Please enter some keywords to search.
| Rhonda May v. Great Central Insurance Company
02S01-9606-CV-00060
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court inaccordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer's insurer contends the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on forty percent to the body as a whole is excessive. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The employee or claimant, May, is thirty years old and has a tenth grade education. She has no vocational training. She has worked in garment production and as a cashier and stocker for Save-A-Lot, the employer. On March 3, 1994, she felt a sharp pain in her lower back while lifting a pallet of flour at work. She has seen several doctors and received conservative care. Diagnostic tests revealed a herniated disc in her lower back, superimposed on pre-existing degenerative lumbosacral joint disease. She is overweight and has carpal tunnel syndrome, also pre-existing. One of the doctors assigned her a wholeperson permanent medical impairment rating of ten percent, using appropriate guidelines. The claimant returned to work on September 19, 1994 at the same wage she was receiving before the injury, but was medically restricted from lifting anything weighing more than twenty pounds, from standing more than forty-five minutes to one hour without a five to ten minute break, or from sitting more than forty-five minutes to one hour without a five to ten minute break. She was assigned to the meat department, where her work required her to exceed those limitations. She quit on October 3, 1994. She is presently working as a cashier for another food store, at a lower wage. The trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on forty percent to the body as a whole. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6- 225(e)(2). Where the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses, especially if issues of credibility and weight to be given oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded those circumstances on review. Humphrey v. David Witherspoon, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 315 (Tenn. 1987). For injuries arising after August 1, 1992, in cases where an injured worker is entitled to permanent partial disability benefits to the body as a whole and the pre-injury employer returns the employee to employment at a wage 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Rhonda May, |
Benton County | Workers Compensation Panel | 01/23/97 | |
| Janet Carter v. Phoenix Restaurant Group of Tennessee, Inc., et al.
03S01-9602-CH-00013
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special W orkers' 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 plaintiff was seriously injured in a traffic crash on September 11, 1991. She settled her tort claim and proceeded to trial of this workers' compensation case which resulted in a finding that the `special errand' exception was applicable and that as a result of the accident and injuries she was 6 percent partially, permanently disabled and thus entitled to $183.34 per week during 24 weeks, temporary total benefits during 156 weeks, and medical expenses of $83,245.91. In accordance with TENN. CODE ANN. _5-6-112(c), the defendant was credited with $1,., the amount of the tort settlement, which the plaintiff insists was only partially subrogable. Both parties appeal. The employer insists that because the traffic crash was not job-related, the plaintiff failed to prove her case. The plaintiff insists that because the employer did not recognize the compensability of her claim, and because she was not made whole by the third-party settlement, the full amount thereof should not have been subrogable. The plaintiff further insists that her attorney should have been awarded a fee "out of the third-party settlement fund." She also presents for review the issues of whether a finding of 6 percent permanent partial disability is adequate, and whether certain discretionary costs should have been allowed. I The facts are not in material dispute. The plaintiff, age 31, completed the eighth grade. She had worked in restaurants most of her adult life, and on July 1, 1991 was employed by Wendy's as an assistant manager trainee assigned to work at the North Roan location in Johnson City after a six-week stint in Kingsport. On September 1, 1991, a supervisor came to the North Roan location and announced that on the following day in Kingsport all of the North Roan employees, including the plaintiff, would be given a test which was mandatory. The plaintiff advised her supervisor that September 11 was her day off; the supervisor replied that this did not matter, "that everybody had to be there and would be paid for their time there." 2
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Richard E. Ladd |
Carter County | Workers Compensation Panel | 01/23/97 | |
| State vs. Rodney Bufford
02C01-9904-CC-00131
|
Lauderdale County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/23/97 | |
| 01C01-9601-CC-00039
01C01-9601-CC-00039
|
Hickman County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/23/97 | |
| Eugene Smith vs. State
02C01-9701-CC-00018
|
Lake County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/23/97 | |
| Marilyn L. Green v. Carlos Eugene Green
02A01-9601-CH-00014
In this divorce action, the trial court awarded Marilyn Green (the “Wife”) a divorce from Carlos Green (the “Husband”) upon the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct. Pursuant to a property settlement agreement, the parties agreed to sell the marital home by auction, pay the remaining indebtedness on the home and divide the proceeds equally. The parties agreed that the Wife would receive a Mercury automobile, a Ford Thunderbird automobile, the furniture, household furnishings and real estate located in the Eaton community. The parties agreed that the Husband would receive the farming equipment, guns, saddles and two pickup trucks. The trial court divided the remainder of the parties’ property and awarded the wife a one-half interest in the Husband’s retirement income and awarded the Husband a one-half interest in the Wife’s retirement income. The court further awarded each party a one-fourth interest in a fifty-seven acre tract of land in the Eaton community and awarded each party a one-sixth interest in twenty acres of corn planted as of the date of the final divorce hearing. The court further ordered that the livestock owned by the parties be sold and the proceeds divided equally. The Husband has appealed the judgment of the trial court arguing that the trial court’s division of property was improper. For the reasons stated hereafter, we reverse the judgment of the trial court as to the Wife’s interest in a fifty-seven acre tract of land in the Eaton community and affirm as to the Wife’s interest in twenty acres of planted corn.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Originating Judge:Judge George R. Ellis |
Gibson County | Court of Appeals | 01/23/97 | |
| Janice Bruce v. Tecumseh Products Company
02S01-9604-CV-00042
This workers' compensation appeal has b een referred to the Special W ork ers ' C om pe ns atio n A pp ea ls Panel of the Supreme Co urt in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and rep orting of find ings of fa ct an d co nc lusio ns of law . This is an ap pe al by the de fen da nt/e m ploy er, Tec umseh Products Company, from a judgment in fav or o f th e p lain tiff/a pp elle e, Janice Bruce, awarding workers' compensation benefits based on 45% permanent partial disability to the body as a wh ole. The judgment also held the d efen da nt res po nsib le for m edical expenses incurred by plain tiff for the care and treatment provided by Dr. Terry O. Harrison an d D r. Ra y W . He ster, p hys ician s no t sele cted by th e d efe nd an t. The defendant presents three issues for review: 1. Did the trial co urt e rr in find ing th at th e lim itation of two and one-half (2-1/2) times the ana tomical rating set out in T. C .A . S ec tion 5 -6- 24 1(a )(1 ) did no t ap ply to th is cause? 2. Does the ev ide nc e p rep on de rat e a ga in s t the trial co urt's findin g tha t Plain tiff susta ined a forty-five (45% ) percent pe rm an en t pa rtial disa bility to the body as a whole? 3. Did the tria l cou rt err in finding that Tecumseh should be resp on sible fo r the m ed ical ex pe nse s incu rred b y Pla intiff for the care and treatm ent pro vided by D r. Terry O . Ha rrison an d D r. Ra y W . He ster? Be fore ad dre ssin g th e iss ue s, w e will discuss the evidence found in the record. The plain tiff is a lady th irty-one yea rs o f ag e a t th e tim e o f tria l. 2
Authoring Judge: F. Lloyd Tatum, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Creed Mcginley, |
Henry County | Workers Compensation Panel | 01/23/97 | |
| Robert Taylor vs. State
02C01-9701-CC-00019
|
Lake County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/22/97 | |
| 03C01-9602-CC-00073
03C01-9602-CC-00073
Originating Judge:Frank L. Slaughter |
Sullivan County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/22/97 | |
| Jimmy McCurry vs. State
02C01-9701-CC-00020
|
Lake County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/22/97 | |
| Keryn Hickerson v. Jerry Finchum - Concurring
02A01-9511-JV-00249
This appeal concerns whether the appellant, Jerry Finchum (“Finchum” or “Father”), should be legally required to pay retroactive child support for his child, Elizabeth Jane Hickerson, born February 16, 1983 to the appellee, Karen Hickerson (“Hickerson” or “Mother”). The juvenile court awarded such support, in the amount of $31,080, and Finchum has appealed. For reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Originating Judge:Judge A. V. Mcdowell |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 01/22/97 | |
| 03C01-9603-CC-00131
03C01-9603-CC-00131
Originating Judge:James E. Beckner |
Hawkins County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/22/97 | |
| 03C01-9506-CR-00171
03C01-9506-CR-00171
|
Knox County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/22/97 | |
| 03C01-9607-CC-00266
03C01-9607-CC-00266
Originating Judge:Ben W. Hooper, II |
Jefferson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/22/97 | |
| 03C01-9602-CC-00054
03C01-9602-CC-00054
|
Greene County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/22/97 | |
| 03C01-9504-CR-00128
03C01-9504-CR-00128
|
Hawkins County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/22/97 | |
| 03C01-9601-CR-00020
03C01-9601-CR-00020
|
Knox County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/22/97 | |
| X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
Originating Judge:J. Kenneth Porter |
Cocke County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/21/97 | |
| M1997-00277-SC-OT-CV
M1997-00277-SC-OT-CV
|
Supreme Court | 01/21/97 | ||
| State of Tennessee, v. John Guinn
02A01-9607-CV-00152
This is a juvenile delinquency proceeding. Defendant, John Guinn, appeals from the order of the Circuit Court of Shelby County on a jury verdict finding defendant guilty of committing the delinquent act of attempt to commit murder in the second degree.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Originating Judge:Judge D'Army Bailey |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 01/17/97 | |
| 01A01-9601-GS-00021
01A01-9601-GS-00021
Originating Judge:Barry R. Brown |
Sumner County | Court of Appeals | 01/17/97 | |
| Lisa Whited v. Tn. Woolen Mills, Inc., et al.
01S01-9605-CH-00088
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. Plaintiff injured her right arm, shoulder and neck while working on an assembly line at defendant's woolen mill. The trial court awarded her 5 percent permanent vocational disability. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. At the time of trial, plaintiff was 27 years old with a high school education and a variety of work experience, including fast food clerk, grocery store clerk, newspaper deliverer, tobacco stripper, and factory worker. All of these jobs have required steady use of her hands and arms. On August 1, 1994, plaintiff was sitting in a chair at her sewing work station when she found that a blanket she was working on was hung on a cart. As she pulled the blanket, it snagged. She pulled firmly and when the blanket came loose, she "snapped back in her chair," and felt pain in her right arm, shoulder and neck. She was referred by defendant to Dr. Johnson, who gave her physical therapy and medication and, after having no success, referred her to another company- approved physician, Dr. Roy Clarence Terry, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Terry testified by deposition that he performed an arthroscopy and removed the ends of two bones in plaintiff's shoulder which were impinging on each other. Although plaintiff improved after surgery, she remained unable to fully raise her right arm, to lift things above her head, or to move her arm in all directions. She has continued to have severe pain in the arm. Dr. Terry discovered that she also had a symptomatic disc herniation in her neck, caused by the same accident. He assessed nine percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. She was totally unable to work when he last saw her, in June 1995, but he expected that with time she would be able to work with limitations. Defendant asked Dr. Leon Ensalada, a medical doctor who is board-certified 2
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers
Originating Judge:Hon. C. K. Smith |
White County | Workers Compensation Panel | 01/17/97 | |
| Elvin L. Blankenship and wife, Mary Blankenship, and Wayne Blankenship, v. Alvis Blankenship and wife, Dorothy Blankenship, and Charles Goodman and wife, Kathy Goodman
02A01-9603-CH-00051
In this boundary line dispute the Trial Court appointed a surveyor who established a boundary line between the parties which ws adopted by the Trial Judge in the Decree in this case. Defendants has appealed, asserting the Trial Court erred in limiting their proof and in adopting the boundary established by the surveyor.
Authoring Judge: Judge Heschel Pickens Franks
Originating Judge:Judge Joe C. Morris |
Wayne County | Court of Appeals | 01/17/97 | |
| Larry R. Williams v. Scott Bolt & Screw Co., et al.
01S01-9604-CH-00077
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 of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that a brown recluse spider bit him while he was at work on April 15, 1993. The trial court denied his claim. Because the evidence does not support the plaintiff's claim, the trial court decision is affirmed. The plaintiff testified that his left leg started itching at work at about 2: p.m. on April 15 or maybe April 19, he is not sure which. At any rate, in his deposition the plaintiff testified that the next thing he noticed was a sore knee the following morning, but he did not pay much attention to it. He testified differently at trial. The plaintiff and his live-in girlfriend both testified they saw a red mark on his knee when he undressed after work the afternoon the itching stared. In any event, the pain started the next morning. The plaintiff went to work and worked almost all day. The pain got bad toward quitting time, and the employer encouraged the plaintiff to see a doctor. He did, and eventually came under the care of two Vanderbilt doctors, Phillip Wolinsky, an orthopedic surgeon, and Bruce Shack, a plastic surgeon. Neither of them know whether a brown recluse spider bite caused the plaintiff's wound. But it was serious whatever caused it, and the plaintiff suffers permanent impairment as a result of it. The doctors' testimony contradicts the plaintiff's claim that a brown recluse spider bit him at work. Dr. Wolinsky does not know much about brown recluse spider bites, and what little he does know and shared in his deposition does not support the plaintiff's claim. According to Wolinsky, the literature referred to by the plaintiff's counsel indicates that while a bite may not cause any immediate pain, some localized pain develops within an hour or so. -2-
Authoring Judge: Robert S. Brandt, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Ellen Hobbs Lyle, |
Davidson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 01/17/97 | |
| Barbara Jenkins v. Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company
01S01-96021-CR-00036
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge William S. Russell
Originating Judge:Hon. J.O. BOND, JUDGE |
Macon County | Workers Compensation Panel | 01/17/97 |