STEPHEN D. GOOD v. SUNKOTE PLASTIC COATINGS CORPORATION ET AL. (TWCA December 19, 2012)
Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The employee sought workers' compensation benefits, alleging that he injured his back at work on September 30, 2008, and is now totally and permanently disabled. The employer denied that the employee sustained a compensable work-related injury, but alternatively argued that the employee is not totally and permanently disabled.
The trial court concluded that the employee sustained a compensable work-related injury and awarded 80% permanent partial disability benefits. The employer has appealed, arguing that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the injury was compensable and that, even if the employee proved a compensable injury, the evidence preponderates against the award of 80% permanent partial disability benefits. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/goods_121912.pdf
Friday, December 21, 2012
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Court reviews a case involving an automobile accident
EDNA H. IRWIN, v. CHRISTOPHER MARTIN ANDERSON (Tenn. Ct. App. December 18, 2012)
Plaintiff received serious injuries in an automobile accident, when she turned left in front of the oncoming vehicle operated by defendant. The suit resulted in a jury trial wherein the jury returned a verdict for defendant, which was approved by the Trial Judge. On appeal, we affirm the Trial Judge's Judgment.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/irwine_121812.pdf
Plaintiff received serious injuries in an automobile accident, when she turned left in front of the oncoming vehicle operated by defendant. The suit resulted in a jury trial wherein the jury returned a verdict for defendant, which was approved by the Trial Judge. On appeal, we affirm the Trial Judge's Judgment.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/irwine_121812.pdf
Monday, December 17, 2012
Court reviews a case involving battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and business-related claims
SARAH HURST v. COLMAN S. HOCHMAN, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 14, 2012)
Sarah Hurst ("Hurst") sued Colman S. Hochman ("Hochman") and Hochman Family Partners, L.P. ("the Partnership") alleging that Hochman had committed a battery upon her, and seeking damages for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress among other things.
After a trial, the Trial Court entered its Final Decree that, inter alia, awarded Hurst damages of $2,500 against Hochman for battery; denied Hurst's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, and punitive damages; and dismissed Hurst's claims against the Partnership. Hurst appeals raising issues regarding whether the Trial Court erred in denying her claim of discrimination under the Fair Housing Act and in dismissing her claims against the Partnership. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/hursts_121412.pdf
Sarah Hurst ("Hurst") sued Colman S. Hochman ("Hochman") and Hochman Family Partners, L.P. ("the Partnership") alleging that Hochman had committed a battery upon her, and seeking damages for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress among other things.
After a trial, the Trial Court entered its Final Decree that, inter alia, awarded Hurst damages of $2,500 against Hochman for battery; denied Hurst's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, and punitive damages; and dismissed Hurst's claims against the Partnership. Hurst appeals raising issues regarding whether the Trial Court erred in denying her claim of discrimination under the Fair Housing Act and in dismissing her claims against the Partnership. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/hursts_121412.pdf
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Court reviews whether the trial court had proper jurisdiction to review an administrative order from the Labor Department
C.H. GUENTHER & SON, INC. v. SUE ANN HEAD ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 10, 2012)
An employee appeals the trial court’s decision to void a final administrative order by the Department of Labor awarding the employee attorney fees with respect to the employee’s actions to enforce a workers’ compensation settlement. We have determined that the applicable request for assistance process does not constitute a contested case under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act and that the trial court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter. We reverse the decision of the trial court.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/chguenther.pdf
An employee appeals the trial court’s decision to void a final administrative order by the Department of Labor awarding the employee attorney fees with respect to the employee’s actions to enforce a workers’ compensation settlement. We have determined that the applicable request for assistance process does not constitute a contested case under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act and that the trial court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter. We reverse the decision of the trial court.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/chguenther.pdf
Friday, November 30, 2012
TWCA reviews whether an employee's injury was compensable.
SCOTT D. STRAIN v. MR. BULT’S, INC. ET AL. (TWCA November 29, 2012)
An employee alleged that he sustained an injury to his back. His employer denied the claim. The trial court found the injury to be compensable and awarded the employee 30% permanent partial disability benefits. The employer has appealed contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that the injury is compensable. On appeal, the employee asserts that the award of benefits was inadequate. After review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/strains_112912.pdf
An employee alleged that he sustained an injury to his back. His employer denied the claim. The trial court found the injury to be compensable and awarded the employee 30% permanent partial disability benefits. The employer has appealed contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that the injury is compensable. On appeal, the employee asserts that the award of benefits was inadequate. After review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/strains_112912.pdf
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Court reviews a medical malpractice case re-filed by the original plaintiff's heir following her death
DARLA BULLOCK, as next of kin and sole surviving heir of Linda H. Lobertini v. UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. (Tenn. Ct. App. November 27, 2012)
This is an appeal in a medical malpractice case. The original plaintiff, the decedent, filed the initial malpractice action against the defendant, but the case was dismissed after the decedent passed away during the pendency of the suit.
Her sole surviving heir re-filed the action without complying with Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-26-121 and 122, which require a plaintiff who files a medical malpractice suit (1) to give a health care provider who is to be named in the suit notice of the claim sixty days before filing the suit, and (2) to file with the medical malpractice complaint a certificate of good faith confirming that the plaintiff has consulted with an expert who has provided a signed written statement that there is a good-faith basis to maintain the action. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, and the trial court dismissed the case. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/bullockd_112712.pdf
This is an appeal in a medical malpractice case. The original plaintiff, the decedent, filed the initial malpractice action against the defendant, but the case was dismissed after the decedent passed away during the pendency of the suit.
Her sole surviving heir re-filed the action without complying with Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-26-121 and 122, which require a plaintiff who files a medical malpractice suit (1) to give a health care provider who is to be named in the suit notice of the claim sixty days before filing the suit, and (2) to file with the medical malpractice complaint a certificate of good faith confirming that the plaintiff has consulted with an expert who has provided a signed written statement that there is a good-faith basis to maintain the action. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, and the trial court dismissed the case. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/bullockd_112712.pdf
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Court reviews the appropriate classification of employees for worker's compensation insurance coverage
ADVANTAGE PERSONNEL CONSULTANTS, INC. v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. November 27, 2012)
This matter involves a disagreement between an insurer and an insured over the proper classification of employees for the purpose of workers’ compensation insurance. The decision of the Department of Commerce and Insurance was in favor of the insurer. The insured appealed to the trial court, which affirmed the Department. We find that the decision of the Department of Commerce and Insurance is supported by substantial and material evidence and affirm the trial court.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/advantage_112712.pdf
This matter involves a disagreement between an insurer and an insured over the proper classification of employees for the purpose of workers’ compensation insurance. The decision of the Department of Commerce and Insurance was in favor of the insurer. The insured appealed to the trial court, which affirmed the Department. We find that the decision of the Department of Commerce and Insurance is supported by substantial and material evidence and affirm the trial court.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/advantage_112712.pdf
Monday, November 26, 2012
TWCA reviews whether the right to reconsideration of a settlement is triggered by an across-the-board wage reduction
RON W. ROBINSON v. BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS TIRE OPERATIONS, LLC (TWCA November 21, 2012)
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 51.
The employee injured his neck in the course of his employment in 2005. He returned to work for his pre-injury employer and settled his claim subject to the one and one-half times impairment cap.
In 2009, the employer entered into a new collective bargaining agreement in which the hourly wages of all production workers were reduced. Thereafter, the employee sought reconsideration on his earlier settlement pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(1)(B) (2008). The trial court held that the across-the-board wage reduction did not trigger the right to reconsideration and denied the employee’s claim. We affirm the judgment.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/robinsonr_112112.pdf
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 51.
The employee injured his neck in the course of his employment in 2005. He returned to work for his pre-injury employer and settled his claim subject to the one and one-half times impairment cap.
In 2009, the employer entered into a new collective bargaining agreement in which the hourly wages of all production workers were reduced. Thereafter, the employee sought reconsideration on his earlier settlement pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(1)(B) (2008). The trial court held that the across-the-board wage reduction did not trigger the right to reconsideration and denied the employee’s claim. We affirm the judgment.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/robinsonr_112112.pdf
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Court reviews competing claims to the proceeds of a life insurance policy.
STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, GWENDOLYN R. WILLIAMS v. ONZIE O. HORNE, III (Tenn. Ct. App. November 21, 2012)
This is an interpleader action resulting from competing claims to the proceeds of a life insurance policy. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Insured’s mother, finding that, because she was the only named beneficiary of the policy, she was entitled to the proceeds.
Insured’s husband appeals, arguing that, because Insured’s mother was only named as a contingent beneficiary, the default provisions of the policy remained in effect, resulting in him being the primary beneficiary of the policy. Husband also appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his bad faith claim against the insurer.
We affirm the dismissal of the bad faith claim, but conclude that the contract at issue is ambiguous and the issue in this case is not properly decided on summary judgment. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/williamsg_11212012.pdf
This is an interpleader action resulting from competing claims to the proceeds of a life insurance policy. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Insured’s mother, finding that, because she was the only named beneficiary of the policy, she was entitled to the proceeds.
Insured’s husband appeals, arguing that, because Insured’s mother was only named as a contingent beneficiary, the default provisions of the policy remained in effect, resulting in him being the primary beneficiary of the policy. Husband also appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his bad faith claim against the insurer.
We affirm the dismissal of the bad faith claim, but conclude that the contract at issue is ambiguous and the issue in this case is not properly decided on summary judgment. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/williamsg_11212012.pdf
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Court reviews the dismissal of a medical malpractice case based on the exclusion of expert testimony
SHIRLEEN NEVELS v. JOSEPH CONTARINO, M.D. ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. November 19, 2012)
The trial court dismissed this medical malpractice claim on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss, after excluding the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness. Because the trial court erred in its application of the locality rule and Rule 702 of the Rules of Evidence, we reverse.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/nevelss_111912.pdf
The trial court dismissed this medical malpractice claim on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss, after excluding the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness. Because the trial court erred in its application of the locality rule and Rule 702 of the Rules of Evidence, we reverse.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/nevelss_111912.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)