APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellant, Phillip Mangrum, pled guilty in the Criminal Court of Sumner County to aggravated burglary, a class C felony. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-403 (1991). The trial court sentenced the appellant as a multiple offender within range II to eight years incarceration in the Department of Correction. The appellant appeals from this sentence, contending, in essence, that (1) the appellant’s status as a multiple offender is not supported by the record; (2) the State’s notice of enhanced sentencing was inadequate under the Sentencing Act and Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12.3; and (2) his sentence is excessive.

This appeal represents three consolidated cases. The defendant pled guilty to three counts of forgery, one count of theft over one thousand dollars ($1000), two counts of passing a forged check, and one count of passing a worthless check. For each count of forgery and passing a forged check, the trial court sentenced the defendant to three years in the Department of Correction as a Range II multiple offender. For the theft offense, the trial court sentenced her to three years in the Department of Correction as a Range I standard offender. For passing a worthless check, the trial court sentenced her to eleven months and twenty-nine days at seventy-five percent (75%) to be served in the Sumner County jail. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

In this case, the defendant, The Krystal Company (Krystal), appeals a jury verdict holding it liable for personal injuries received by the plaintiff, Ali Agha Batebi (Batebi), from a criminal assault by a third party while on Krystal's property. We affirm.

The gravamen of this appeal is child support. Nina Alice Kimble and Michael Wayne Kimble were married in 1985, divorced in 1992 and will be referred to as Wife and Husband, respectively. When  hey married, Wife had a son from a previous marriage and Husband a daughter. Husband adopted the son but Wife did not adopt the daughter.

Appellant has filed a Motion to Rehear Pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. In the Motion, Appellant contends that the Opinion of this Court was based on an incorrect application of the law. Noting that the Opinion states that neither Appellant’s original Complaint or the proposed Amended Complaint allege negligence with respect to laboratory tests conducted on the deceased, Appellant asserts that he was erroneously required to state a legal theory, not simply “facts from which a legal theory can be inferred.”

The sole issue in this case is whether a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action may recover from a defendant health care provider the amount of plaintiff’s medical expenses paid by the Tennessee Medicaid program which is a part of the federal social security program.

The sole issue in this case is whether a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action may recover from a defendant health care provider the amount of plaintiff’s medical expenses paid by the Tennessee Medicaid program which is a part of the federal social security program.