West American Ins. vs. Patricia Perkins
02A01-9712-CV-00326
Trial Court Judge: James E. Swearengen

Jessica Weil vs. John Gaia, etc.
02A01-9804-CV-00098
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio

02A01-9805-CV-00136
02A01-9805-CV-00136
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood

Anderson vs. Anderson
03A01-9810-CV-00366

Anderson vs. Anderson
03A01-9810-CV-00366

State vs. Terry C. Meadors
01C01-9807-CC-00285
Trial Court Judge: J. Steve Daniel

Duvall vs. Mobley
01A01-9810-CV-00530
Trial Court Judge: Patricia J. Cottrell

In re: The Estate of Carlton Agib Blessing
01A01-9810-PB-00550

Dotson vs. TDOC
01A01-9811-CV-00596

Montz vs. Montz
01A01-9812-CV-00635
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley

Butler vs. TDOC
01A01-9808-CH-00428

Baker vs. Mundaca Investment Corp.
01A01-9809-CH-00498
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

Ford v. Rubbermaid
03S01-9806-CV-00060
Authoring Judge: Howell N. Peoples, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: The Honorable

Strouth vs. State
03S01-9707-CC-00079

Strouth vs. State
03S01-9707-CC-00079
Trial Court Judge: Frank L. Slaughter

Guliano vs. Cleo
02S01-9801-CV-00002

State vs. Buggs
02S01-9803-CR-00020
Trial Court Judge: Arthur T. Bennett

Marcus vs. Marcus
02S01-9804-CH-00036

Stop of That Ve Hicle. It Is Tr Ue Tha T This Cour T Has In The Past Upheld Vehicle Stops By
03C01-9802-CR-00075

03C01-9802-CR-00075
03C01-9802-CR-00075

03C01-9804-CC-00163
03C01-9804-CC-00163

03C01-9805-CC-00186
03C01-9805-CC-00186

Andrew Ewing v. State of Tennessee
W2008-01605-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Paula L. Skahan

Hawkins vs. Hart
01S01-9811-CV-00199
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes

Hatcher v. Rubbermaid
03S01-9804-CV-00041
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.,
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. At the outset we think it pardonable to observe that the briefs in this case are exceptional and worthy of emulation. The plaintiff is a 26-year-old high school graduate whose right arm was crushed in an industrial accident on September 12, 1994. The arm was surgically amputated at the elbow area. Responding to the complaint for workers' compensation benefits, the defendant admitted the occurrence and compensability of the injury, and filed a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment for 1 percent loss of her arm together with all medical expenses. The trial judge awarded 75 percent permanent, partial disability benefits to the body as a whole. The defendant appeals, insisting that recovery is limited to 2 weeks because the statutory schedule controls. Our review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2);Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). T.C.A. _ 5-6-27 prescribes benefits for the loss of a scheduled member. The loss of an arm is worth only 2 weeks. The Code does not address the loss of an upper extremity. But the AMA Guidelines, which are contained in the Code by reference, do not assess impairment to the arm, but only to the upper extremity. The anomaly thereby posed, as the appellant observes, is frustrating. 2