St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company and Lineal Group, Inc. v. Cecil Carrick
01S01-9509-CV-00146
Authoring Judge: Robert L. Childers, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert E. Corlew
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 court awarded Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff 85% permanent partial disability to the left lower extremity. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant below appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that the employee's testimonywas credible; that the employee failed to prove that he sustained a permanent injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment; that the employee failed to give proper notice of his injury; that the evidence does not support an award of 85% to the lower extremity; and that the medical treatment awarded by the trialcourt was unauthorized and should not have been allowed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff worked at Samsonite for 3 years. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff's other work experience includes growing tobacco and peppers, raising cattle, and performing various odd jobs. Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff has a high school education and some training in electronics. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff's duties at Samsonite included counting and transferring chairs from one line to another. This involved shifting his weight from one leg to the other. It also involved spending long periods of time on his feet while working on a concrete floor. Because Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff suffered several strokes since the time of the injury and was unable to remember many of the specific facts surrounding his injury so as to be unavailable, the trial court relied on Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff's deposition testimony. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff was 55 years old on the date that he gave his deposition testimony. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff testified that he suffered from pain in his left knee. For four or five months prior tothe injury complained of, Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff's leg would swell from hip down to ankle. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff told his foreman about the problems with his legs

02A01-9510-CV-00231
02A01-9510-CV-00231
Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey

02A01-9505-CH-00102
02A01-9505-CH-00102

02A01-9509-CH-00202
02A01-9509-CH-00202
Trial Court Judge: C. Neal Small

02C01-9501-CR-00029
02C01-9501-CR-00029
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

01C01-9508-CC-00247
01C01-9508-CC-00247

01C01-9510-CR-00345
01C01-9510-CR-00345
Trial Court Judge: James O. Bond

Jerry v. Smith
01C01-9411-CC-00390

01C01-9511-CC-00359
01C01-9511-CC-00359

Wendy Setters individually and as the parent of minors Melanie Ann Setters and Nicole Krystal Setters, v. Permanent General Assurance Corporation
03A01-9605-CV-00161
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge John B. Hagler, Jr.

This is a declaratory judgment action. In the complaint, Wendy Setters (Mrs. Setters) seeks a declaration that an exclusion in her automobile insurance policy is invalid as against public policy; and, alternatively, that the exclusion, due to an ambiguity in the insurance policy, is unenforceable against her. The subject provision excludes the extension of liability coverage to an insured when that person's negligence causes injury to a family member. Relying on this exclusion, the defendant, Permanent General Assurance Corporation (Permanent General), denied coverage with respect to claims asserted by Mrs. Setters individually and on behalf of her children arising solely out of injuries sustained by the children in an automobile accident. The accident was caused, in part, by the negligent driving of her husband. The trial court granted Permanent General's motion for judgement on the pleadings, finding the exclusion to be valid, enforceable and not violative of the public policy" of Tennessee. Plaintiff appeals, raising two issues that present the following questions:

1. Is a provision in an automobile insurance policy excluding coverage for liability to a "family member" violative of the public policy of Tennessee?

2. Is the liability coverage in the subject policy ambiguous so as to warrant a strict constructino against Permanent General?

Zella Balentine, v. Simon White, In Re: Paternity of Ashley Arron Balentine, a Minor
02A01-9508-JV-00190
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge Hewitt P. Tomlin
Trial Court Judge: Judge Max Seaton

Zella Balentine (“plaintiff”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court of Hardin County seeking to have that court declare Simon White (“defendant”) to be the natural father of the parties’ minor child, Ashley Balentine. The Hardin County General Sessions Court, in its role as Juvenile Court, found defendant to be the father of the child and awarded plaintiff retroactive child support dating back to November 1, 1992. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion by not awarding retroactive child support back to the date of the child’s birth. For the reasons stated, we find that the trial court did abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we reverse as to this issue and remand this cause to that court for further proceedings.

Grace Thru Faith, v. Tony L. Caldwell, and Tony L. Caldwell and Joann P. Caldwell Trust, v. Edward Irwin and Rebecca Irwin
02A01-9502-CH-00026
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor William Michael Maloan

This is a case involving a trustee’s improper accounting procedures and misuse of funds regarding a trust set up to receive Social Security Insurance payments. At issue is whether Tennessee state courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a dispute between a beneficiary and his representative payee over alleged misuse of Social Security benefits. The trial court found it had jurisdiction. We affirm.

Melanie Miller, Ashley Miller Luna, & Gregory Luna v. Gary D. Niblack, M.D., Laboratory Investments Inc., et.al. - Concurring
02A01-9505-CV-00101
Authoring Judge: Judge Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge William O'Hearn

This is an action for negligence in the conducting of a paternity test. The  trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the appellees, Gary D. Niblack, M.D., Laboratory Investments, Inc. and Ren Laboratories, Inc. d/b/a Ren Histocompatibility Laboratory, a joint venture, and John Doe. The appellants, Melanie Miller, individually and as next friend for Ashley Miller Luna, a minor, and next friend of Gregory Luna, deceased, have appealed presenting the single issue of whether the trial court erred in doing so. For reasons hereinafter set forth, we affirm in part and reverse in part the  judgment of the trial court.

Howard A. Woods, v. Mutual of Omaha and CNA Insurance Company, and Eastwood Hospital
02A01-9510-CV-00218
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert A. Lanier

Woods filed suit against various defendants; however, the judgment before us enters summary judgment in favor of Omaha only and was rendered final by the trial court in accordance with Rule 54.02 T.R.C.P. Thus, Omaha is the only Appellee for purposes of this appeal. This case concerns the validity of a “Compromise Settlement Release” executed by the appellant, Howard A. Woods (Woods), in favor of the appellee, Mutual of Omaha (Omaha). Woods challenges its validity on the ground of mental incapacity. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Omaha  Woods has appealed. For reasons hereinafter expressed, we affirm.

Sherry Wimley v. Linda Rudolph, Commissioner of Tennessee Department of Human Services - Concurring
01S01-9507-CH-00108
Authoring Judge: Justice Penny J. White
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor C. Allen High

The issue in this case is whether plaintiff can combine an original action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with a petition for judicial review under the Uniform Administration Procedures Act when the sole relief requested under the Section 1983 claim is an award of attorney fees. We affirm the Court of  Appeals’ decision allowing plaintiff an award of attorney fees.

Ethel Faye George v. Clyde Wayne Alexanderand Phillip R. Jones, M.D.
01S01-9505-CV-00084
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank W. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Marietta M. Shipley

In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiff, Ethel Faye George, appeals from the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of a judgment based on a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, Clyde Wayne Alexander, M.D. and Phillip R. Jones, M.D. This case presents the following issue for our determination: whether a defendant in a negligence case must, pursuant to Rule 8.03 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, plead comparative fault as an affirmative defense if the defendant wishes to introduce evidence that a person other than itself caused the plaintiff’s injury. We conclude that the defendant is required to affirmatively plead comparative fault in such a situation; and because that was not done in this case, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Ethel Faye George v. Clyde Wayne Alexander, M.D. and Phillip R. Jones, M.D. - Concurring
01S01-9505-CV-00084
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge Marietta M. Shipley

I agree with the result reached by the majoirity however, resolution of the important principles of comparative fault and rules of pleading and evidence presented in this case requires, in my view, a more precise articulation and analysis of the pleadings, the facts, and the legal issues.  As an example, the statement of the issue decided in themajority's introductory paragraph - if the defendant wishes to introduce evidence that a person other than itself caused the plaintiff's injury - encompasses various situations controlled by different rules and cannot be decided as stated. Since the ruls of substantive law. pleading and evidence are correlated, I can best state my views in an integrated opinion rather than in a commentary on the majority's opinion.

Mitchell Brian Ramsey v. James G. Beavers
03S01-9509-CV-00104
Authoring Judge: Justice Penny J. White
Trial Court Judge: Judge Samuel H. Payne

In this case we are faced with the issue of the continued viability of the zone of danger test as a limitation on liability when plaintiff is neither physically injured nor in an area where physical injury is possible. We conclude that in cases such as this, in which plaintiff sensorily observes the injury and resulting death of his mother, recovery should be allowed under circumstances in which the incident which produces the emotional injuries and the emotional injuries are reasonably foreseeable.

Walter P. Vogel v. Wells Fargo Guard Svcs. & Dina Tobin, Director of the Division of Workers' Compensation, Tennessee Department of Labor Second Injury Fund, State of Tennessee and Charles Burson, Atty General, State of Tennessee
03S01-9601-CV-00005
Authoring Judge: Justice Penny J. White
Trial Court Judge: Judge John A. Turnbull

In this workers' compensation case, we are asked to review the trial court’s determination that Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6- 207(4)(A)(i) is unconstitutional and that plaintiff is entitled to life-time workers’ compensation benefits. Having considered the positions of the parties, the plain language and the legislative intent of the statute, and relevant authority in other jurisdictions, we reverse.

Ella Mae Brown v. Marvin Douglas Brown - Concurring
01-A-01-9510-CV-00480
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Muriel Robinson

The wife of a prisoner in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction filed for divorce, claiming that her husband was guilty of inappropriate marital conduct. The husband answered and counterclaimed, and moved the court to order the wife to file a Bill of Particulars, setting forth the facts she was relying upon as grounds for the pending divorce. The court did not respond to the husband’s motion, nor did it respond to the husband’s Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum, but granted the wife an absolute divorce without affording the husband the opportunity to present any evidence. We reverse, and vacate the trial court’s order.

Jimmy E. Smith v. Connie Sue Argo Smith
01A01-9602-GS-00074
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Richard Mcgregor

The counter-plaintiff, Connie Argo Smith, appeals from the Trial Court’s judgment awarding her a divorce on grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. The Trial Court also awarded her the marital residence and contents, a 1990 Astro Mini Van, and $100,000.00 cash. The Trial Court required the counter-defendant, Jimmy E. Smith, to pay all marital debts including the mortgage on the home. The court also awarded Mr. Smith a farm, commercial property, the “Smart Station” property, a houseboat, a bass boat, a Chevrolet truck, Mercedes automobile, riding mower, tractor, personal effects and unspecified stocks.

Jimmy E. Smith, v. Connie Sue Argo Smith - Concurring/Dissenting
01A01-9602-GS-00074
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.

I concur with the majority’s conclusion that the criteria for determining the
validity of antenuptial agreements announced in Randolph v. Randolph, ___
S.W.2d ___, ___ (Tenn. 1996)1 should be applied to reconciliation agreements.
I also agree with the majority’s determination that the reconciliation agreement
involved in this case is not enforceable because Mr. Smith has not demonstrated
by a preponderance of the evidence that he disclosed the value of his interest in
National Sheet Metal Company to Ms. Smith or that Ms. Smith had independent
knowledge of the nature, extent and value of this interest. Accordingly, I agree
that the trial court erred by enforcing the reconciliation agreement.

United National Real Estate, Inc., v. C.F. Thompson and Columbia Auto Parts, Inc.
01A01-9604-CH-00173
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jim T. Hamilton

This is a suit by a judgment creditor to set aside a fraudulent transfer of assets and to subject said assets to the satisfaction of the judgment.

Richard D. Phillips, v. Interstate Hotels Corporation #L07 and Interstate Hotels Corporation on #L07, D/B/A Chattanooga Marriott and Kicks Lounge
03A01-9512-CH-00441
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Howard N. Peoples

In this case, the Plaintiff, Richard D. Phillips, sues Interstate Hotels Corporation and Instate Hotels Corporation #L07, D/B/A Chattanooga Marriott and Kicks Lounge, seeking damages by reason of the Defendant's violating his civil rights under the provisions of  T.C.A. 4-21-301( 2) .

Department of Human Services and William D. Gardner and Joann Gardner, v. Dana D. Defriece, In the Matter of John Defriece, a Minor
03A01-9604-JV-00150
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Van Deacon, Jr.

The trial court terminated the parental rights of Dana D. Defriece (Mother) to her son, John Defriece (John)(DOB: Januar 9, 1988). Mother appeals, raising three issues that present the followig questions: