APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

An employee filed a request for assistance with the Tennessee Department of Labor after she was injured at her workplace. After approximately six months of inaction by the Department, the employee filed a complaint for workers’ compensation benefits against her employer in Marshall County Circuit Court. The employer responded with a motion to dismiss asserting that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the parties had not participated in the benefit review conference process. The trial judge did not dismiss the complaint but ordered the case to be held in abeyance pending further orders of the court. On extraordinary appeal to this Court, we hold that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction of the case because the employee did not exhaust the benefit review conference process before filing suit as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-203 (2008). The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the employee’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Deshaun Jantuan Lewis, of one count of
second degree murder, two counts of felony murder, four counts of aggravated rape,
especially aggravated robbery, and making a false report to law enforcement. The trial court
merged the two felony murder convictions and the second degree murder conviction into one
conviction for felony murder. The trial court also merged one of the aggravated rape
convictions, leaving three remaining aggravated rape convictions. The court then sentenced
the Defendant to an effective sentence of life plus forty-two years in the Tennessee
Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the evidence is
insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court improperly allowed the State to
question the Defendant about his gang involvement; and (3) his sentence is excessive. After
a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Plaintiff was seriously injured during a dog attack by his neighbors’ two dogs. Plaintiff sued, among others, the neighbors’ landlord and an employee of the landlord. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, determining that although the defendants retained sufficient control over the leased property, they lacked notice or knowledge of the dogs’ vicious propensities. We find a question of fact exists regarding defendants’ notice or knowledge of the dogs’ vicious propensities. We affirm in part and reverse in part and we remand for further proceedings.

Inmate filed a petition for certiorari, seeking a review of a decision of the prison disciplinary review board, affirmed by warden and the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, finding him guilty of certain prison disciplinary offenses. The trial court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, finding it was not filed within sixty days of the entry of the order for which review was sought. Finding no error, we affirm the action of the trial court.

Dr. Rondal D. Akers, Jr. and Lucinda Akers sued T. Ray Brent Marsh for the alleged
mishandling of their deceased son’s body, which had been sent to Mr. Marsh’s crematorium
for cremation. Following a jury verdict for the Akerses, the trial court entered judgment
against Mr. Marsh based on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim but granted
his motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the Akerses’ Tennessee Consumer
Protection Act (“TCPA”) and bailment claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We hold the
trial court did not err in (1) holding Mr. Marsh liable for intentional infliction of emotional
distress in the amount of the jury verdict; (2) instructing the jury that they were permitted to
draw a negative inference resulting from Mr. Marsh’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment
privilege during questioning; and (3) dismissing the TCPA and bailment claims. The
judgments of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are affirmed.

The defendant, Timothy A. Lowe, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation and reinstatement of his original ten-year sentence, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in placing his entire ten-year sentence into effect. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

An inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, filed a petition for declaratory judgment alleging that the Department failed to credit him with 2,511 days of pretrial credits that were awarded him pursuant to a plea agreement. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly dismissed the petition based upon a finding that the material facts show Petitioner received all pretrial jail credits awarded and due Petitioner. Finding no error, we affirm.

Father, who was previously found to have committed severe abuse against his two children, appeals the finding that termination of his parental rights to his biological son was in the son’s best interest. Finding no error, we affirm the termination of his rights.

The defendant, Bobby Joe Ladd, appeals the revocation of his probation, claiming that the
evidence preponderates against the findings of the trial court. Discerning no error, we affirm
the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, William Lynn Boling, Jr., filed a motion in the Circuit Court for Blount County requesting jail credits for time he spent on furlough. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, we conclude that this case is not properly before this court because no appeal as of right exists from the trial court’s denial of the motion. We dismiss the appeal.

The employee alleged that she was permanently and totally disabled due to a lower back injury suffered while operating a foot pedal on a drill press in April 2004. The employee had previously alleged an injury to her lower back, which was settled on a “doubtful and disputed” basis. Although the employee’s treating physician testified that the April 2004 incident was a temporary flare-up of her earlier injury, he did assign new permanent restrictions. The trial court found that the employee had sustained a new injury and awarded permanent total disability benefits. The Second Injury Fund and the employer have appealed. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant, Billy Joe Smith, pled guilty to: (1) possession of more than one-half ounce of marijuana, a Class E felony; (2) maintaining a dwelling where controlled substances were used or sold, a Class D felony; and (3) two separate counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. Due to his prior criminal convictions, Defendant was designated as a Range II multiple offender for each felony conviction, and agreed to a sentence length of four years for each felony. The plea agreement provided for sentences of 11 months and 29 days for each misdemeanor conviction, and for all of the sentences to run concurrently with each other for an effective sentence of four years as a Range II offender. There was no  agreement as to the manner of service of the sentence. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that Defendant would serve the sentence in the Department of Correction. Defendant has appealed and argues that the trial court should have granted him full probation or split confinement, or ordered the sentences to be served in the community corrections program. Following a thorough review we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Alejandro Rivera, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because: (1) counsel failed to “formulate a defense and to present testimony from all essential witnesses;” and (2) counsel failed to file an appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court. After a review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, Roger Hathaway, Jr., pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated arson, attempted second degree murder, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and received a total effective sentence of 12 years to be served at 30 percent. Petitioner appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was not voluntarily and knowingly entered. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Timothy L. Morton, appeals the Lake County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his three petitions for writ of habeas corpus and its denial of his motion to reinstate these petitions, wherein he alleged that the trial court’s judgment revoking his probation and ordering his one-year sentence for DUI, fourth offense, and two-year sentence for driving in violation of the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offenders Act (MVHOA) into execution is void. Upon review, we affirm the judgments summarily dismissing the petitions for habeas corpus relief and denying the motion for reinstatement of the petitions for habeas corpus relief.

This medical malpractice action, which had been pending for several years, was summarily
dismissed because the plaintiff did not file a response to the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment, the plaintiff’s only expert witness admitted she was not qualified to opine
concerning the standard of care at issue, and the statute of limitations had run. Upon motion
of the defendants pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.04(2), the trial court
awarded the defendants $9,000 in discretionary costs. This appeal followed. We affirm. We
have also determined that this appeal is frivolous and remand to the trial court to determine
the proper amount of damages pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-1-122.

The defendant appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict holding her liable to her employer for her involvement in a co-worker’s misappropriation of funds. The jury found that the defendant’s involvement included (1) intentional misrepresentations, (2) concealment of facts relevant to the misappropriation, and (3) breach of contractual duties owed to the employer. The sole issue before us is whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict made at the conclusion of the proof. The motion was based upon the defendant’s assertion that the statute of limitations barred the claim. We affirm.

In this negligence action, the jury awarded the plaintiff a verdict against one of the two
defendants. We find no error in the judgment regarding liability, but we must vacate and
remand as to damages because the trial court erred in excluding testimony and evidence
regarding the plaintiff’s medical expenses.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 51. After the employee sustained a compensable injury to his lower back, the parties reached a settlement of the claim at a benefit review conference.  As part of the agreement, the employer agreed to provide a job for the employee within the medical restrictions arising from the injury. The employer eventually decided not to rehire the employee after he failed to return to work. Thereafter, the employee filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Davidson County seeking reconsideration of his settlement. The trial court granted the petition and increased the disability award. On this appeal, the employer takes issue with (1) the trial court’s adoption verbatim of the employee’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, (2) the trial court’s conclusion that the employee was entitled to reconsideration, (3) the exclusion of evidence related to the employee’s prior back problems, and (4) the claimed excessiveness of the award. We affirm the judgment.

Appellant, Jermain Sean Lipford, was indicted by the Franklin County Grand Jury for initiating a process to manufacture methamphetamine, manufacturing methamphetamine, felony possession of drug paraphernalia, reckless endangerment, felony possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver, driving under the influence, violation of the implied consent law, driving on a revoked license, and fourth offense driving on a revoked license. Appellant pled guilty to initiating a process to manufacture methamphetamine. As a result, Appellant was sentenced to eight years, to be served in the Community Corrections program after the service of 150 days in incarceration. After the issuance of a revocation warrant and hearing, Appellant conceded the grounds for the violation of his Community Corrections sentence. Appellant was ordered to serve the original sentence. Appellant appeals, arguing that the trial court improperly determined Appellant was not entitled to jail credit. After a review of the record, we conclude the trial court properly awarded sentencing credits to Appellant. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Tajay Vaughn (“the Petitioner”) filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for aggravated burglary, especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault. Pursuant to his plea agreement, the Petitioner received an effective sentence of thirty-three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In his petition, he argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in conjunction with his guilty plea and that his plea was constitutionally infirm. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. The Petitioner now appeals. Upon our thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Jimmy L. Smith (“the Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that counts one through four of the indictment underlying his convictions are defective, and, therefore, his judgments of conviction are void. The habeas corpus court denied relief without a hearing. The Petitioner then filed this appeal. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

A Rutherford County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Gregory Moore, of one
count of aggravated sexual battery, see T.C.A. § 39-13-504(a)(4) (2006), and three counts
of soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor, see id. § 39-13-529(b)(1), for offenses
committed against his seven-year-old step-daughter. The trial court imposed an effective
sentence of 13 years’ incarceration. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of
the evidence to support his conviction of aggravated sexual battery and the trial court’s
imposition of sentences. We discern an anomaly in the judgments for counts three and four
requiring correction on remand. We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court, as
modified.

Petitioner, Jerome Sawyer, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. As grounds for relief, petitioner argues that the trial court improperly enhanced his eighteen-year sentence for aggravated sexual battery by applying enhancing factors, other than prior criminal convictions, not found by a jury. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition, and we affirm the judgment of the court.

This custody case arises from an agreed order of parentage. After Father’s paternity was established, he filed a petition in juvenile court for custody of the child. At the conclusion of several hearings that took place over a span of years, the juvenile court entered an order naming Father primary residential parent and awarding Mother weekend parenting time. Mother appealed. While awaiting appeal, Mother filed a petition to have the child declared dependent and neglected. The Special Judge presiding over that petition transferred Mother’s petition to Lake County, where Father and the child reside. In response to the allegations in Mother’s petition, Father filed a petition for an injunction and to have Mother’s future parenting time supervised. A different Special Judge granted Father’s request without a full hearing, stating that Mother’s parenting time would remain supervised until further orders of the court. No further orders were ever entered. We affirm the trial court’s order naming Father primary residential parent, but vacate the transfer of Mother’s petition to Lake County and the modification of Mother’s parenting time. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings.