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

State of Tennessee v. George Lorenzo Cartwright 01C01-9608-CR-00338 The appellant, George Lorenzo Cartwright (defendant), appeals as of right from a judgment of the trial court revoking his community corrections sentence and reinstating the sentence previously imposed by the court. The trial court found the defendant had violated the terms of his house arrest, he admitted he had ingested marijuana, and he had been arrested for the possession of cocaine. Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joe B. Jones Originating Judge:Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft	Sumner County	Court of Criminal Appeals	09/02/97
William J. Snyder v. Ltg. Lufttechnische Gmb; and HSM Pressen-GmbH 01S01-9607-FD-00143 Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee,1 this Court has accepted two questions certified to us by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The questions are as follows: 1. Whether products liability defendants in a suit for personal injuries based on allegations of negligence and strict liability in tort may introduce evidence at trial that the plaintiff’s employer’s alteration, change, improper maintenance, or abnormal use of the defendants’ product proximately caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries. 2. If “no,” of what effect is Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 28-108? 3 As explained below, the answer to the first certified question is that products liability defendants in a suit for personal injuries based on allegations of negligence and strict liability in tort may introduce relevant evidence at trial that the plaintiff’s employer’s alteration, change, improper maintenance, or abnormal use of the defendants’ product was the cause in fact of the plaintiff’s injuries. The jury may consider all evidence relevant to the actions of the employer with respect to the defendants’ product in assessing whether the plaintiff has met his burden of establishing the elements necessary to recover against the defendants. However, in making that determination, the jury may not assess fault against the employer. Our answer to the first question makes it unnecessary to reach the second one. Authoring Judge: Justice Frank W. Drowota, III Originating Judge:Magistrate Denis H. Inman	Knox County	Supreme Court	09/02/97
James R. Fruge and Jane Fruge v. John and Jane Doe 02S01-9601-CV-00005 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. Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid Originating Judge:Judge George H. Brown, Jr.		Supreme Court	09/02/97
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 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. Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid Originating Judge:Chancellor Dennis H. Inman		Supreme Court	09/02/97
Pack vs. State 03C01-9611-CR-00440 Originating Judge:Douglas A. Meyer	Hamilton County	Court of Criminal Appeals	08/29/97
State v. Worley 03C01-9608-CR-00322	Sullivan County	Court of Criminal Appeals	08/29/97
State vs. Colson 03C01-9612-CR-00465 Originating Judge:Leon C. Burns, Jr.		Court of Criminal Appeals	08/29/97
IN RE: Ross 03A01-9703-CH-00099		Court of Appeals	08/29/97
Charles C. Jones v. Tridon, Inc., et al. 01S01-9703-CV-00057 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. Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge Originating Judge:Hon. Robert Corlew,	Rutherford County	Workers Compensation Panel	08/29/97
Walter A. Dickman v. Meadows Homes, Inc. 01S01-9703-CC-00061 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 Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge Originating Judge:Hon. J. O. Bond,		Workers Compensation Panel	08/29/97
Kay Perryman v. Cosmolab, Inc. 01S01-9703-CH-00069 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 Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge Originating Judge:Hon. Lee Russell,	Perry County	Workers Compensation Panel	08/29/97
01A01-9610-CV-00491 01A01-9610-CV-00491 Originating Judge:Don R. Ash	Rutherford County	Court of Appeals	08/29/97
01A01-9612-CH-00540 01A01-9612-CH-00540 Originating Judge:Robert E. Burch	Humphreys County	Court of Appeals	08/29/97
01A01-9702-CV-00069 01A01-9702-CV-00069		Court of Appeals	08/29/97
01A01-9702-CV-00069 01A01-9702-CV-00069 Originating Judge:Walter C. Kurtz	Davidson County	Court of Appeals	08/29/97
01A01-9610-JV-00469 01A01-9610-JV-00469 Originating Judge:Andrew J. Shookhoff	Davidson County	Court of Appeals	08/29/97
01A01-9611-CH-00530 01A01-9611-CH-00530 Originating Judge:Robert S. Brandt	Davidson County	Court of Appeals	08/29/97
State vs. Vaughn Mixon 02C01-9507-CC-00204 Originating Judge:John Franklin Murchison	Chester County	Court of Criminal Appeals	08/28/97
State vs. Larry Carr 02C01-9605-CR-00137 Originating Judge:Arthur T. Bennett	Shelby County	Court of Criminal Appeals	08/28/97
State vs. Larry Dawson 02C01-9704-CC-00156	Lauderdale County	Court of Criminal Appeals	08/28/97
State vs. Vaughn Mixon 02C01-9507-CC-00204	Chester County	Court of Criminal Appeals	08/28/97
Jenkins v. Goddard 03A01-9704-CH-00139		Court of Appeals	08/28/97
Sanders vs. Springs 03A01-9701-JV-00036	Anderson County	Court of Appeals	08/28/97
Jenkins v. Goddard 03A01-9704-CH-00139		Court of Appeals	08/28/97
Fortson vs. Fortson 03A01-9611-CV-00363	McMinn County	Court of Appeals	08/28/97