Please enter some keywords to search.
| Anthony Neal Bates v. Cooper Industries, et al.
01S01-9604-CV-00065
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance 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 and its insurer contend the evidence preponderates against the award of permanent partial disability benefits. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The employee or claimant, Bates, is thirty-six years old and a high school graduate. He has done nursery, construction, farming, factory and supervisory work. On September, 4, 1992, while lifting a thirty to forty pound box of coil springs to fill a customer's order, he strained his upper back. After a brief period of recuperation, during which he was treated conservatively by a neurological surgeon, he returned to work with weight lifting restrictions. On May 26, 1994, he strained his lower back in another lifting accident at work and was treated by the same doctor. The doctor again treated the claimant conservatively and returned him to work. The treating doctor and two others to whom he was referred, one an orthopedist and one a pain management specialist, assigned zero percent permanent impairment, using appropriate guidelines. The claimant was referred by his attorney or his family physician to another orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed cervical and lumbar sprain and assigned a five to ten percent permanent whole person impairment. The disagreement is over whether the injury is in "category one" or "category two," as defined by the guidelines, which involves "a judgment call." The claimant has been terminated because the employer was unwilling to offer him a job within his lifting restrictions. A vocational expert has estimated the claimant's industrial disability at fifty-five to sixty percent. The claimant's own testimony is that he is able to work at a job not requiring repetitive or heavy lifting. The trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on forty-five 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 of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). This tribunal is required to conduct an independent examination of the evidence to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Anthony Bates, |
DeKalb County | Workers Compensation Panel | 10/22/96 | |
| Insurance Company of North America v. Ronnie Storie
01S01-9602-CV-00037
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The issue presented by this appeal is whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee's injury was proximately caused by intoxication. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be reversed and the case remanded for an award of benefits. The claimant or employee, Storie, is forty-five years old and has an eighth grade education. On March 18, 1993, he reported to work at 6:3 p.m. at Kentucky Apparel to perform his usual duties as a maintenance mechanic. During the course of the shift, he needed to obtain some copper tubing and light bulbs to perform his duties. Those supplies were stored above a dropped ceiling above the maintenance office and accessible by a ladder and some loose boards. The claimant negotiated the ladder without a problem, but slipped and fell when one of the loose boards moved. He fell through the ceiling and onto a concrete floor in the men's rest room below, frightening a user, who beat a hasty exit and reported the accident. The claimant suffered multiple injuries, including a broken arm and back injury. We find in the record no direct evidence the claimant was intoxicated at the time. In fact, he had apparently performed his duties satisfactorily until the accident occurred. The injurious accident occurred shortly before 2:45 a. m. on March 19th. After some delay, he was driven to the Fentress County Hospital by a co-worker, arriving at about 3: a. m. When no doctor was available to treat his arm injury, he was transported to the Putnam County Hospital. When he arrived there at about 6:3 a. m., he smelled of alcohol and a blood alcohol test revealed an alcohol content of approximately .2 percent. The claimant insists he consumed the alcohol, retrieved from his own vehicle at the plant and provided by a friend while waiting for medical attention, after the accident, to help relieve pain associated with his injuries. The trial court disallowed the claim as being proximately caused by intoxication. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6- 225(e)(2). This tribunal is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Conrad E. Troutman, |
Fentress County | Workers Compensation Panel | 10/22/96 | |
| X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Hamilton County | Court of Appeals | 10/21/96 | |
| X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | 10/21/96 | ||
| In April 1989. In The Present Appeal, The Petitioner, Relying In Part Upon State v. Roger
02C01-9610-CC-00333
|
Lake County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/21/96 | |
| X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | 10/21/96 | ||
| X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | 10/21/96 | ||
| State v. Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-Cc-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 20, 1996),
02C01-9610-CC-00335
|
Lake County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/21/96 | |
| 03A01-9607-CV-00227
03A01-9607-CV-00227
Originating Judge:Inman |
Court of Appeals | 10/21/96 | ||
| State vs. John Wayne Slate
03C01-9511-CC-00352
|
Sevier County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/18/96 | |
| 01A01-9604-CH-00149
01A01-9604-CH-00149
Originating Judge:Ellen Hobbs Lyle |
Court of Appeals | 10/18/96 | ||
| 01A01-9604-CH-00191
01A01-9604-CH-00191
Originating Judge:Ellen Hobbs Lyle |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 10/18/96 | |
| State vs. John Wayne Slate
03C01-9511-CC-00352
|
Sevier County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/18/96 | |
| Honorable Hamilton v. Gayden, Jr., Judge
01A01-9605-CV-00201
Originating Judge:Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr. |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 10/18/96 | |
| 03C01-9512-CC-00381
03C01-9512-CC-00381
|
Sevier County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/18/96 | |
| 01A01-9602-CV-00070
01A01-9602-CV-00070
Originating Judge:Thomas W. Brothers |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 10/18/96 | |
| 01A01-9604-CH-00181
01A01-9604-CH-00181
Originating Judge:Gerald L. Ewell, Sr. |
Coffee County | Court of Appeals | 10/18/96 | |
| 03C01-9506-CR-00169
03C01-9506-CR-00169
Originating Judge:James C. Witt |
Campbell County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/18/96 | |
| 01A01-9603-PB-00093
01A01-9603-PB-00093
Originating Judge:James R. Everett |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 10/18/96 | |
| 01C01-9511-CC-00381
01C01-9511-CC-00381
Originating Judge:Henry Denmark Bell |
Williamson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/17/96 | |
| Helen Carroll v. Moore and Associates and Travelers Insurance Company
01S01-9512-CV-00221
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Special Judge
Originating Judge:HON. JOHN W. ROLLINS, JUDGE |
Carroll County | Workers Compensation Panel | 10/17/96 | |
| Kerry Alan Napier v. Cincinnati Casualty Insurance Company and North Central Telephone Cooperative
01S01-9604-CH-00063
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 award of 75 percent disability to the plaintiff's right hand is in accord with the preponderance of proof. Appellate review is confined to a review de novo on the record, accompanied by a presumption that the trial judge's findings of fact are correct unless the evidence otherwise preponderates. T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). A concomitant rule is that we are as enabled as the trial judge to judge the probative worth of depositional testimony. Landers v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 775 S.W.2d 355, 356 (Tenn. 1989). The plaintiff's job with the telephone company was that of a cable splicer and repairman. During the course of his employment, he sustained a laceration to the extensor tendon of his right hand, on October 25, 1994, involving the index, middle and ring fingers, which was repaired by Dr. Keith Morrison, an orthopedic surgeon in Bowling Green, Kentucky, under whose care he remained until February 22, 1995. On that date, Dr. Morrison noted: Mr. Napier is now 4 months status post extensor tendon repair on his right hand. Four tendons repaired to the index finger, slips to the middle and ring finger on the right hand. His EXAM today shows some improvement. He still lacks full extension on the index finger by about 2dg when his wrist is brought into extension. With the wrist in the flexed position, he has full extension of the hand. He has full flexion of all the digits with his only limitation being the lack of full extension on the index finger with his wrist in the above mentioned extension position. They would like to get a second opinion for insurance reasons so we are going to see him back in 1 month. At that time he will be 5 months out. I recommend tenolysis exploration. If he is still dissatisfied with the result. Overall, he has made a big improvement, having had no active extension of the fingers on repair. He remains neurovascularly intact. Otherwise, no loss of sensation. The plaintiff was later seen, on March 15, 1995 by Dr. Stephen Pratt, a specialist in reconstructive hand surgery, because of a 3 degree lag in the index finger. Further tendon repairs were undertaken to correct the lag. Dr. Pratt testified 2
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. C.K. Smith, |
Macon County | Workers Compensation Panel | 10/17/96 | |
| 02C01-9510-CC-00292
02C01-9510-CC-00292
Originating Judge:John Franklin Murchison |
Madison County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/17/96 | |
| 02C01-9510-CC-00320
02C01-9510-CC-00320
Originating Judge:John Franklin Murchison |
Madison County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/17/96 | |
| 01C01-9512-CC-00431
01C01-9512-CC-00431
|
Robertson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/17/96 |