Please enter some keywords to search.
| 01C01-9510-CC-00338
01C01-9510-CC-00338
Originating Judge:J. S. Daniel |
Rutherford County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/29/96 | |
| 01S01-9508-CH-00140
01S01-9508-CH-00140
|
Supreme Court | 10/28/96 | ||
| 02S01-9509-CH-00084
02S01-9509-CH-00084
|
Supreme Court | 10/28/96 | ||
| 02S01-9512-CV-00122
02S01-9512-CV-00122
Originating Judge:D'Army Bailey |
Shelby County | Supreme Court | 10/28/96 | |
| 01A01-9603-CV-00122
01A01-9603-CV-00122
Originating Judge:Bobby H. Capers |
Wilson County | Court of Appeals | 10/25/96 | |
| 02A01-9508-CV-00185
02A01-9508-CV-00185
Originating Judge:John Franklin Murchison |
Madison County | Court of Appeals | 10/25/96 | |
| 02A01-9508-CV-00185
02A01-9508-CV-00185
Originating Judge:John Franklin Murchison |
Madison County | Court of Appeals | 10/25/96 | |
| 01A01-9604-CH-00177
01A01-9604-CH-00177
Originating Judge:Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr. |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 10/25/96 | |
| 01A01-9604-CV-00180
01A01-9604-CV-00180
Originating Judge:Thomas Goodall |
Sumner County | Court of Appeals | 10/25/96 | |
| Alva Marie Reynolds v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
01S01-9509-CH-00172
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting findings of fact and conclusions of law to the Supreme Court. Alva Marie Reynolds, the plaintiff- employee, appeals the decision of the Coffee County Chancery Court denying her relief on her worker's compensation claim. On appeal, the sole issue is whether the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff failed to carry the burden of proving that she sustained an injury arising out of her employment. The trial court found plaintiff 's injury was the result of a pre-existing idiopathic condition. On January 5, 1993, the plaintiff, who was at that time sixty-two years old, sustained an injury to her ankle when she fell at her place of employment, Wal- Mart. The plaintiff had worked at Wal-Mart in diverse capacities for eleven years before her accident, and at the time of her injury, she had been working in the fitting room area for a couple of years. In addition to monitoring the clothing which was brought in and out of the fitting room, she answered Wal-Mart's incoming calls, made announcements, and paged employees within the store. Regarding her fall, the plaintiff testified that, after being told to take a hurried break, she rushed out of the fitting room and fell at the point that the floor changed from carpet to tile. She testified that she had not previously experienced numbness in her legs nor had she ever fallen at work or home before this incident. The plaintiff worked the remainder of the day and did not see a doctor until the next day when her ankle was diagnosed as being broken. On cross-examination, the plaintiff acknowledged that in two depositions taken after the accident, she did not mention that she was in a hurry at the time that she fell. She explained that she did not remember this until later. However, in a deposition 2
Authoring Judge: Erry L. Smith, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. John W. Rollins, Judge |
Coffee County | Workers Compensation Panel | 10/25/96 | |
| X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | 10/25/96 | ||
| Phillip L. Pyrdum v. Teledyne Systems Company Inc., Teledyne Lewisburg
01S01-9601-CH-00009
This worker's compensation appeal has been referred to the special worker's 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.
Authoring Judge: Cornelia A. Clark, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Tyrus H. Cobb |
Marshall County | Workers Compensation Panel | 10/25/96 | |
| William O. Worley, Jr. v. Tecumseh Products Company
01S01-9509-CV-00160
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. In this case, the trial court awarded 45% permanent partial disability to the right arm. Defendant contends that the evidence does not support the percentage of disability awarded and requests that this court reduce and amend the judgment of the trial court accordingly. The Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in accrediting the testimony of Plaintiff's expert witness over the testimony of the treating physician. The final issue is whether the trial court erred in awarding discretionary costs for the deposition of Plaintiff's expert medical witness. The Defendant also raises the issue of whether the trial court erred in awarding a lump sum. As the benefits have now accrued, this issue is moot. On June 19, 1992, Plaintiff injured his right arm and wrist while working on a machine. Plaintiff is 48 years old and has a high school education. His work experience consists of working in the parts department, as a mechanic, as a tool and die worker, on a surveying crew, as a fire fighter, as a guard, and as a water pipeline repairer. Each of these jobs required heavy manual labor and the use of Plaintiff's arms and hands. Plaintiff had been employed at Tecumseh for approximately a year and a half when he sustained the injury. Dr. L. L. Carter, Jr. treated the Plaintiff after he was injured. Dr. Carter first examined Plaintiff on July 7, 1992. Dr. Carter testified, by deposition, that the nerve conduction tests showed elbow nerve and wrist nerve damage. Initially, Dr. Carter treated this condition conservatively, with a wrist splint, with no improvement. On August 31, 1992, Dr. Carter performed ulnar nerve decompression and submuscular transposition. At the same time, carpal tunnel release in the right hand and a nerve graft to the neuroma on the right wrist were performed. Three days later, Plaintiff was told to return to light work. Plaintiff was returned to regular work on December 15, 1992. Dr. Carter did not see Plaintiff again until January 8, 1993, at the request of
Authoring Judge: Robert L. Childers, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Buddy D. Perry, |
Sequatchie County | Workers Compensation Panel | 10/25/96 | |
| X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | 10/24/96 | ||
| 01C01-9509-CC-00293
01C01-9509-CC-00293
Originating Judge:Cornelia A. Clark |
Williamson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/24/96 | |
| 01C01-9601-CC-00018
01C01-9601-CC-00018
|
Maury County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/24/96 | |
| 02A01-9603-CH-00055
02A01-9603-CH-00055
|
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 10/24/96 | |
| 01C01-9511-CR-00397
01C01-9511-CR-00397
|
Davidson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/24/96 | |
| 01C01-9312-CR-00439
01C01-9312-CR-00439
Originating Judge:Walter C. Kurtz |
Davidson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/24/96 | |
| 03A01-9603-CH-00100
03A01-9603-CH-00100
Originating Judge:William H. Inman |
Court of Appeals | 10/24/96 | ||
| 03A01-9603-CH-00113
03A01-9603-CH-00113
Originating Judge:Inman |
Court of Appeals | 10/24/96 | ||
| 03A01-9603-CV-00110
03A01-9603-CV-00110
Originating Judge:Inman |
Court of Appeals | 10/23/96 | ||
| 01S01-9610-CH-00211
01S01-9610-CH-00211
|
Supreme Court | 10/23/96 | ||
| Geneva Hicks v. Emerson Motor Company
02S01-9602-CH-00022
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 contends the evidence preponderates against the findings of the trial court with respect to causation and permanency. The panel finds the preponderance of the evidence to be contrary to the finding of the trial court with respect to causation. The employee or claimant, Geneva Hicks, is 45 with an eleventh grade education. She has worked at a day care center, caring for small children, in a clothing factory and as a fruit packer. She has worked in various jobs for the employer, Emerson, since 198. She has suffered from hoarseness and shortness of breath at work since about 1992, for which she has seen numerous doctors. In the course of her work for Emerson, she was exposed to various fumes. The employer has attempted to accommodate her by transfer to different departments and by the use of fans. She finally commenced this action for workers' compensation benefits for a claimed occupational disease, which she labeled allergic bronchitis. She was referred by her attorney to Dr. A. Clyde Heflin, Jr., who saw her on several occasions and opined in his deposition testimony that she was possibly having asthmatic attacks at work. The doctor was given a list of chemicals and asked and answered as follows: Q. ...(A)t this point in time, do you have an opinion, based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty, as to what connection this lady's job place has as to her asthmatic condition? A. The list of substances that I've been supplied have numerous items which are -- and maybe we need to regress a second. The workplace environment, as far as causing asthma, you have to understand that asthma we now consider to be this hyper-reactive or irritable state of the lungs; and that is caused or generated by someone or a substance causing what we call an inflammatory condition or direct irritation of the lungs. So there is a long list of substances now known in the workplace that actually can induce asthma; and the classic one of these are TDI's, or diasocyanates, which are used in the plastics industry, for instance. The epoxy resins, which I don't see here specifically listed, but are often used in electrical manufacturing, can cause this as well. 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. George R. Ellis, |
Gibson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 10/23/96 | |
| Geneva Hicks v. Emerson Motor Company
02S01-9602-CH-00022
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 contends the evidence preponderates against the findings of the trial court with respect to causation and permanency. The panel finds the preponderance of the evidence to be contrary to the finding of the trial court with respect to causation. The employee or claimant, Geneva Hicks, is 45 with an eleventh grade education. She has worked at a day care center, caring for small children, in a clothing factory and as a fruit packer. She has worked in various jobs for the employer, Emerson, since 198. She has suffered from hoarseness and shortness of breath at work since about 1992, for which she has seen numerous doctors. In the course of her work for Emerson, she was exposed to various fumes. The employer has attempted to accommodate her by transfer to different departments and by the use of fans. She finally commenced this action for workers' compensation benefits for a claimed occupational disease, which she labeled allergic bronchitis. She was referred by her attorney to Dr. A. Clyde Heflin, Jr., who saw her on several occasions and opined in his deposition testimony that she was possibly having asthmatic attacks at work. The doctor was given a list of chemicals and asked and answered as follows: Q. ...(A)t this point in time, do you have an opinion, based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty, as to what connection this lady's job place has as to her asthmatic condition? A. The list of substances that I've been supplied have numerous items which are -- and maybe we need to regress a second. The workplace environment, as far as causing asthma, you have to understand that asthma we now consider to be this hyper-reactive or irritable state of the lungs; and that is caused or generated by someone or a substance causing what we call an inflammatory condition or direct irritation of the lungs. So there is a long list of substances now known in the workplace that actually can induce asthma; and the classic one of these are TDI's, or diasocyanates, which are used in the plastics industry, for instance. The epoxy resins, which I don't see here specifically listed, but are often used in electrical manufacturing, can cause this as well. 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. George R. Ellis, |
Gibson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 10/23/96 |