APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

For the second time, the claimants appeal a decision of the Tennessee Claims Commission deny ing them recovery from the University of Tennessee and the State of Tennessee of $1,026,666 in medical expenses allegedly paid by BellSouth Corporation under an ERISA plan with BellSouth alleged to be subrogee of such pay ments.

This appeal involves a dispute between an inmate and the Tennessee Department of Correction (“Department”) regarding deductions from the inmate’s trust account to pay the court costs stemming from his criminal conviction. After his inmate grievance proved unsuccessful, the inmate filed a petition for a declaratory order in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking a declaration that the Department could not deduct funds from his inmate trust account without a court order. The trial court dismissed the inmate’s petition because it did not state that the inmate had previously sought a declaratory order from the Department. The inmate asserts on this appeal that he should be excused from this requirement because he is undertaking to represent himself and because his grievance was tantamount to a petition for a declaratory order. We affirm the dismissal of the inmate’s complaint in accordance with Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10(b).1

This is an appeal from the chancellor’s denial of Defendant’s motion to alter or amend findings of fact. The question to be answered is whether the “newly discovered evidence rule”  would allow the presentation post-trial of evidence which the proponent concedes he could have produced at trial. The defendant contends that evidence which tends to show misrepresentation on the part of a nonmovant should be allowed under a motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52, 59 and 60 regardless of whether it was discoverable at trial. Under the circumstances of the case at bar, we cannot agree.