Walter Austein v. Riverwood Int. USA, Inc. 02S01-9704-CH-00037
Authoring Judge: Cornelia A. Clark, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. D. J. Alissandratos
This worker's compensation appeal has been referred to the special worker's compensation appeals panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The sole issue on appeal is whether the one-year statute of limitations under T.C.A. _50-6-203 ran prior to the filing of the lawsuit. This marks the second appearance of this case before this panel. In Austein v. Riverwood International USA, Inc., No. 02S01-9507-CH-00059 (Tenn. Work. Comp. App., February 23, 1996), this panel found that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the statute of limitations issue because issues of material fact existed concerning both the date the statute of limitations began to run and the estoppel issue. The case was remanded to the trial court for trial on the merits. Plaintiff again appeals the trial court's finding that the statute of limitations ran before he filed this action.
Shelby
Workers Compensation Panel
George Randall Bailey v. U.S.F.&G. & Institutional Distributors 02S01-9704-CV-00025
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. William B. Acree, Jr.
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with T.C.A. _ 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 to be 15 percent permanently partially disabled on account of "emotional or behavioral symptoms." The plaintiff appeals, insisting that the preponderance of the evidence requires a greater award. We disagree, and accordingly affirm the judgment. On March 4, 1996, the plaintiff was injured when struck on the head by falling cartons of pizza dough. A CAT scan revealed no cranial pathology, but owing to his continuing complaints, the plaintiff was extensively treated and examined by Dr. R. A. Tyrer, Dr. Robert Greene, Jr., and Dr. Glenn Barnett, II, neurosurgeons; Dr. Robert Pusakulich, a clinical psychologist; and other experts. The neurologists administered various tests, including an MRI of the brain, MRI of the lumbar spine, MRI of the cervical spine, and an MRI of the head. A host of x-rays, a bone scan and a spinal tap completed the diagnostic testing. These experts found no disability. Dr. Pusakulich believed that the plaintiff was suffering from a "great deal of financial overlay;" so did Dr. Barnett. Dr. Pusakulich also believed the plaintiff demonstrated a remarkable psychogenic overlay, as evidenced by his complaint of double vision that "he saw double with both eyes open and one eye closed," a neuroanatomical impossibility. The plaintiff was referred to Dr. Tewfik E. Rizk, of the St. Joseph Hospital Rehabilitation Center, by his attorney. On his initial examination, Dr. Rizk testified that the plaintiff had a slow, slurred speech, memory loss, and was limping on the left side. His diagnosis was post-traumatic closed-head injury syndrome with left-side hemiparesis. He disagreed with the conclusions 2
Pamela D. Smith v. Health Tech Affiliates, Inc. 02S01-9611-CV-00099
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Kay S. Robilio,
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 filed suit on February 1, 1995 and alleged she had sustained an injury to her foot when a portion of a wall fell upon her as she was working for the defendant. On December 13, 1995, the plaintiff amended her complaint to allege she had suffered psychological injury as a result of the accident. On August 13, 1996, the trial judge entered a judgment dismissing the complaint. The pertinent portion of the judgment is as follows: After duly considering the testimony and the evidence and considering the credibility of the persons who testified, the court finds that the plaintiff failed to carry her burden of proof; that the alleged psychiatric or psychological injuries were not caused by the plaintiff's work accident; that the plaintiff is not entitled to any workers' compensation benefits for her alleged psychiatric or psychological injuries; that with regard to the injury to her foot or toe caused by the accident, the defendant paid all the plaintiff's medical expenses to which the plaintiff was entitled; that the plaintiff lost time from work from January 13, 1995 to March 13, 1995 as the result of the injury to her foot and she was paid temporary total disability benefits at the rate of $198.4 per week for this period of time; that the plaintiff was paid all the temporary total disability benefits to which she was entitled; and that the plaintiff is not entitled to any additional temporary total disability or other workers' compensation benefits as the result of the accident on January 12, 1995. The determination of the credibility of the witnesses who testified before the trial judge was solely within the judge's discretion. The finding of the credibility of the witnesses is not reweighed on appeal. State, ex rel. Balsinger v. Town of Madisonville, 435 S.W.2d 83 (Tenn. 1968). We note, however, that there were many inconsistencies in the record, both in oral testimony, in deposition testimony, and in other documents filed, showing the plaintiff had made different statements at different times concerning the accident. For example, she stated at one time a wall fell upon her and a patient leaving them covered in debris. At another time, she said a portion of the wall fell upon her. The evidence shows a piece of wood which was approximately 2 feet long and 6 inches wide fell and struck her toe. During the time the plaintiff was drawing temporary total disability, she took a job with another company. The plaintiff's deposition was taken on September 7, 1995, and she testified then that she had not worked anywhere since her accident. At trial, the plaintiff admitted working while she drew disability. The plaintiff testified she knew she could not work but that she needed the money. 2
Betty A. Primm v. Kantus Corp., et al. 01S01-9705-CV-00120
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Lee Russell
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellate review requires that we presume that the judgment of the trial court is correct. RULE 13(d), T. R. A. P. We indulge no other presumptions, but look to see where the preponderance of the evidence lies.
Marshall
Workers Compensation Panel
Robert Utley v. Robert Orr-Sysco M2000-02904-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes
This is a premises liability case. The plaintiff was shopping in a store owned by the defendant when the plaintiff slipped and fell on a clear liquid substance and sustained personal injuries. The plaintiff shopper sued the defendant store owner on a theory of premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm, finding that the plaintiff submitted insufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the store had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition prior to the plaintiff's fall.
