APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS | Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

Please enter some keywords to search.

COURT

COUNTY

AUTHORING JUDGE

ORIGINATING JUDGE

CASE NUMBER

DATE FILTER

SEARCH TITLE

SEARCH CASE SUMMARY

Brewer vs. State 03C01-9709-CC-00397 Originating Judge:D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.	Blount County	Court of Criminal Appeals	09/22/98
State vs. Gilliam 03C01-9711-CC-00489 Originating Judge:James E. Beckner	Hawkins County	Court of Criminal Appeals	09/22/98
State vs. Corey Powell 02C01-9707-CC-00265	Fayette County	Court of Criminal Appeals	09/22/98
State vs. Jeffrey Hankins 02C01-9709-CC-00355 Originating Judge:John Franklin Murchison	Madison County	Court of Criminal Appeals	09/22/98
State vs. Smith, a.k.a Maxwell 03C01-9708-CR-00366 Originating Judge:Mary Beth Leibowitz	Knox County	Court of Criminal Appeals	09/22/98
State vs. Andrew Cole 02C01-9712-CC-00461 Originating Judge:Dick Jerman, Jr.	Gibson County	Court of Criminal Appeals	09/22/98
State vs. Michael Walls 01C01-9708-CC-00381	Franklin County	Court of Criminal Appeals	09/22/98
01C01-9707-CR-00248 01C01-9707-CR-00248	Davidson County	Court of Criminal Appeals	09/22/98
James Carroll vs. Carolyn Whitney 02A01-9707-CV-00162 Originating Judge:Janice M. Holder	Shelby County	Court of Appeals	09/22/98
State vs. Mark Cash 01C01-9712-CR-00579 Originating Judge:Leon C. Burns, Jr.	Putnam County	Court of Criminal Appeals	09/22/98
Vickie Lewis v. Otis Campbell & Robert Dinwiddie M2000-03092-COA-R3-CV This case involves allegations of medical malpractice and misrepresentation. In September 1998, the plaintiff patient began visiting the office of the defendant physician for medical treatment. In February or March 1999, the patient discovered that the person treating her was not the defendant physician. In June 1999, the patient discovered that the person treating her was a pharmacist. In April 2000, the plaintiff patient filed a lawsuit against the physician and the pharmacist, asserting medical malpractice and misrepresentation. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants based on the one-year statute of limitations. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm, finding that plaintiff had sufficient knowledge in February or March 1999 to put her on notice of her cause of action, and, consequently, her April 2000 lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations. Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby Originating Judge:Charles D. Haston, Sr.	Warren County	Court of Appeals	09/22/98
State vs. Don Allen Rodgers W2000-00714-CCA-R3-CD The defendant appeals the trial court's revocation of his community corrections sentence and the imposition of incarceration in the Department of Correction. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion in making either determination, we affirm. Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr. Originating Judge:Roy B. Morgan, Jr.	Madison County	Court of Criminal Appeals	09/22/98
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX		Supreme Court	09/21/98
03S01-9706-CR-00068 03S01-9706-CR-00068		Supreme Court	09/21/98
State vs. Robert Dunlap 02C01-9801-CC-00009 Originating Judge:C. Creed Mcginley	Henry County	Court of Criminal Appeals	09/21/98
State vs. David Bornfriend 02C01-9708-CC-00297	Weakley County	Court of Criminal Appeals	09/21/98
Frances Blanchard vs. Arlene Kellum, D.D.S. 02S01-9709-CV-00083		Supreme Court	09/21/98
State vs. Williams 03S01-9706-CR-00060	Hamilton County	Supreme Court	09/21/98
Amy v. Hollars 03S01-9707-CH-00084 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. 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 findings, 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). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). This case presents the issue of whether the trial judge erred in dismissing the plaintiff's claim, which was filed on February 14, 1996, for workers' compensation benefits by way of summary judgment. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings. On February 1, 1995, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a settlement of a workers' compensation matter on a joint petition. The defendant filed the petition to resolve the case because of some question as to whether the plaintiff had a compensable claim. The plaintiff was unrepresented throughout the proceeding. The settlement entered into was to compensate the plaintiff for injuries to her sinus cavities as a result of exposure to chemicals used in the dark room of the x-ray department where she worked. Because the medical evidence indicated the plaintiff was allergic to these chemicals, the plaintiff quit work upon entry of the judgment approving the settlement. We find the following facts in the pleadings, etc. filed by the parties on the motion for summary judgment. Prior to the settlement, the plaintiff had been experiencing some joint pain and was examined for this on September 19, 1994 by Dr. Patrick Tsui. Dr. Tsui's notes 2 Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge Originating Judge:Hon. Samuel F. Payne,	Knox County	Workers Compensation Panel	09/21/98
Larry Donald Setsor v. England Corcsair, Inc. 03S01-9708-CH-00103 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 employee [appellee] sustained three successive cervical spine injuries while working for the employer [appellant]. Appellee filed suit in January 1995 for the first injury and in August 1995 for the second injury. Appellant filed suit in August 1996 for judicial determination of its rights and obligations after the appellee alleged the third injury in May 1996. These three cases were consolidated for trial. The trial judge found the appellee had sustained 25 percent vocational disability from the first injury, 25 percent from the second injury, and no vocational disability from the third injury. The employer appeals, insisting that the trial judge improperly assessed the credibility of the medical evidence to reach an excessive award and erred in authorizing the employee to choose a new treating doctor. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Larry Donald Setsor, the appellee, is 45 years old, has a high school education, and has three months' vocational training1 for air-conditioning and refrigeration repair. He also trained to sell insurance, and attempted unsuccessfully to do so for eight months. His work experience includes upholstering, assembly line production and truck driving for this employer. In April 1994, appellee ruptured a cervical disc at C6/7 while unloading furniture at work. The employer sent him to a chiropractor, who referred him to Dr. Fred Killeffer, a neurosurgeon, who performed surgical removal of a disc 1He did not complete the course. 2 Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge Originating Judge:Chancellor	Knox County	Workers Compensation Panel	09/21/98
Miller vs. Miller M1999-00226-COA-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers Originating Judge:Thomas Goodall	Sumner County	Court of Appeals	09/21/98
Dennis Dykes vs. Billy Compton, Warden 02S01-9711-CC-00105	Lake County	Supreme Court	09/21/98
General Electric Co. vs. Process Control Co. 01S01-9707-FD-00148		Supreme Court	09/21/98
State vs. Quintero and Hall 01S01-9703-CC-00068	Humphreys County	Supreme Court	09/21/98
State vs. Quintero and Hall 01S01-9703-CC-00068	Humphreys County	Supreme Court	09/21/98