| Nathan v. Harris,
03S01-9805-CH-00047
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. The appellant insists "the trial court abused his discretion when it allowed the plaintiff to re-open his proof after final judgment was entered against plaintiff." The appellee insists the "defendant has waived the issue it now presents for appellate review, due to the fact that defendant failed to make the appropriate objection at the trial court level." As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. On April 19, 1993, the employee or claimant, Kilgore, suffered a work related accidental injury at work. He filed a complaint averring he suffered from reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome because of the accident, seven requests for production of documents and twenty-four interrogatories in the Chancery Court for Sullivan County on November 23, 1993. On February 8, 1994, the employer filed its answer admitting the work related accident, but denying that the claimant's medical condition was causally connected to the accident. On November 21, 1995, over two and one-half years after the accident, the claimant filed an amended complaint, averring the same thing, but also claiming an injury in September of 1992. On August 16,1996, an order of readiness was entered setting the case for trial on October 16, 1996. Two days before scheduled trial date, the defendant answered the amended complaint by asserting that the claim was time barred to the extent that the plaintiff was seeking benefits for the September, 1992 injury. The case was actually tried on November 16, 1996. The chancellor found that the 1992 claim was time barred, that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he suffered a compensable work related permanent injury in the 1993 accident, but that he was temporarily and totally disabled from May 19, 1993 to September 7, 1993 and that he would retain a permanent partial disability of fifteen percent to the body as a whole. The last two findings were contingent 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Richard Ladd, |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | 06/30/99 | |
| State vs. Roy Sherrod
02C01-9806-CR-00164
Originating Judge:James C. Beasley, Jr. |
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 06/30/99 | |
| State vs. Lonnie Ray Thompson
03C01-9809-CC-00319
Originating Judge:Ben K. Wexler |
Hawkins County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 06/30/99 | |
| Anderson vs. Anderson
03A01-9810-CV-00366
|
McMinn County | Court of Appeals | 06/29/99 | |
| Anderson vs. Anderson
03A01-9810-CV-00366
|
Court of Appeals | 06/29/99 | ||
| State vs. Lester Bell
03C01-9712-CR-00541
Originating Judge:Richard R. Baumgartner |
Knox County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 06/29/99 | |
| Duvall vs. Mobley
01A01-9810-CV-00530
Originating Judge:Patricia J. Cottrell |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 06/29/99 | |
| West American Ins. vs. Patricia Perkins
02A01-9712-CV-00326
Originating Judge:James E. Swearengen |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 06/29/99 | |
| Jessica Weil vs. John Gaia, etc.
02A01-9804-CV-00098
Originating Judge:Kay S. Robilio |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 06/29/99 | |
| Baker vs. Mundaca Investment Corp.
01A01-9809-CH-00498
Originating Judge:Carol L. Mccoy |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 06/29/99 | |
| Butler vs. TDOC
01A01-9808-CH-00428
|
Court of Appeals | 06/29/99 | ||
| In re: The Estate of Carlton Agib Blessing
01A01-9810-PB-00550
|
Court of Appeals | 06/29/99 | ||
| Lemay vs. State
01A01-9807-CH-00397
Originating Judge:Carol L. Mccoy |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 06/29/99 | |
| Montz vs. Montz
01A01-9812-CV-00635
Originating Judge:Marietta M. Shipley |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 06/29/99 | |
| Dotson vs. TDOC
01A01-9811-CV-00596
|
Court of Appeals | 06/29/99 | ||
| State vs. Terry C. Meadors
01C01-9807-CC-00285
Originating Judge:J. Steve Daniel |
Rutherford County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 06/29/99 | |
| 02A01-9805-CV-00136
02A01-9805-CV-00136
Originating Judge:Jon Kerry Blackwood |
Fayette County | Court of Appeals | 06/29/99 | |
| Simpson vs. Bicentennial Volunteers
01A01-9809-CV-00493
Originating Judge:Barbara N. Haynes |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 06/29/99 | |
| Ford v. Rubbermaid
03S01-9806-CV-00060
Authoring Judge: Howell N. Peoples, Special Judge
Originating Judge:The Honorable |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | 06/29/99 | |
| Hatcher v. Rubbermaid
03S01-9804-CV-00041
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
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | 06/28/99 | |
| State vs. Buggs
02S01-9803-CR-00020
Originating Judge:Arthur T. Bennett |
Supreme Court | 06/28/99 | ||
| Strouth vs. State
03S01-9707-CC-00079
|
Sullivan County | Supreme Court | 06/28/99 | |
| Marcus vs. Marcus
02S01-9804-CH-00036
|
Supreme Court | 06/28/99 | ||
| 03C01-9805-CC-00186
03C01-9805-CC-00186
|
Bradley County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 06/28/99 | |
| 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
|
Hamilton County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 06/28/99 |
