Please enter some keywords to search.
| Douglas Bumpus v. Birmingham-Nashville Express, et al.
01S01-9707-CV-00144
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. I This is another gradually-occurring injury case involving physical disability not caused by trauma, specific episode, or `accidental injury' as the term is historically used, that would best be resolved by appropriate legislation. The plaintiff is a career truck driver who developed osteoarthritis in both knees to the extent that full knee replacements were required. The prostheses were successful and after three months the plaintiff resumed his truck driving career. Nevertheless, the trial judge found that the plaintiff suffered a 7 percent vocational disability to both legs. His monetary recovery was limited to 26 weeks because of his age. The employer appeals, insisting that: (1) the plaintiff's arthritic condition is not compensable because non-job related; (2) the award is excessive; and (3) the lump sum order is improper. II The plaintiff was born in August, 1934. While he has held a number of jobs, he is a career over-the-road truck driver. He began working for the defendant in 1984. He is described as a freight peddler, meaning that he delivers and unloads the cargo he transports. Over the years the wear and tear occasioned by lifting and carrying heavy loads began to affect his bodily joints, particularly his knees. In 1987 or 1988, he sought treatment for his knees from Dr. James R. Smith, who diagnosed arthritis, about which nothing could be done. The condition worsened, his legs bowed, and knee replacements were recommended. III 2
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. James E. Walton, |
Montgomery County | Workers Compensation Panel | 03/02/98 | |
| Shannon Forrest v. Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc.
02S01-9705-CV-00050
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found that the plaintiff has a 7 percent permanent partial disability to her whole body as a result of a compensable injury she sustained in September 1993, and awarded benefits accordingly, together with medical payments and mileage. The employer appeals, insisting that these findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Our review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The plaintiff is 3 years of age with limited marketable skills. She commenced work for the defendant in 1988 and quit in September 1996. In September 1993 she operated a "top press," and pressed upwards of 2, pairs of trousers each day. She testified that pain and a tingling sensation developed in her right leg and hip for which she sought medical attention, and advised her supervisor of her problems. Her physician was Dr. Lawrence, whom she heard call Jeff Harris, plant manager, to inform him of her condition and request lighter duty. She did not work for "six to eight weeks." Dr. Lawrence referred her to the Jackson Orthopedic Clinic for examination and treatment, and she was later examined and treated at the Semmes Murphey Clinic in Jackson. Various tests were performed, including a CAT scan and MRI. She was eventually referred 2
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Creed Mcginley |
Carroll County | Workers Compensation Panel | 03/02/98 | |
| Toby Hedgecoth v. Harold Moore & Assocs.
01S01-9702-CV-00033
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. |
Maury County | Workers Compensation Panel | 03/02/98 | |
| Stephanie Clinard v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.
01S01-9703-CV-00051
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellant here contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee's injury was causally connected to her employment. The panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The employee or claimant, Clinard, is approximately 4 years old and has a GED. She has worked as a cashier at a convenience market in Springfield since 1992, having previously worked as a cashier, as a baby sitter, as a production worker in a garment factory and as a homemaker. On March 24, she noticed a pop in her neck and a shooting pain in her left arm, while manually operating a credit card machine at work. She reported the event to her supervisor, who did not refer her to a physician or provide a list from which she could choose one. The claimant went to her own physician, Dr. Robert Ferland, who took her off work and prescribed physical therapy. She also saw two neurosurgeons, both of whom ordered diagnostic testing. One of them expressed doubt as to whether the injury was work-related, but was unable to point to any other possible cause. The other had no opinion as to the cause of injury. The claimant was unable to work from May 2, 1994 until she returned during the last week in July of the same year. She terminated her employment in November of that year after the pain worsened. The employer did not provide any medical benefits. Ultimately, the claimant sought outa Dr. Cantrell, who referred her to Dr. Arthur Cushman, another neurosurgeon. Dr. Cushman diagnosed a herniated disc in her neck and performed corrective surgery. The pain diminished following the surgery. Dr. David Gaw saw her after surgery and prescribed permanent limitations. The claimant took karate after the injury, but we find in the record no evidence that her injury was caused by karate lessons, as the employer's insurer contends. The lay proof supports the claimant's contention that her injury was work related. Dr. Cushman conceded the credit card machine incident and continued use of the arm at work was a possible cause of the injury. He estimated her permanent impairment at seven percent.. Dr. Gaw testified the credit card incident was the most likely cause, in the absence of any other explanation, and assigned a fifteen percent permanent impairment to the whole body. Both of these doctors based their opinions of permanent impairment on approved guidelines. The trial court found the injury to be work related and awarded benefits under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law (the Act). Appellate 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. James E. Walton, |
Robertson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 03/02/98 | |
| Page G. Stuart v. State of Tennessee, Dept. of Safety
01-S-01-9612-CH-00239
During a wide-ranging investigation, law enforcement officers located and seized several items of property thought to be used in the conduct of an illegal drug enterprise. Criminal charges followed the several seizures, and Page Stuart, the appellant, pleaded guilty to offenses involving delivery and conspiracy to deliver large quantities of marijuana. The State thereafter instituted administrative proceedings under Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-11-201 et seq. (1991 & Supp. 1992) for the forfeiture of the property seized. Although Stuart challenged the forfeiture of some of the property,1 he was not successful, and both the Chancery Court and the Court of Appeals upheld the forfeiture. We granted Stuart’s application for review under Rule 11
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Chancellor Irvin H. Gilcrease, Jr. |
Davidson County | Supreme Court | 03/02/98 | |
| Molin, M.D., et . ux. vs. Perryman Construction Co.
01A01-9705-CV-00232
Originating Judge:Barbara N. Haynes |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 02/27/98 | |
| Webb vs. Mortgage Systems Corp.
01A01-9512-CH-00566
Originating Judge:Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr. |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 02/27/98 | |
| Walker vs. Exchange
03A01-9709-CV-00402
|
Court of Appeals | 02/27/98 | ||
| State vs. Manning
03C01-9501-CR-00012
Originating Judge:R. Steven Bebb |
Bradley County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 02/27/98 | |
| Lampley vs. Lampley
01A01-9708-CH-00423
|
Court of Appeals | 02/27/98 | ||
| Pehlman vs. Pehlman
03A01-9708-CV-00339
|
Court of Appeals | 02/27/98 | ||
| 03A01-9708-CV-OO331
03A01-9708-CV-OO331
|
Anderson County | Court of Appeals | 02/27/98 | |
| Rivergate Toyota, Inc. vs. Huddleston
01A01-9602-CH-00053
Originating Judge:Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr. |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 02/27/98 | |
| ) Hon. Frank v. Williams, Iii,
O3A01-9708-CH-00321
|
Roane County | Court of Appeals | 02/27/98 | |
| Brady vs. Valentine
01A01-9707-CV-00308
Originating Judge:Cornelia A. Clark |
Williamson County | Court of Appeals | 02/27/98 | |
| Slate vs. State
03A01-9708-CV-00369
|
Court of Appeals | 02/27/98 | ||
| State vs. Trampas Sweeney
01C01-9702-CC-00053
Originating Judge:William M. Barker |
Williamson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 02/27/98 | |
| Kizer vs. Kizer
01A01-9707-GS-00304
Originating Judge:Barry R. Brown |
Sumner County | Court of Appeals | 02/27/98 | |
| Bellamy vs. State
03A01-9701-BC-00035
|
Court of Appeals | 02/27/98 | ||
| Brown vs. Davidson
01A01-9702-CV-00049
|
Court of Appeals | 02/27/98 | ||
| Allstate vs. Auto
03A01-9706-CH-00225
|
Court of Appeals | 02/27/98 | ||
| 03A01-9709-CV-00444
03A01-9709-CV-00444
|
Knox County | Court of Appeals | 02/27/98 | |
| Reid vs. Sundquist
01A01-9709-CH-00494
Originating Judge:Carol L. Mccoy |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 02/27/98 | |
| Copas vs. Copas
03A01-9708-CV-00375
|
Sevier County | Court of Appeals | 02/27/98 | |
| Witt vs. Tennessee
03A01-9709-CH-00400
|
Bradley County | Court of Appeals | 02/27/98 |