James R. Fruge and Jane Fruge v. John and Jane Doe
02S01-9601-CV-00005
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge George H. Brown, Jr.

This case presents for review the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's award of summary judgment denying the plaintiff's claims under the uninsured motorist statute. That decision is reversed, and the case is remanded. 

Supreme Court

Mary Blake v. Plus Mark, Inc. and Sue Ann Head, Director of the Division of Worker's Compensation, Tennessee Department of Labor
03S01-9512-CH-00137
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Dennis H. Inman

This is an appeal from the decision of the Chancery Court in a worker's compensation case, in which the trial court granted the employee's motion for non-suit and then entered a judgment of no liability for the employer on its counterclaim. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded.

Supreme Court

Gertrude Jackson and Josephine J. Johnson v. Helen Patton, Executrix of the Estate if Jennie Mai Jackson, Deceased
01S01-9609-CH-00177
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Henry Denmark Bell

This will contest case presents for review the decision of the Court of Appeals that the trial court erred in sustaining the most recently executed instrument as the testatrix's last will and testament. For the reasons stated herein, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated.

Supreme Court

In re: Estate of Carleton Elliott Walton, Deceased, Jeffrey O. Walton, Administrator v. Leslie Young
01S01-9612-PB-00252
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.

This case presents for review with the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court's denial of a claim of paternity. For the reasons set forth, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded. 

Davidson Supreme Court

01A01-9702-CV-00069
01A01-9702-CV-00069
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

Davidson Court of Appeals

01A01-9702-CV-00069
01A01-9702-CV-00069

Court of Appeals

01A01-9610-CV-00491
01A01-9610-CV-00491
Trial Court Judge: Don R. Ash

Rutherford Court of Appeals

01A01-9610-JV-00469
01A01-9610-JV-00469
Trial Court Judge: Andrew J. Shookhoff

Davidson Court of Appeals

01A01-9611-CH-00530
01A01-9611-CH-00530
Trial Court Judge: Robert S. Brandt

Davidson Court of Appeals

01A01-9612-CH-00540
01A01-9612-CH-00540
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Burch

Humphreys Court of Appeals

State v. Worley
03C01-9608-CR-00322

Sullivan Court of Criminal Appeals

Pack vs. State
03C01-9611-CR-00440
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer

Hamilton Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Colson
03C01-9612-CR-00465
Trial Court Judge: Leon C. Burns, Jr.

Court of Criminal Appeals

IN RE: Ross
03A01-9703-CH-00099

Court of Appeals

Charles C. Jones v. Tridon, Inc., et al.
01S01-9703-CV-00057
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert Corlew,
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. In this appeal, the defendants-appellants contend (1) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding of an injury by accident, (2) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the claimant's injury was one arising out of the employment, (3) the trial court exceeded its authority under an agreed order, and (4) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's award of medical and temporary total disability benefits. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the award of medical and temporary total disability benefits should be reversed and the judgment otherwise affirmed. The claimant, Jones, was an employee of the employer, Tridon, on January 3, 1993, when he suffered a compensable back injury and was provided some medical benefits by the employer's insurer, Royal. He continued to work and, in January of 1994, requested additional benefits, claiming a new injury. He was given a list of approved physicians but chose, without further consulting the employer or its insurer, to see a chiropractor who was not on the list. The trial court found that a compensable injury occurred on January 21, 1994 and awarded the medical expenses for treatment by Dr. McCombs, 36 weeks of temporary total disability benefits and permanent partial disability benefits based on 15% to the body as a whole. No issue has been raised with respect to the extent of permanent partial disability. 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 panel is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

Rutherford Workers Compensation Panel

Kay Perryman v. Cosmolab, Inc.
01S01-9703-CH-00069
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special 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 inaccordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's award of permanent partial disability benefits and temporary total disability benefits. The employee concedes the award of temporary total disability benefits is excessive, but contends the trial court used an incorrect compensation rate. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the award of permanent partial disability benefits should be affirmed and the award of temporary total disability benefits modified. The case is remanded for additional proof as to the correct compensation rate. The employee or claimant, Perryman, is forty years old with a high school education. She has worked for the employer for twenty years. In 1994, she injured her elbow at work. As part of her treatment, she was required to take medication which contained blue and yellow dyes, which were also used in the employer's manufacturing process. She had an allergic reaction to the dyes after taking the medication. As a consequence, she is no longer able to work for the employer. She returned to gainful employment on October 31, 1994, thirteen weeks after the beginning of her inability to work because of the injury and treatment. The proof of permanency consisted of the following from the testimony of Dr. Samuel Rowe Marney, Jr., a board certified specialist in Allergy and Immunology: Q. Dr. Marney, Ms. Perryman now has these allergies. Do you have an opinion based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether she will have those in the future? A. Based on the usual course of allergies, she's almost certain to carry these allergies the rest of her life. The trial judge awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on forty percent to the body as a whole and temporary total disability benefits for sixty-five weeks. The compensation rate was fixed at $216.22. 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 2

Perry Workers Compensation Panel

Walter A. Dickman v. Meadows Homes, Inc.
01S01-9703-CC-00061
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. J. O. Bond,
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. In this appeal, the employer, Meadows Homes, Inc., contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the claimant was a covered employee and in favor of a finding that he was an independent contractor. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the claimant was an independent contractor. On June 13, 1994, the claimant, Walter Dickman, and Meadows Homes, Inc., entered into the following: CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT I/We Walter Dickman do state that I/We are general contractors who are duly licensed to perform the services for which we are offering to Meadows Homes. Our services are being offered to the general public. As a contractor, I/We provide our own commercial automobile, workmen compensation and liability insurance,and hereby release Meadows Homes from any and all liabilities concerning our contract and any employees and their properties. As a contractor I/We agree to provide all necessary tools, equipment and transportation necessary to complete any services required. As a general contractor I/We affirm that we are responsible to report and pay any local, state or federal taxes which may be due on income from services rendered. The paper writing was dated and signed by the claimant and a representative of Meadows Homes, Inc. Thereafter, Dickman bid on and was awarded work at property owned by Meadows Homes in Jackson County. Then, beginning on June 27, 1994, the parties agreed that he would be compensated on an hourly rather than a per job basis. He would perform the work, then bill Meadows for his time. 2

Workers Compensation Panel

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

Sullivan Court of Appeals

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

Court of Appeals

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

Monroe Court of Appeals

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

Court of Appeals

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

Court of Appeals

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

Court of Appeals

State vs. Larry Dawson
02C01-9704-CC-00156

Lauderdale Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Larry Carr
02C01-9605-CR-00137
Trial Court Judge: Arthur T. Bennett

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals