APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In this State appeal, the State challenges the Madison County Circuit Court’s decision dismissing the charges against the defendant and expunging them from her record, claiming that the trial court was without jurisdiction to take the action because the judgment had become final. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

I agree with my colleagues that the common law writ of certiorari is the proper means to have this court address the trial court’s actions regarding improperly reducing the felony theft charge to unauthorized use of an automobile. I differ, though, in how the issue is addressed. I also agree with Judge Thomas that a new sentencing hearing is in order.

Petitioner, a teenager enrolled in the TennCare program, was denied coverage for orthodontic braces by the Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration (“TDFA”). Petitioner contends he qualifies for orthodontic treatment under Tenn. Comp. R. & Reg. 1200-13-13-.04(1)(b)6 due to a severe misalignment that constitutes a medical necessity. He also contends that Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1200-13-13.04(1)(b)6, which limits orthodontic treatment to persons with “a handicapping malocclusion or another developmental anomaly or injury resulting in severe misalignment or handicapping malocclusion of teeth,” is in conflict with the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment program in 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(a)(4)(B) and in violation of the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(r)(5). TDFA contends that TennCare regulations provide orthodontic coverage consistent with federal law, that it correctly interpreted and applied its own regulations regarding Petitioner’s request for orthodontic braces, and that the courts are to defer to the agency’s interpretation of its own rules. The Chancery Court for Davidson County affirmed the administrative decision. We also affirm.

The plaintiff, Deborah Lynn Davis, appeals from a grant of summary judgment to the defendants, Dr. Jack E. Scariano, Jr., and his group, West Knoxville Neurological Associates. Except when the context requires otherwise, we will refer to the defendants collectively as “Dr. Scariano.” Davis sued Dr. Scariano alleging medical malpractice and fraud related to the doctor’s treatment of her and to the billing of her account. Dr. Scariano moved for summary judgment. After granting Davis several continuances, the trial court heard the motion and granted it based on Dr. Scariano’s filings and the plaintiff’s failure to present evidence establishing a disputed issue of material fact. Davis appeals. We affirm.

A Tipton County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, Tony Arness Degraffreed, of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years in confinement to be served at one hundred percent. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, (2) the trial court erred by refusing to require the jury to determine whether his penetration of the victim was digital or penile, and (3) the State improperly commented on the appellant’s failure to testify during it closing argument. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Scott D. Julian, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of three counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class C felony, and sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class D felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-527, 39-17-1003 (2010). He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to three years’ probation for each of the sexual battery convictions and to two years’ confinement for the sexual exploitation conviction, to be served concurrently. On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the State’s failure to provide a more specific bill of particulars deprived him of a fair trial and the ability to prepare a defense, (3) the trial court erred by denying his request to question witnesses about the existence of a sexual relationship between the victim and a witness, (4) the trial court erred by admitting a recorded telephone conversation between the Defendant and the victim, and (5) the State’s election of the offenses in counts three and five were not specific enough to ensure jury unanimity. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Plaintiff/Appellant H.J. Heinz Company, LP, is a Delaware limited partnership that manufactures, sells and distributes food products. Plaintiff operates a facility in Nashville, Tennessee. The issue in this case is whether Plaintiff’s income from its investment in HJH One, LLC, is subject to taxation, on an apportionment basis, in Tennessee. The trial court determined that the earnings constituted business earnings as defined by the relevant statutes, and that the Department of Revenue’s assessment of franchise and excise taxes on the earnings was constitutional. The trial court further determined that the apportionment formula used by the Department was correct. The trial court awarded summary judgment to the Commissioner, and Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

This is a biological father’s appeal from a judgment terminating his parental rights. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence (1) that he had abandoned the child by willfully failing to visit during the four-month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition to terminate; (2) that he had not substantially complied with his obligations under a court-approved permanency plan despite reasonable efforts to reunite him with the child; and (3) that termination is in the best interest of the child. We affirm.

Property owner seeks review of the trial court’s decision that two citations were properly issued against him because he did not have a permit for hosting historic home events on his property as required by the Metropolitan Government. We affirm.

Keilah Gonzalez-Bonilla (“Mother”) and Eduardo Mendez (“Father”) are the divorced parents of a minor child (“the Child”). At the time of the divorce, Mother was named the primary residential parent of the Child, and Father was granted visitation. After the divorce, Mother relocated and a revised permanent parenting plan was entered on August 3, 2007. In December of 2007, Father filed a petition seeking a change in custody of the Child alleging that a material change in circumstances had occurred. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its order on August 4, 2009 finding and holding, inter alia, that there had been a material change in circumstances since February 5, 2007, that custody would be changed with Father to be the primary residential parent, and that the joint decision making would be changed and Father shall have the decision-making authority. Mother appeals to this Court. We find that the proper date from which to determine whether there had been a material change in circumstances is the date the previous order was entered, i.e., August 3, 2007, and that a material change in circumstances sufficient to justify a change in custody had not been proven. We, therefore, reverse the Trial Court’s order changing custody, and remand this case to the Trial Court for reconsideration of its orders regarding child support in light of this Opinion.

This appeal involves in personam jurisdiction over a foreign defendant. Appellant State of Tennessee brought suit against Appellee tobacco product manufacturer, under the Tobacco Escrow Fund Act, Tennessee Code Annotated Sections 47-31-101 et seq., alleging that Appellee had failed to make escrow deposits, as required under the Act, for cigarettes sold in Tennessee. Based upon the trial court’s finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the Appellee, it entered summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer. The State appeals. Upon review, we conclude that: (1) the facts of this case show that the manufacturer intentionally used a distribution system with the desired result of selling its product in all fifty states, including Tennessee, so as to support a finding that the manufacturer had minimum contacts with the State necessary to invoke the exercise of personal jurisdiction; (2) the exercise of personal jurisdiction, under the facts of this case, is reasonable and fair; (3) the manufacturer is subject to regulation under the Act; and (4) the Act is not unconstitutional. Moreover, we conclude that: (1) Appellee is a tobacco products manufacturer, as defined by the Escrow Fund Act; (2) Appellee’s cigarettes were sold in Tennessee; and (3) Appellee is, therefore, liable for escrow payments under the Escrow Fund Act. Consequently, we grant the State’s motion for summary judgment. The order of the trial court is reversed, and the matter is remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of Appellant State and for calculation of the escrow amount owed by Appellee and entry of judgment thereon.

This appeal arises out of a breach of contract action between a restaurant and its former employee. On cross motions for summary judgment, the court resolved all issues between the parties except whether attorney fees should be awarded and whether a permanent injunction should be issued against the employee. The court subsequently dismissed both parties’ claims for attorney fees and extended a temporary injunction previously entered. Both parties appeal the denial of attorney fees; in addition, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in extending the temporary injunction. Finding that the court erred in determining that plaintiff was not the prevailing party, we reverse the court’s denial of attorneys fees to plaintiff and remand for an award of fees for time spent pursuing injunctive relief; we affirm the court’s action in extending the temporary injunction.

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Gary Bohannon, of one count of premeditated first degree murder, see T.C.A. § 39-13-202(a)(1) (2006), for which he received a life sentence. In addition to challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, the defendant also contends that the trial court erroneously admitted as evidence at trial (1) a witness’s statement to law enforcement, (2) a crime scene photograph of the deceased victim, and (3) a tape recording of the 9-1-1 telephone call reporting the shooting. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, when she was thirteen years old, was having difficulty eating because of the position of her teeth, which also irritated her lips and cheeks. An orthodontist recommended braces to remedy the problem; however, the Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration denied TennCare coverage for orthodontic braces. Upon review by the Davidson County Chancery Court, the court found that the TennCare regulations impermissibly required both a Salzmann Index score of 28 and an abnormal dental development, i.e., a handicapping malocclusion, to qualify for orthodontic treatment, and that the Salzmann Index was an illegal utilization control because it nullified eligibility based upon an individualized review. The trial court also found that petitioner had not demonstrated a handicapping malocclusion, which is a valid utilization control under the regulations, therefore, she did not qualify for braces. Petitioner appealed. We affirm the trial court’sfinding that the TennCare regulation in effect at the time impermissibly required a Salzmann Index score of at least 28 to qualify for orthodontic treatment. The record does, however, establish that an individualized assessment of Petitioner’s condition to determine whether she had a handicapping malocclusion was conducted by a consulting dentist employed by the agency, which satisfies the federal requirements. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision to affirm the agency’s denial of orthodontic braces.

The petitioner, John Britt, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Following a jury trial, the petitioner was convicted of two counts of solicitation to commit first degree murder and is currently serving consecutive eight-year sentences. On appeal, the petitioner contends that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel, specifically arguing that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to use the entrapment defense at trial. Following review of the record, we conclude no error exists and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal arises out of disciplinary proceedings against a physician before the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners. The Board found the physician guilty of numerous statutory and regulatory infractions, and it assessed a monetary penalty against the physician and revoked his license for at least one year. The physician filed a petition for review in chancery court, and the chancery court affirmed the decision of the Board. The physician appeals, challenging the Board’s decision on numerous grounds. We affirm.

The Defendant-Appellant, Jamar McField, was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of first degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse. He received a life sentence with the possibility of parole for felony murder and a concurrent sentence of twenty years for aggravated child abuse. On appeal, McField claims: (1) the trial court erred 1 in denying his motion to suppress; (2) the insufficiency of the evidence; (3) the trial court improperly ruled that an autopsy photograph was admissible; and (4) the trial court misapplied an enhancement factor during sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother’s parental rights should be terminated on the grounds of mental incompetence, substantial noncompliance with the provisions of the permanency plan, and persistence of conditions, as well as a finding that termination of her rights was in the best interest of the child. Mother appeals. We affirm.

The Defendant-Appellant, Undray Luellen, was indicted by the Shelby County Criminal Court for three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary. The aggravated robbery count was dismissed during trial, without opposition from the State, following the defense’s motion for judgment of acquittal. At the conclusion of the jury trial, Luellen was convicted of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony; one count of aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony, and one count of aggravated criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced as a Range I, violent offender to two consecutive sentences of twenty-two years for the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions and a concurrent ten-year sentence for the aggravated kidnapping conviction. He was also sentenced to a concurrent sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days for the aggravated criminal trespass conviction. The trial court merged the aggravated kidnapping conviction involving the child victim with the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction involving the child victim. The trial court then imposed an effective sentence of forty-four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, Luellen argues: (1) the trial court erred in admitting three items of testimony; (2) the trial court erred in refusing to consolidate his two indictments for especially aggravated kidnapping; (3) the trial court erred in ruling that his prior conviction for aggravated robbery was admissible for impeachment purposes; (4) the cumulative errors at trial required a reversal; and (5) his sentence was excessive. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment to insert a service  percentage of seventy-five percent for the aggravated criminal trespass conviction.

The issue in this matter is whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-1-116 (“the Transfer Statute”) tolls the running of the statue of limitations when a claim under the Government Tort Liability Act is filed in a court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the court transfers the case to a court with jurisdiction. Acting pro se, the plaintiff filed a GTLA claim in the general sessions court of Rutherford County; the civil warrant was filed prior to the running of the one-year statute of limitations for a GTLA claim. Because subject matter jurisdiction over GTLA claims is limited to the circuit court, the sessions court transferred the case. The circuit court held that, because the sessions court lacked jurisdiction, the transfer itself was invalid; therefore, the action was not effectively filed until it was transferred to the circuit court. However, the date of transfer was beyond the applicable one-year statute of limitations for GTLA claims; thus, the circuit court dismissed the case as time barred. We have determined this case is not time barred because, under the Transfer Statute, the statute of limitations was tolled when the civil warrant was timely filed in sessions court and, because it was timely filed, the sessions court was authorized to transfer the case to the circuit court. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate the case and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This is an action to establish the common boundary line between adjacent property owners. ollowing a four-day bench trial, the trial court adopted Plaintiffs’ survey to establish the parties’ common boundary line. Defendant appeals arguing that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings. Finding the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s numerous findings, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Willis Ayers, appeals as of right from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder and facilitation of especially aggravated robbery and received an effective sentence of 36 years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He challenges the performance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

The trial court granted the wife a divorce after a marriage of nineteen years, awarded her most of the marital property including the marital home, and made her wholly responsible for the mortgage debt on the residence. The court awarded the wife the husband’s share of the equity in the home in the form of alimony in solido. The husband argues on appeal that the property division was inequitable. He also contends that the trial court should have awarded alimony to him rather than to the wife. We affirm the trial court’s division of marital property and its determination not to award alimony to the husband, but we modify its judgment to include husband’s share of the equity in the marital home in the property division, rather than as a separate award of alimony in solido.

The plaintiff’s employment was terminated by the employer for violation of the company’s drug testing policy. The plaintiff alleged negligence against the defendant, a biotechnology company with independent laboratory facilities providing hair testing for the detection of drugs and providing drug-testing services to the plaintiff’s former employer. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appeals. We reverse.

The plaintiffs, former employees of the Chattanooga Housing Authority (“CHA”), brought retaliatory discharge actions against the CHA and the Chief of the CHA Public Safety Department, pursuant to the Tennessee Public Protection Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-1-304 (2008 & Supp. 2010), and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (“THRA”), Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-21-301 (2005). The trial court granted the defendants summary judgment on all claims. On appeal, the Court of Appeals vacated summary judgment on the THRA claim, finding genuine issues of material fact, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in all other respects. We affirm the grant of summary judgment on the Tennessee Public Protection Act claims because the undisputed facts establish that the plaintiffs cannot prove the essential element of an exclusive causal relationship between the plaintiffs’ whistleblowing activity and their discharge, as required by the statute. We also affirm the Court of Appeals’ ruling vacating summary judgment in defendants’ favor on the THRA claims because there are genuine issues of disputed fact making summary judgment improper.