Please enter some keywords to search.
| Carl W. Sides v. Insurance Company of North America
03S01-9703-CV-00031
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 plaintiff filed this suit and alleged he had sustained permanent impairment to his eyes as the result of an injury in the course of his employment with the defendant. The trial judge awarded the plaintiff a recovery in the amount of 3% permanent partial disability to both eyes. The defendant says the evidence preponderates against the judgment of the trial court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff was age 6 at the time of trial. He had a high school education and was trained as a machinist and welder. The plaintiff alleged he was injured by a welding arc on or about February 5, 1993. The plaintiff did not see a doctor until some three days after the alleged injury, when he was sent by the defendant to Dr. Louis Haun, an ophthalmologist. Dr. Haun was of the opinion the plaintiff had not been injured by a welding arc. Dr. Haun suspected the plaintiff's eye problem was caused by exposure to chemicals and inquired of the plaintiff concerning exposure thereto. From this time, the case was tried by the plaintiff and defendant on the theory that the plaintiff was suffering from a condition known as dry eyes.1 The evidence of whether the injury to the plaintiff's eyes was causally connected to the exposure to chemicals at work is based upon the testimony of the plaintiff and three doctors. The plaintiff testified that after Dr. Haun asked him to remember whether he had been exposed to any chemicals at work, he recalled coming into contact with chemicals specifically in the course of fluidizing a piece of equipment called a bed, which is used in the manufacturing process. 1 The plaintiff never filed an amendment to his petition to aver his injury was caused by chemical exposure. However, both parties tried the case on the theory of whether a chemical exposure did or did not cause the plaintiff's dry eyes. See Rule 15.2 Tenn. R. Civ. Proc. 2
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | 02/17/98 | |
| Franklin Jones vs. Sterling Last Corp.
02S01-9606-CH-00057
|
Supreme Court | 02/17/98 | ||
| State vs. Eronia Neal
W1999-01194-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Originating Judge:Joseph B. Dailey |
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 02/15/98 | |
| Joseph Nolen v. Amy Nolen
M2002-00138-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Don R. Ash
Originating Judge:Donald P. Harris |
Hickman County | Court of Appeals | 02/14/98 | |
| Culp vs. J.B. Hinson & Pevahouse
01A01-9707-CV-00307
Originating Judge:Jim T. Hamilton |
Wayne County | Court of Appeals | 02/13/98 | |
| West vs. Dept. of Correction, et. al.
01A01-9706-CV-00243
Originating Judge:Walter C. Kurtz |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 02/13/98 | |
| Carson vs. Agri-Products Special Markets
01A01-9708-CV-00420
|
Montgomery County | Court of Appeals | 02/13/98 | |
| Charles Orren vs. State
03C01-9704-CR-00141
Originating Judge:Lynn W. Brown |
Johnson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 02/13/98 | |
| Billy Aldridge vs. State
01C01-9704-CR-00142
|
Davidson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 02/13/98 | |
| Hollis vs. Hollis
01A01-9704-CH-00178
Originating Judge:Henry Denmark Bell |
Williamson County | Court of Appeals | 02/13/98 | |
| William Allen Frazier v. Landair Services, Inc.
03S01-9706-CV-00064
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 plaintiff alleged in his petition that he was injured while unloading a trailer while in the employment of the defendant.1 The defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment supported by affidavits, and the plaintiff answered the motion by filing affidavits also. The trial judge granted summary judgment to the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff's petition. We affirm the judgment. The issue raised in this case is whether the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant and thus entitled to recover workers' compensation benefits for his injury. The structure of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was derived from the employment of the plaintiff as a driver with a company known as Central Trucking, Inc. Landair Transport, Inc. entered into a contract with Central Trucking whereby Central Trucking would tow the defendant's trailers on shipments to the defendant's customers. The contract provided that the employees of Central Trucking would not be employees of the defendant. The plaintiff contended in his petition and affidavit that he was injured while unloading a trailer for the defendant and that all unloading fees were negotiated between him and a terminal manager of the defendant. The plaintiff claims this created an employer-employee relationship between him and the defendant. One of the owners of Central Trucking filed an affidavit in support of the plaintiff's claim that the amount to be paid for unloading was negotiated between the plaintiff and the defendant. The trial judge considered the affidavits, the contract between the defendant and Central Trucking, and various documents filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. After reviewing the documents and hearing 1 It appears the actual defendant relevant to this case is Landair Transport, Inc. frazier.wc 2
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. John Mcclellan, III, |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | 02/13/98 | |
| 01C01-9612-CR-00507
01C01-9612-CR-00507
Originating Judge:Seth W. Norman |
Davidson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 02/13/98 | |
| Tommy Horton Tate vs. State
03C01-9707-CR-00264
Originating Judge:E. Eugene Eblen |
Morgan County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 02/13/98 | |
| Child Support Svcs. vs. Russell
01A01-9706-JV-00267
Originating Judge:Andrew J. Shookhoff |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 02/13/98 | |
| State vs. Maurice Johnson
03C01-9705-CR-00175
Originating Judge:Richard R. Baumgartner |
Knox County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 02/13/98 | |
| Little, et. al. vs. Hogan, et. al.
01A01-9707-CV-00291
|
Court of Appeals | 02/13/98 | ||
| Sherrell vs. Sherrell
01A01-9703-CH-00131
Originating Judge:Jim T. Hamilton |
Lawrence County | Court of Appeals | 02/13/98 | |
| Sanders, et. ux. vs. Mansfield, et. al.
01A01-9705-CH-00222
Originating Judge:Ben H. Cantrell |
Lincoln County | Court of Appeals | 02/13/98 | |
| Karr vs. Gibson
01A01-9605-CH-00220
Originating Judge:Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr. |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 02/13/98 | |
| State vs. Steven Culps
02C01-9705-CC-00163
|
Madison County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 02/12/98 | |
| State vs. Kevin Hyman & Karen Russell
02C01-9612-CR-00454
|
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 02/12/98 | |
| State vs. Rickey Nelson
02C01-9607-CR-00223
Originating Judge:John P. Colton, Jr. |
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 02/12/98 | |
| Mildred Daniel vs. James Daniel
02A01-9606-CH-00135
Originating Judge:Floyd Peete, Jr. |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 02/12/98 | |
| State vs. Kenneth Johnson
02C01-9612-CR-00476
Originating Judge:James C. Beasley, Jr. |
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 02/12/98 | |
| Robert Martin vs. Union Planters
02A01-9708-CV-00179
Originating Judge:Robert A. Lanier |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 02/12/98 |