Nashville, Tenn. - The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear oral arguments at two locations in Nashville, Tennessee, on February 12, 2025. In the morning, beginning at 10:30 a.m. CST, the Court will hear one case at the Tennessee Supreme Court building in Nashville. A second case will be submitted to the Court on the briefs. In the afternoon, the Court will hold a special setting for oral arguments at the Tennessee State Capitol building in Nashville. The Court will hear two cases in the Historic Supreme Court Courtroom at the Capitol, beginning at 1:30 p.m. CST. The cases on both of the Court’s February Dockets will be livestreamed to the TNCourts YouTube page.
The cases on the morning docket at the Tennessee Supreme Court Building are as follows:
• Ashley Denson ex rel. Bobbie J. Denson v. Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge et al. – The decedent, Ashley Denson, died shortly after being released from Defendant Methodist Medical Center. The decedent was survived by two minor children who were placed into the custody of her mother, Bobbie Jo Denson. Before filing a healthcare liability action, Ms. Denson sent the Defendant health care providers pre-suit notice of her intent to sue, as is required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-16-121(a). The pre-suit notice identified Ms. Denson as the party authorizing the notice. It did not mention or reference the decedent’s surviving minor children. Ms. Denson subsequently filed a complaint as the personal representative of Ashley Denson, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of the surviving children. The Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Ms. Denson lacked standing and failed to comply with the statutory pre-suit notice requirements. The trial court denied the motion but certified the case for interlocutory review. The Court of Appeals accepted review and unanimously affirmed as to Ms. Denson’s standing. A majority determined Ms. Denson failed to substantially comply with the pre-suit notice requirements and reversed the trial court’s decision denying the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Ms. Denson’s application for permission to appeal to address two questions certified for review: (1) Did Plaintiff Bobbie Joe Denson substantially comply with the pre-suit notice requirement regarding identification of the “claimant” pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(B) when she did not indicate in the pre-suit notice that she was acting on behalf of the decedent’s surviving minor children? and (2) Did Bobbie Jo Denson, as mother of the decedent and grandmother and temporary legal custodian of the surviving minor children pursuant to a Juvenile Court order, have standing to give the pre-suit notice and file the complaint in this case?
On briefs:
• James B. Johnson v. Bd. of Prof. Resp. of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn. – This attorney discipline case arises from a dispute between attorney James B. Johnson and a client who hired Mr. Johnson to represent her in a divorce and child custody action. After the dispute, Mr. Johnson filed a motion to withdraw from representing his client and requested an award of attorney’s fees. Mr. Johnson attached copies of emails with his client as an exhibit to the motion without redacting confidential information or filing the exhibit under seal. The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a petition for discipline against Mr. Johnson, alleging that his disclosure of confidential attorney-client emails to third parties violated Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), and 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct). A hearing panel found that Mr. Johnson had violated the rules and imposed a three-month suspension with one month served on active suspension and the remaining two months on probation. Mr. Johnson appealed to the trial court, which affirmed the hearing panel’s finding that Mr. Johnson had violated RPC 1.6, 1.16, and 8.4(a) and (d). The trial court found that the hearing panel had erred when analyzing the factors for determining a proper punishment but ultimately affirmed the recommended sanction. Mr. Johnson now appeals to this Court, arguing that the trial court erred in upholding the hearing panel’s decision.
The cases on the afternoon docket at the Tennessee State Capitol are as follows:
• Brian Coblentz v. Tractor Supply Co. – Plaintiff Brian Coblentz was a sales representative for Stanley National Hardware. As part of his responsibilities, Mr. Coblentz visited Defendant Tractor Supply’s stores to take inventory of Stanley National merchandise, write orders for needed products, and arrange merchandise displays. Mr. Coblentz suffered a head injury during a visit to the Tractor Supply store in Fayetteville, Tennessee, when a piece of steel hardware from the Stanley National merchandise display struck him in the head. Mr. Coblentz obtained workers’ compensation benefits from Stanley National and filed a premises-liability lawsuit against Tractor Supply. After discovery, Tractor Supply moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act barred Mr. Coblentz from bringing tort claims against it for his injuries because Mr. Coblentz was Tractor Supply’s subcontractor. The trial court granted Tractor Supply’s motion and dismissed the case. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Mr. Coblentz’s application for permission to appeal to address whether, and under what circumstances, a retailer assumes workers’ compensation liability and tort immunity for a vendor employee’s injuries occurring at the retailer’s store.
• State v. Shenessa Sokolosky – In August 2019, Defendant Shenessa Sokolosky pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. She received two consecutive eleven-month, twenty-nine-day sentences to be served on probation. Six months later, her probation officer obtained a warrant which alleged that Ms. Sokolosky had violated the conditions of her probation. Ms. Sokolosky was arrested on the warrant in April 2022 and was held in jail without bond. Prior to a probation revocation hearing, Ms. Sokolosky moved to dismiss the warrant on the grounds that the practices of the probation company violated her right to due process. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. At the conclusion of the probation revocation hearing, the court found that Ms. Sokolosky had violated the conditions of her probation by failing to pay $2,277 in fines, costs, and court fees. The court returned Ms. Sokolosky to probation, extended her probation period by eleven months and twenty-nine days, and established a payment plan for the outstanding balance of costs and fines. Ms. Sokolosky appealed. After oral arguments, the Court of Appeals requested that the parties brief whether the appeal should be dismissed as moot because Ms. Sokolosky completed the extended term of her probation while the appeal was pending. Upon consideration of the briefs, the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Ms. Sokolosky’s application for permission to appeal to determine whether a probation revocation appeal becomes moot by the expiration of the defendant’s sentence.
Media members planning to attend oral arguments should review Supreme Court Rule 30 and file any required requests to:
Samantha Fisher
Communications Director
Administrative Office of the Courts
Samantha.fisher@tncourts.gov