Volunteer Beer, Inc. vs. Johnson, Jr.
01A01-9703-CH-00126
Trial Court Judge: Robert S. Brandt

State Dept. of Children Svcs vs. Manier
01A01-9703-JV-00116
Trial Court Judge: John B. Melton

03C01-9405-CR-00161
03C01-9405-CR-00161
Trial Court Judge: R. Steven Bebb

Gates vs. State
03C01-9510-CC-00313
Trial Court Judge: Mayo L. Mashburn

State vs. Greene
03C01-9608-CC-00316

Miller vs. State
03C01-9608-CC-00323
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.

State vs. Harris
03C01-9611-CR-00428

03C01-9612-CR-00453
03C01-9612-CR-00453

Courtner vs. State
03C01-9701-CR-00005

McBee/Dunlap vs. State
03C01-9509-CR-00276

State vs. Ball
03C01-9512-CC-00387
Trial Court Judge: Rex Henry Ogle

Fortunes vs. Watson
03A01-9705-CV-00164
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.

Cook vs. Brookside
03A01-9706-CV-00212

John Tigrett vs. Union Planters Bank
02A01-9703-CV-00057
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers

Engenius Entertainment vs. W. W. Herenton, et al
02A01-9704-CH-00078
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos

Donald D'Amico vs. James Davenport, et al
02A01-9705-CH-00097
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris

Dan Lomax vs. JMCGH
02A01-9706-CH-00116
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris

Christopher v. Sockwell
01S01-9703-CV-00047
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. James E. Walton,
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. At the trial, the only issue was the extent of the claimant's permanent partial disability. In this appeal, the employer's insurer, Argonaut, contends the trial judge (1) erred in accepting the opinion testimony of an examining physician over that of the treating physician and (2) erred in using a multiplier of 4.9 times the medical impairment to determine the claimant's permanent partial disability. As discussed below, the panel has found no reversible error but concluded the award of permanent partial disability benefits should be modified. The employee or claimant, Atkins, is forty-four years old with a college degree in social science work. He has worked as an instructor and hearing officer with the state of Tennessee, as a supervisor with the United States Department of Commerce, as a machine operator and as a forklift operator. On April 18, 1994, Atkins stepped off a forklift and fell, injuring his back and bruising his right side from his shoulder to his foot. He was referred to Dr. David McCord, who performed disc surgery at L4-5 on May 23, 1994. When the claimant's condition did not improve, the doctor performed fusion surgery. At the time of the trial on August 31, 1996, the fusion had not healed and the claimant had not been released by Dr. McCord to return to work. The doctor assessed the claimant's permanent impairment at fifteen percent to the whole body. At the claimant's request, Dr. David W. Gaw conducted a physical examination of the claimant and assessed his permanent impairment at eighteen percent to the whole body. At the insurer's request, Dr. Michael James McNamara conducted a physical examination and assessed his permanent impairment at ten percent to the whole body. From the testimony of the claimant, which the trial judge found to be credible, and the other evidence, the trial judge found the opinion testimony of Dr. Gaw to be "the most convincing." He then multiplied the eighteen percent impairment by 4.9, after stating, "I agree with counsel that the multipliers 5 and 6 are out," and awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on 88.2% 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 record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

Roxie Moorehead v. Lincoln & Donalson Care Center
01S01-9703-CV-00049
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 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 is this case is whether the replacement of the plaintiff's right knee was causally related to a compensable accident within the purview of applicable law. The trial judge found the issue in favor of the plaintiff and awarded benefits based upon a determination that she had an 85 percent permanent partial disability to her right leg. The employer appeals, insisting that the judgment is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. 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 584 (Tenn. 1991). The plaintiff is a 62 year old woman of limited education and skills. She was employed as a nursing technician1 at the Care Center where she began work in 1991. On April 17, 1994, a patient whom she was attending kicked her right knee, which caused momentary pain. She continued to work for three weeks during which time her knee became stiff and painful. She was seen by Dr. Michael Siaw, an orthopedic specialist who recommended conservative treatment. She did not respond, and Dr. Siaw scheduled her for a MRI which revealed an oblique tear of the lateral meniscus. Dr. Siaw believed this injury was consonant with the history the plaintiff gave him of having been kicked on the knee by a patient at the nursing home. Eventually, it became necessary to correct the tear arthroscopically. This procedure was performed on July 5, 1994, and successfully so, although pre- existing osteoarthritis continued to cause the plaintiff considerable pain. The plaintiff returned to work, and the arthritic condition worsened, according to her. Dr. Siaw saw her on June 21, 1996 and discovered that she had a total knee replacement 1 Being a nursing technician involves lifting, bathing, feeding, and dressing patients. 2

Roach vs. State
03C01-9604-CC-00155
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner

Hyson vs. State
03C01-9611-CR-00393

Wilson vs. State
03C01-9611-CR-00409

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

First American vs. Fitzgerald
03A01-9704-CH-00131

Poats vs. Nelson
03A01-9704-CH-00138