impaired in connection with his vocational ability. She said this would result in a 25-5 percent impairment for his psychological condition. The doctor prescribed anti-depressant medication and was of the opinion the depression was due to the physical injury he had sustained on the job. 2

Carver v. State
03C01-9703-CR-00096

State vs. Monroe Davis
02C01-9608-CR-00291
Trial Court Judge: Arthur T. Bennett

State vs. Kerwin Walton
02C01-9610-CR-00321

Adams TV of Memphis vs. Comcorp of TN, et al
02A01-9606-CH-00142
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos

Joseph Leibovich, et al vs. The Kroger Co., et al
02A01-9608-CV-00192
Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey

Decatur Co. Bank vs. Welborn Duck, et al
02A01-9603-CH-00057
Trial Court Judge: John Walton West

Sharon Rivers v. Cigna Property & Casualty Co.
02S01-9612-CV-00105
Authoring Judge: Robert A. Lanier, Circuit Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Whit S. Lafon
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The first issue presented to the Court is whether or not the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff was entitled to benefits for permanent partial disability based upon fif ty percent (5%) to the left lower extremity. It is not disputed that the claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment with the defendant on January 24, 1995, when her left foot became crushed between pieces of equipment. She did not have a fracture but had a crush injury of the soft tissue to the left foot. She was placed in a cast and given medication and recommendations for exercise and warm soaks. She eventually returned to work around March 1, 1995. She was under the treatment of the physician provided by the employer but was released to resume her work and she did resume her regular work as a stacker machine operator for approximately one year. She continued to have complaints of pain and irritation in her ankle from time to time and saw the company doctor. Some time after July 11, 1995, her supervisor told her that the employer would not be responsible for her doctor's bill for the preceding visit to the company doctor. Subsequent to that, however, she returned to see the company doctor, who saw her without expense to her. He felt that she reached maximum medical recovery on July 25, 1995 and opined that she had not suffered any permanent impairment. He concluded that she had sustained a soft tissue injury without any fracture or disarrangement of the joint. On January 17, 1996, Plaintiff's attorney referred her to a rheumatologist in Memphis without prior notice or consultation with the employer. She was subsequently seen and treated by the rheumatologist. She had been satisfied with the treatment given to her by the company doctor before her supervisor told her that his bill would not be paid. The rheumatologist has testified that the claimant suffered a fifteen percent (15%) permanent impairment to her left lower extremity. He based his opinion upon his 2

Gary Higginbotham v. Grinnell Corp.
02S01-9611-Ch-00101
Authoring Judge: Robert A. Lanier, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Joe C. Morris
This worker's compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 50-6-225 (e) (3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The first issue for this panel to decide is whether or not this action is barred by thelimitations contained within the Workers' Compensation Act, T.C.A. _ 50-6-203 and _ 50-6-224. Those sections read as follows:

Sarah Archie v. S & R of Tennessee, A/K/A Siegel
02S01-9701-CH-00006
Authoring Judge: Robert A. Lanier, Circuit Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. John Hill Chisolm,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. As stated by counsel for the appellant in oral argument, this appeal raises only one issue: Whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's award of thirty percent (3%) permanent partial disability to the left arm and fifteen percent (15%) permanent partial disability to the right arm. Plaintiff is a 46 year old woman who worked for the employer for 19 years. At the time of her injury, which is not disputed, her duties were to remove five to seven pound parts from one line, inspect them and place them on another line. She began experiencing pain in her hands and was referred by the employer to Dr. D. J. Canale, who diagnosed her condition as compatible with carpal tunnel syndrome. On July 27, 1993, he operated on her left hand, which was causing her the most problem. He allowed her to return to work on September 13, 1993. He felt that she had done well and had no permanent physical impairment. She still complained of pain on November 4, 1993. He noted that she used a drill or press at work which she had to grab with both hands and had to lift stock off of an assembly line, although she did not have to do repetitive acts with the left hand. He felt that it was possible that she had some mild arthritis. He last saw her on December 8, 1993, at which time she was apparently not without symptoms and he felt that she was developing some sort of arthritic symptoms or tendonitis. He felt that her conditions were "related to her job." He recommended that she avoid repetitive stress on the hand and wrist, specifically any job that required forceful flexion of the wrist in a repetitive fashion over a number of hours in the day, and said that she would be at risk of having additional problems if she did such motions. Claimant's attorney referred her to Dr. Robert Christopher, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist, for evaluation. He saw her on May 17, 1975. In his opinion the repetitive motion activity at work aggravated her preexisting condition of rheumatoid arthritis, resulting in the complaints of constant pain in the left hand with 2

Janice Farmer v. S&R of Tn, et al
02S01-9701-CH-00005
Authoring Judge: Robert A. Lanier, Circuit Judge
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The only issue upon this appeal is the degree of compensation to be awarded to the claimant. As a result of developing bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, the claimant was referred by her employer to Dr. William L. Bourland for treatment. Dr. Bourland performed surgery in the form of carpal tunnel releases to each hand, on April 12 and April 26, 1994, respectively. Dr. Bourland was of the opinion that she had no permanent impairment to her left hand and five percent (5%) impairment to her right hand as a result of the condition and surgery. She returned to work with the same employer at the same wage. Some fourteen months later, she was referred by her attorney to Dr. Robert Christopher of Memphis for evaluation of her continuing complaints. Dr. Christopher examined her and gave her some tests and opined that she had a ten percent (1%) impairment of each upper extremity, which, based upon his reference to the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th Ed., translated to nineteen percent (19%) of the "combined values tables," and converts to an eleven percent (11%) impairment to the body as a whole. He felt that she should avoid any kind of work that required repeated wrist bending, either flexion or extension, and felt that bending her wrists many, many times per hour would be placing her at risk for further problems with her hands. He said that she should avoid jobs that require her to do repeated lifting of objects weighing more than twenty pounds, as well as pushing or pulling objects weighing more than twenty pounds and should avoid work that requires her to lift her arms above her shoulder height on a repeated basis. He said that she should not do work that required her to do severe exertion with her hands, such as squeezing tools or opening jars, or things of that sort, several times an hour. The employer concedes that the claimant has some permanent disability in her right arm, but feels that the award by the trial court was too great. 2

Gary Higginbotham v. Grinnell Corp.
02S01-9611-Ch-00101
Authoring Judge: Robert A. Lanier, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Joe C. Morris
This worker's compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 50-6-225 (e) (3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Paul King v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
02S01-9611-CH-00100
Authoring Judge: Robert A. Lanier, Circuit Judge
Trial Court Judge: Lanier, Judge
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to this Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with T.C.A. _ 5- 6-225 (e) (3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The first issue presented on this appeal is whether or not the requirements of T.C.A. _ 5-6-241, limiting an award of permanent partial disability to 2 _ times the medical impairment rating, should have been applied to the award in this case. It is not disputed that the claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant employer when, on July 11, 1994, w hile working as a tirebuilder, he sustaine d an injury to his left shoulder. He subse quently saw Dr. James R. Wilkinson, an orthopedic surgeon. On October 6, 1994, Dr. Wilkinson performed a surgical procedure on his shoulde r which in volved dis secting the d eltoid muscle, removing the coracoac romial ligam ent and ch anging the anatomic construct of the shoulder. Dr. Wilkinson gave his o pinion that the claimant had sustained a permanent anatomical impairment of 6% to the left upper e xtremity due to joint crepitation, which amounted to 4% of the body as a whole. He agreed that, based upon his range of motion, his impairment should be an extra 2%. Dr. Wilkinson testified that he would expect claimant to have some weakness in his shoulder and would benefit from possibly avoiding overhead and heavy lifting and push ing a nd p ullin g aw ay fro m hi s bod y. He felt that claimant could have some problems with his shoulder performing his previous job. Dr. Wilkinson's rating conv erts to 4% physical impairment to the body as a whole. On January 6, 1995, claimant was released by Dr. Wilkinson to return to work, and he did return to w ork with th e defend ant emplo yer at his previous job, earning the same wages. On Ma y 1, 1995, claimant saw D r. Robert Barnett one time at the suggestion of his attorney. Claimant gave a history to Dr. Barnett of popping and creaking in his shoulder, which had impro ved, but said that he still felt the s ensation of it when he moved h is shoulder. 2

State vs. George Martin Jr.
02C01-9512-CC-00389
Trial Court Judge: John Franklin Murchison

State vs. Tyrone Clay
02C01-9608-CC-00261
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford

State vs. Tyrone Clay
02C01-9608-CC-00261
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford

Carol Strong vs. Timothy Strong
02A01-9701-CV-00005
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown