APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS | Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

Please enter some keywords to search.

COURT

COUNTY

AUTHORING JUDGE

ORIGINATING JUDGE

CASE NUMBER

DATE FILTER

SEARCH TITLE

SEARCH CASE SUMMARY

1996. In The Present Appeal, The Petitioner, Relying In Part Upon State v. Roger Dale Hill, 02C01-9612-CC-00452	Lauderdale County	Court of Criminal Appeals	06/20/96
01C01-9508-CC-00267 01C01-9508-CC-00267	Wayne County	Court of Criminal Appeals	06/20/96
Corbin B. Scroggins v. Kenneth Ray Ely 03S01-9510-CH-00121 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 issue in this case is whether the trial judge erred in granting a summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's petition for workers' compensation benefits because there is no jurisdiction over this case in Tennessee. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The relevant facts in the case are simple. On or around May 17, 1991, the plaintiff learned that Ely's Trucking, a Knoxville company, had a possible opening for a driver. The plaintiff learned this from another driver, who lived, as did the plaintiff, in Nebraska. The plaintiff called Ely's Trucking Company from his home in Nebraska. Ray Ely, the owner of the trucking company, and plaintiff discussed plaintiff's desire to work for Ely. The plaintiff's testimony, taken by deposition, clearly shows Ely made an offer of employment to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff accepted the offer at his home in Nebraska, where he was when the discussion took place. There was no written contract of employment between the plaintiff and Ely. The only document signed by the parties was a listing of benefits the plaintiff had with Ely's Trucking. This was signed on May 21, 1991 in Knoxville. The injury of which the plaintiff complained did not occur in Tennessee. The Chancellor found there was no jurisdiction to try the case in Tennessee. The evidence supports this finding. There was no contract of employment entered into in Tennessee, nor was the employment principally localized within this state as required by TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-115 to give jurisdiction to this state. The contract was completed in Nebraska when the plaintiff accepted the employment offer from Ely. Tolley v. General Accident Fire & Life Ins. Corp., 584 S.W.2d 647 (Tenn. 1979). We affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand the case thereto with costs assessed to the plaintiff. 2 Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers Originating Judge:Hon. Frederick D. Mcdonald	Knox County	Workers Compensation Panel	06/20/96
01C01-9505-CC-00143 01C01-9505-CC-00143 Originating Judge:Leon C. Burns, Jr.	Putnam County	Court of Criminal Appeals	06/20/96
01C01-9506-CC-00198 01C01-9506-CC-00198 Originating Judge:Leonard W. Martin	Dickson County	Court of Criminal Appeals	06/20/96
01C01-9508-CC-00253 01C01-9508-CC-00253 Originating Judge:Gerald L. Ewell, Sr.	Coffee County	Court of Criminal Appeals	06/20/96
Petitioner, Relying In Part Upon State v. Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-Cc-00267 02C01-9612-CC-00465	Lake County	Court of Criminal Appeals	06/20/96
Eunice Irene Freeman v. Sportswear and Associates and Liberty Mutual Insurance 01S01-9511-CV-00193 This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special 1 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 trial judge found the plaintiff had suffered a 65% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole and entered judgment accordingly. The issues raised by the defendant are: 1) Whether the proof preponderates against the trial court's judgment as excessive. 2) Whether the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff's award was not limited to two and a half times the medical impairment rating. 3) Whether the trial court erred in awarding the plaintiff a lump sum payment. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. There is no dispute that the plaintiff, who is 58 years of age, with a high school education, whose primary job was as a sewing machine operator, was injured in an industrial accident. Further, there is no dispute that the plaintiff sustained a permanent vocational impairment to the body as a whole. The plaintiff submitted the only medical evidence in this case. The physician testified that the plaintiff had sustained a 17% permanent medical impairment to the body as a whole. The plaintiff, her husband and a co-worker testified concerning the plaintiff's condition subsequent to the injury. Each of these witnesses testified to the limitations of the plaintiff's ability to perform work as a result of her injuries. Without question the plaintiff sustained a significant injury in this accident. The trial judge saw and heard the witnesses who testified in court and credited their testimony. Credibility of these witnesses is for the trial judge to find, and we do not, and can not, reweigh the credibility on appeal. On appeal, we review the judgment of the trial court with a presumption of correctness. TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). We are required, however, to 2 Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers Originating Judge:Hon. Bobby Capers,	Macon County	Workers Compensation Panel	06/20/96
Johnson Controls v. Shelby J. Cotham and Larry Brinton, Director, Second Injury Fund 01S01-9511-CV-00212 Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge Originating Judge:Hon. Donald P. Harris,	Johnson County	Workers Compensation Panel	06/20/96
01C01-9507-CC-00239 01C01-9507-CC-00239	Williamson County	Court of Criminal Appeals	06/20/96
Betty Jo Cleghorn v. Suburban Home Health, Inc. 01S01-9510-CH-00178 This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special 1 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 trial court held that the plaintiff had not met her burden of proving that she sustained a permanent vocational disability as a result of her work-related injury. Plaintiff appeals, asserting that the evidence does not support the trial court's judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. No transcript of the evidence was filed. The evidence available for our review consists of the medical depositions offered in the trial court and their attendant exhibits. The medical evidence, taken as a whole, supports the judgment of the trial court. Our standard of review is de novo on the record accompanied by the presumption that the findings of fact by the trial court are correct. TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(2) Where no transcript of the evidence is filed, the appellate courts will conclusively presume that every fact admissible under the pleadings was found in favor of the appellee. Wilson v. Hafley, 189 Tenn. 598, 226 S.W.2d 38, 311 (1949); Hollingsworth v. Safeco Ins. Cos., 782 S.W.2d 477, 479 (Tenn. App. 1989). Upon the record in this case, we can only find that the evidence does not preponderate against the judgment of the trial court. We affirm the judgment and the costs are taxed to the plaintiff/appellant. We remand the case to the trial court. John K. Byers, Senior Judge CONCUR: 2 Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge Originating Judge:Hon. Claudia C. Bonnyman	Davidson County	Workers Compensation Panel	06/20/96
Melvin Burkett vs. State 01C01-9605-CC-00202 Originating Judge:Allen W. Wallace	Humphreys County	Court of Criminal Appeals	06/20/96
Ronald H. Anselm v. K-Va-T Food Stores, Inc., Fireman's Fund Insurance Company and Sue Ann Head, Director, Division of Workers' Compensation, Tennessee 03S01-9508-CV-00087 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 that he sustained an injury to his neck, arms and shoulders during the course of his employment by the K-VA-T Food Stores while performing repetitive actions involving the stocking of food shelves from April 1 to May 19, 1992. He further alleged that these repetitive actions aggravated a prior neck injury. The defendant denied the occurrence of an accidental injury. The plaintiff began working for K-VA-T as a cashier in September, 199. He was 5 years old, and had earned his livelihood driving a truck for most of his adult life. In l987 he was treated for shoulder pain for which, in December 1987, he settled a workers' compensation claim. He suf fered recurring pain in 199 while driving a truck and sought workers' compensation benefits which were awarded in December, 1992. The purported repetitive actions entailed by his most recent job occurred, as heretofore stated, during a six-weeks period in April and May, 1992. The trial judge found that the injuries complained of did not occur during the plaintiff's employment by K-VA-T, and dismissed the complaint. Our review is de novo on the record accompanied by a presumption that the findings of fact of the trial judge are correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Dr. Stephen Wiessfeld was the only medical expert called to testify. He said that based on the history related to him, the plaintiff sustained an aggravation to a pre- existing arthritic condition, but conceded that his opinion was dependent upon an accurate history of repetitive arm and shoulder movements. He found no anatomical changes, but relied upon the representations of his patient. Further evidence revealed that the claimed repetitive actions were not as onerous as claimed, which impelled the trial judge to find that the medical testimony was untrustworthy, and unreliable. The burden to establish each element of a workers' compensation claim is upon the employee claiming benefits. Oster v. Yates, 845 S.W.2d 815 (Tenn. 1992). One Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge Originating Judge:Hon. W. Dale Young	Knox County	Workers Compensation Panel	06/20/96
Habeas Corpus Proceeding. See Haggard v. State, 475 S.W.2D 186, 187 (Tenn. Crim. 02C01-9612-CC-00467	Lake County	Court of Criminal Appeals	06/20/96
Eunice Irene Freeman v. Sportswear and Associates and Liberty Mutual Insurance 01S01-9511-CV-00193 This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special 1 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 trial judge found the plaintiff had suffered a 65% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole and entered judgment accordingly. The issues raised by the defendant are: 1) Whether the proof preponderates against the trial court's judgment as excessive. 2) Whether the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff's award was not limited to two and a half times the medical impairment rating. 3) Whether the trial court erred in awarding the plaintiff a lump sum payment. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. There is no dispute that the plaintiff, who is 58 years of age, with a high school education, whose primary job was as a sewing machine operator, was injured in an industrial accident. Further, there is no dispute that the plaintiff sustained a permanent vocational impairment to the body as a whole. The plaintiff submitted the only medical evidence in this case. The physician testified that the plaintiff had sustained a 17% permanent medical impairment to the body as a whole. The plaintiff, her husband and a co-worker testified concerning the plaintiff's condition subsequent to the injury. Each of these witnesses testified to the limitations of the plaintiff's ability to perform work as a result of her injuries. Without question the plaintiff sustained a significant injury in this accident. The trial judge saw and heard the witnesses who testified in court and credited their testimony. Credibility of these witnesses is for the trial judge to find, and we do not, and can not, reweigh the credibility on appeal. On appeal, we review the judgment of the trial court with a presumption of correctness. TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). We are required, however, to 2 Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers Originating Judge:Hon. Bobby Capers,	Macon County	Workers Compensation Panel	06/20/96
Farhad Yasin Sorani v. Royal Insurance Company of America and Kenco Plastics, Inc. 01S01-9510-CH-00179 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 trial judge awarded compensation to the worker based on 5% permanent partial disability to both arms. Because we find that the evidence preponderates against the award, we modify it to 25% disability to both arms. I. Mr. Sorani, an Iraqi Kurdish refugee, went to work for Kenco Plastics, Inc. on or about February 1, 1994. His duties included gripping and cutting plastic, and involved repetitive hand movements. On May 16, 1994 he went to the Sumner County Regional Medical Center complaining of soreness in his left arm. He was diagnosed with tendonitis and put on light duty for seven days. On June 24, 1994 Mr. Sorani consulted an orthopaedic specialist for pain and numbness in both hands. An examination resulted in a diagnosis of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. On July 2, 1994 he was referred to another specialist, for complaints of numbness and tingling in the fingers of both hands. This specialist confirmed the carpal tunnel syndrome diagnosis and concluded that it was caused or aggravated by the work at Kenco Plastics. The doctor treated Mr. Sorani conservatively until October 28, 1994 when he performed carpal tunnel release surgery on the right hand. Following the surgery, Mr. Sorani suffered from an involuntary "triggering" movement in the ring finger on his right hand. His doctor thought that the condition would improve on its own if he was given three weeks rest. The doctor - 2 - Authoring Judge: Ben H. Cantrell, Special Judge Originating Judge:Hon. Jane W Heatcraft, Judge	Sumner County	Workers Compensation Panel	06/20/96
01A01-9504-CH-00134 01A01-9504-CH-00134 Originating Judge:Vernon Neal	Clay County	Court of Appeals	06/19/96
01A01-9511-CH-00515 01A01-9511-CH-00515 Originating Judge:Vernon Neal	Pickett County	Court of Appeals	06/19/96
01A01-9603-CH-00131 01A01-9603-CH-00131 Originating Judge:Ellen Hobbs Lyle	Davidson County	Court of Appeals	06/19/96
Christopher v. Sockwell, 01A01-9511-CH-00505 Originating Judge:Jim T. Hamilton	Lawrence County	Court of Appeals	06/19/96
01A01-9602-CH-00063 01A01-9602-CH-00063 Originating Judge:Robert S. Brandt	Davidson County	Court of Appeals	06/19/96
01A01-9603-CH-00102 01A01-9603-CH-00102 Originating Judge:Robert S. Brandt	Davidson County	Court of Appeals	06/19/96
State vs. Roy Smith 02C01-9712-CR-00468	Shelby County	Court of Criminal Appeals	06/17/96
02S01-9410-CC-00069 02S01-9410-CC-00069		Supreme Court	06/17/96
02C01-9410-CC-00248 02C01-9410-CC-00248	McNairy County	Court of Criminal Appeals	06/17/96