tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33728152075295405022024-03-27T19:53:08.411-04:00Tennessee Personal Injury Law Tennessee Personal Injury Law Blog - published by Bryan L. Capps and Stephen A. Burroughs.
The Law Office of Stephen A. Burroughs – proudly serving clients throughout East Tennessee.David Headrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10982737271690243057noreply@blogger.comBlogger467125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-44245613800927800732014-03-29T12:31:00.002-04:002014-03-29T12:36:18.475-04:00TN COA REVERSES DISMISSAL OF SLIP AND FALL CASE INVOLVING INADEQUATE LIGHTING <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK3nm4EvHxyi1uJDSTKPQM6X_bqp2obJjme2krAMiuTe5y6JB7IQVCabxBcEQ6VWYq58JWPtSTm9Azuo3U352U8juW0QxSm8ash2WvXu5czh9Jzt84XhdSl4szHv_rSSVaxgqu_hDYPban/s1600/LIGHT+photo.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK3nm4EvHxyi1uJDSTKPQM6X_bqp2obJjme2krAMiuTe5y6JB7IQVCabxBcEQ6VWYq58JWPtSTm9Azuo3U352U8juW0QxSm8ash2WvXu5czh9Jzt84XhdSl4szHv_rSSVaxgqu_hDYPban/s1600/LIGHT+photo.JPG" height="320" width="240" /></a></div>
On November 30, 2010, Plaintiff Cynthia Christian was an invited guest for a function at Ms. Lassie's Lodge in Campbell County, Tennessee. The Lodge was regularly rented for parties and other functions via the nearby Hampton Inn. Ms. Christian arrived when it was still daylight, and the function ended after dark. <br />
<br />
Before or during the function, an owner of The Lodge in charge of the event turned on some exterior lights. However, the lights installed and intended to illuminate the parking area and walkway leading to The Lodge were not operative. As Ms. Christian walked from The Lodge to her car she stepped into a hole in the parking area which could not be seen in the dark. She suffered personal injuries which resulted in more than $50,000 in medical expenses. She later sued The Lodge for its negligence in failing to provide adequate lighting on the walkway and parking area for guests.<br />
<br />
The Lodge asked the Circuit Court for Campbell County to dismiss the case claiming that: (1) it had no notice that the lights in question were out and (2) despite the lack of lighting Ms. Christian was more than 50 percent at fault for her fall and injuries. In other words, the company who operated The Lodge for profit claimed that it had no idea its lights did not work and that if Ms. Christian could not see in the dark that was her problem. The Lodge maintained this disingenuous defense even after The Lodge staff testified that: 1) the owner was in fact aware that the lights for the walkway and parking area were inoperative before the evening function; 2) they had no procedure for the inspection and maintenance of the exterior lights; and 3) the day after the fall and injury The Lodge staff inspected the lights and <u>found as many as 14 exterior flood lights inoperative including those for the walkway and parking area</u>. <br />
<br />
Despite The Lodge's clear and actual notice of its inoperable lights, its failure to inspect or replace the lights, and the danger created by the lack of lighting, the Circuit Court inexplicably dismissed the case. The Circuit Court found that there was insufficient evidence to show that The Lodge had notice of the lighting issue prior to Ms. Christian's fall - despite The Lodge's own apparent admission to the contrary. <br />
<br />
Ms. Christian appealed, and on March 28, 2014, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Circuit Court properly finding that a jury could reasonably find that : 1) The Lodge had actual notice of the inoperative lights, the associated danger and a duty to act reasonably to remedy the issue; and/or 2) the lighting problem existed long enough that The Lodge through reasonable care and diligence should have discovered the danger and replaced the lights. The case was remanded for trial by jury on all issues. <a href="http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/christianopn.pdf" target="_blank">Read the full opinion here.</a>Bryan L. Cappshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03582750835783890769noreply@blogger.com65tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-25094143692879377232014-03-19T17:53:00.000-04:002014-03-19T17:53:55.447-04:00Tractor Trailer Collision Leads to Record Settlememt <div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 20px; margin: 4px 5px 12px 4px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUYxufmD_SVPajfdJGGvbgmQ4P8UDsXcXtefc53eoPecQ5Vv8qnVgSneX3MvEXlk7-W3uSPiuxE83hr0AkZPAFWMvuLxs5_j-AQlPzM_uWU9Q2r6rJBIP3EDYvSYi-NEoDHmYrqrGSX2UM/s1600/mqdefault+(1).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUYxufmD_SVPajfdJGGvbgmQ4P8UDsXcXtefc53eoPecQ5Vv8qnVgSneX3MvEXlk7-W3uSPiuxE83hr0AkZPAFWMvuLxs5_j-AQlPzM_uWU9Q2r6rJBIP3EDYvSYi-NEoDHmYrqrGSX2UM/s1600/mqdefault+(1).jpg" /></a></div>
In one of the biggest personal injury settlements in Pennsylvania history, a family that suffered death and injuries after being rear-ended by a tractor trailer has received a $26.1 million settlement.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 20px; margin: 4px 5px 12px 4px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
In 2010, the three Plaintiffs were driving on I-80 in Pennsylvania when they came upon stalled construction traffic. While Plaintiffs were stopped on the highway the Defendant tractor trailer driver failed to stop and slammed into the rear of Plaintiffs' car at over 70 miles per hour. One Plaintiff was killed instantly and another suffered a TBA (traumatic brain injury).</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 20px; margin: 4px 5px 12px 4px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The driver was operating his tractor-trailer for GLC Transportation Inc. and Great Lake Cheese companies in Ohio and New York. The amount of the settlement is primarily based on the wrongful death and lifelong injuries and care ($8 million life care plan) which resulted from the collision. In addition, it was shown that the tractor trailer driver ignored construction signs as he pressed his rig in excess of 72 miles per hour in the construction zone. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 20px; margin: 4px 5px 12px 4px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Obtaining a settlement of this magnitude is the result of a huge amount of work on the part of tractor-trailer and truck injury attorneys. Many truck drivers and trucking companies maintain only minimum trucking insurance limits of $750,000-$2 million. The trucking accident attorneys of the Law Office of Stephen A. Burroughs are familiar with trucking insurance and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations which help those injured in truck accidents access multiple levels of insurance coverage in trucking cases. By holding truck drivers, trucking companies, trucking brokers, and sometimes even the shipping customers, accountable for negligent brokering, negligent loading or illegally ordering truck drivers to speed or to drive while fatigued additional layers of insurance coverage are triggered. If you or a loved one has been injured due to a negligent or reckless truck driver - make sure you hire an attorney experienced in trucking accidents. Remember -a trucking accident is not just another car wreck. </div>
Bryan L. Cappshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03582750835783890769noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-69001465284629498522014-03-15T08:32:00.001-04:002014-03-15T08:32:09.593-04:00CPSC IMPROVES SAFETY STANDARDS FOR STROLLERS AND CARRIAGES<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9SEncWoR2e0AOfaag9OPQNy4af9_ZiJlyxxkDE8yN4_peX-YnySDxzW3feRry5I1RIjaUMlL6_T66bicZuSfytKQWXb-1Fxf-jkvVRj18eh4trekavPQcKJZ5kXCE5e2qzvsg40rBrhvN/s1600/Strollers_530.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9SEncWoR2e0AOfaag9OPQNy4af9_ZiJlyxxkDE8yN4_peX-YnySDxzW3feRry5I1RIjaUMlL6_T66bicZuSfytKQWXb-1Fxf-jkvVRj18eh4trekavPQcKJZ5kXCE5e2qzvsg40rBrhvN/s1600/Strollers_530.jpg" height="199" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has approved a
new federal safety standard that will improve the safety of all carriages and
strollers sold after September 10, 2015.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The new standard was developed due to the CPSC’s review of
more than 1,300 stroller safety incidents involving children 4 years old and
younger from 2008 through 2013. Many of
these incidents led to product liability cases based on stroller design and
manufacturing defects and failure to warn.
The incident numbers to-date show
that defective strollers and carriages resulted in 4 child deaths, 14
hospitalizations, and 391 injuries. The
most common injury was severe pinching or amputations due to hinge design and
placement.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The new safety standard requires that all strollers and
carriages be made, tested and labeled to minimize the hazards seen in such
incidents. The design changes will
include:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Hinges which will not pinch, cut,
or amputate fingers or arms<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Wheels resistant to breakage and
detachment<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Better parking brakes and
redesigned locking mechanisms<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Child-proof restraints and more
secure seat belts<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Structural integrity and improved
stability<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you have any doubt that your child’s current stroller is safe
check with the CPSC for recalled models.
Many manufacturers will repair or replace their product to protect your
child. <o:p></o:p></div>
Bryan L. Cappshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03582750835783890769noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-44957414581309104852014-03-14T14:41:00.001-04:002014-03-15T08:39:03.347-04:00NHTSA, CONGRESS AND JUSTICE DEPT WANT TO KNOW IF GM WITHHELD DATA ON DEFECTIVE IGNITION CRASHES<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWFHRV8w70BmQnb5WUCXZNvQCiITbS6UDZesbN37gSGcYGh467RC2EQY3X0qqPd1YzQUzyq04zbZ9nu1liEi2xQxSiCIbbBYjdZpZOpxhsD5xlYVNY7jPN2TmbqRjipFnqqHOKGOwhGq8c/s1600/gm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWFHRV8w70BmQnb5WUCXZNvQCiITbS6UDZesbN37gSGcYGh467RC2EQY3X0qqPd1YzQUzyq04zbZ9nu1liEi2xQxSiCIbbBYjdZpZOpxhsD5xlYVNY7jPN2TmbqRjipFnqqHOKGOwhGq8c/s1600/gm.jpg" height="149" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.399999618530273px;">The AP is reporting that the National Highway Transportation Safety Agency (NHTSA), two congressional committees and the Justice Department are investigating why it took so long for GM to recall 1.6 million cars with defective ignition switches. GM has acknowledged knowing about deadly ignition switches at least a decade ago, but it intentionally or negligently failed to recall the affected compact cars until February 2014. In the interim, competing reports relate between 13 and more than 300 injuries or deaths to the defective ignition switches. <a href="http://news.msn.com/us/gm-excluded-crash-deaths-from-ignition-inquiry" target="_blank">Read the full AP story here. </a> </span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.399999618530273px;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.399999618530273px;">The product liability attorneys of the Law Office of Stephen A. Burroughs are actively following the developments in the GM defective ignition hearings and litigation. The firm handles Tennessee product liability cases throughout the state. Tennessee has a one (1) year statute of limitations and a ten (10) year statute of repose for injuries or deaths related to defective products such as GM's </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.399999618530273px;">Chevy Cobalt, Pontiac G5, Saturn Ion, Chevy HHR, Pontiac Solstice or Saturn Sky. This means that if you or someone you know was seriously injured due to a defective GM ignition switch, and you just recently learned of the problem, you can likely still bring a claim against GM in Tennessee or another state. Call attorney Bryan L. Capps or Stephen A. Burroughs for a free consultation. </span></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.399999618530273px;"> </span>Bryan L. Cappshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03582750835783890769noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-28052867164940361892014-03-14T12:28:00.001-04:002014-03-14T12:28:11.722-04:00GEORGIA NURSE'S DEATH CAUSED BY DEFECTIVE GM INGNITION<br />
GM knew as early as 2001 that its ignition switches could fail during normal operation. GM knew that when the ignition failed that the driver would lose the use of power steering, anti-lock brakes, and airbags. They investigated and found a "partial fix" leaving hundreds of thousands of GM owners unknowingly vulnerable to the defective ignition and associated dangers. It then knew of and failed to act on multiple deaths caused by the failures as it denied and defended against suits alleging the defect. GM now says it made a "business decision" not to act. <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/gm-recall/parents-boiling-anger-after-daughters-death-gm-car-n52316" target="_blank">Read the full story here. </a>Bryan L. Cappshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03582750835783890769noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-51387516604859358712014-03-14T12:20:00.001-04:002014-03-14T12:20:38.571-04:00WATCHDOG GROUP FINDS 303 DEATHS RELATED TO GM DEFECTIVE IGNITION DEVICES<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15.960000038146973px;">Reuters reports that U.S. safety regulators have recorded 303 deaths when airbags failed to deploy in 1.6 million compact cars recalled last month by General Motors Co, according to a study released Thursday night by a safety watchdog group.</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15.960000038146973px;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15.960000038146973px;">Evidence is mounting that GM knowingly sold vehicles while withholding the truth about defects in its ignition system. </span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15.960000038146973px;">Read the full story here - <a href="http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20140313&id=17434693" target="_blank">303 Deaths related to GM ignition</a></span>Bryan L. Cappshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03582750835783890769noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-22632492836769318712014-03-12T17:32:00.003-04:002014-03-12T17:32:52.722-04:00GM Defective Ignition Key - 13 Wrongful Deaths To-Date <div class="MsoNormal">
On February 13, 2014, General Motors (GM) recalled 780,000
Chevrolet Cobalts and various Pontiac models for repair of a faulty ignition
switch that has been found to cause the ignition key to slip out of the run
position. GM is aware of situations
where the key has slipped due to heavy key chains and due to the vehicles hitting
hard bumps in the road. When this
occurs, the engine can shut off leading to loss of power to vital systems such
as power steering, airbags and anti-lock brakes.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On February 25, 2014, GM expanded the recall to cover certain
Chevy, Pontiac, and Saturn cars, bringing the total recall to as high as 1.4
million vehicles.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
GM has acknowledged the defect caused or contributed to 31
crashes involving airbags which did not deploy and the deaths of 13 motorists. Evidence
from civil lawsuits shows that GM knew about the Cobalt ignition defect as far
back as 2004, but GM issued no recall.
This and other evidence has led to the U.S. Attorney's Office in New
York opening a criminal investigation into GM’s knowledge of the ignition
defect.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you or someone you know has been injured as a result of
this defect in a Chevy Cobalt, Pontiac G5, Saturn Ion, Chevy HHR, Pontiac
Solstice or Saturn Sky, please call the Law Office of Stephen A. Burroughs for a free consultation. GM may have culpability based on the defect
and the failure to warn consumers of the known danger. <o:p></o:p></div>
Bryan L. Cappshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03582750835783890769noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-48304678016276239502014-03-09T11:53:00.000-04:002014-03-09T11:53:28.709-04:00DENIAL OF BENEFITS UNDER AN ERISA HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN?<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 3.75pt; margin-left: 7.5pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Have you been denied health, disability or life insurance benefits
through your employer-sponsored health plan?
Have you been to told you have an ERISA plan and must follow the claim
and appeal procedures in your ERISA policy?
If so, you may need a Knoxville ERISA lawyer to help you understand the ERISA
claim and appeal process.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 3.75pt; margin-left: 7.5pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 3.75pt; margin-left: 7.5pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">ERISA stands for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974. It was designed to protect the
interests of employees/participants and their beneficiaries who depend on
benefits from private employee benefit plans.
Unfortunately the law is often used to successfully deny needed health
insurance benefits. ERISA sets rules and standards for how
insurance companies and/or businesses administer ERISA-based health, disability
and life insurance plans. These
standards include clearly written rules and procedures for denial of claims or
benefits and an appeal process to challenge such denials. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 3.75pt; margin-left: 7.5pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 3.75pt; margin-left: 7.5pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">If you are denied health insurance or other benefits, your ERISA plan
administrator must give you the reason for denial in writing and in a manner
you can understand. It also must give
you a reasonable opportunity for a fair and full review of the decision. An employee or plan member must exhaust the
appeal process before any lawsuit can be filed for benefit denial. Generally any such suit must be filed in
federal court following a complex procedure to prepare the case for judicial review. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 3.75pt; margin-left: 7.5pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 3.75pt; margin-left: 7.5pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">If you believe you have been improperly denied benefits under an
ERISA policy or plan, how you build the record during the ERISA appeal process is
key to whether you win the appeal and to whether you win an ERISA lawsuit. The Law Office of Stephen A. Burroughs
handles ERISA appeals and suits and can give you advice on how to proceed
during the appeal phase. You may also
want to view the following for information on your ERISA plan and the appeal
and lawsuit process.</span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 3.75pt; margin-left: 7.5pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/how_to_file_claim.html">http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/how_to_file_claim.html</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> <a href="http://www.michbar.org/younglawyers/pdfs/erisa_materials.pdf">http://www.michbar.org/younglawyers/pdfs/erisa_materials.pdf</a></span>Bryan L. Cappshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03582750835783890769noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-23775777025274419782014-03-06T23:39:00.000-05:002014-03-06T23:40:24.530-05:00Manufactured Home Arbitration Clause Held Unconscionable and Unenforceable <br />
The Tennessee Court of Appeals in <i>Richard A. Berent v. CMH Homes, Inc., et al.</i>, ruled that an arbitration clause which forces all of plaintiff home buyer's claims to arbitration but allows finance company access to courts is unconscionable and unenforceable. Applying the Tennessee Supreme Court's holding in <i>Taylor v. Butler</i>, 142 S.W.3d 277 (Tenn. 1996), the Court of Appeals held against CMH Homes, Inc. and Vanderbilt Mortgage ruling that the arbitration clause must fail. The opinion seems to invite review by the TSC as to whether its holding in <i>Taylor</i> remains viable. <a href="http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/berentraopn.pdf" target="_blank">Read the full opinion here.</a>Bryan L. Cappshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03582750835783890769noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-40685069875097175412013-06-25T10:04:00.001-04:002013-06-25T10:04:48.758-04:00GM Recalls 200,000 More SUVs Due to Fire Risk <span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">General
Motors has issued a recall of an additional 200,000 SUVs due to a defect in the
power window and door module that can lead to a fire. The company said that
moisture can seep into the driver-side door and cause the electronics to
overheat and short circuit, posing a fire risk. The recall covers 2006-07
models of the Chevrolet Trailblazer, GMC Envoy, Buick Rainier, Saab 9-7x, Isuzu
Ascender, 2006 Chevrolet Trailblazer EXT and GMC Envoy XL. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"> </span><br />
Full Story at:<br />
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/06/16/general-motors-chevrolet-buick-saab-gmc-isuzu-suv-recall/2428061/">http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/06/16/general-motors-chevrolet-buick-saab-gmc-isuzu-suv-recall/2428061/</a><br />
<br />Bryan L. Cappshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03582750835783890769noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-12636258833851594462012-12-21T15:20:00.000-05:002013-04-03T15:21:07.090-04:00TWCA reviews whether an employee suffered a compensable injury that left him partially disabled<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/goods_121912.pdf">STEPHEN D. GOOD v. SUNKOTE PLASTIC COATINGS CORPORATION ET AL. (TWCA December 19, 2012)</a><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Opinion available at:<br />
<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/goods_121912.pdf">https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/goods_121912.pdf</a>J. Molinarohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15387907423681564161noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-75498438334569506912012-12-20T15:18:00.000-05:002013-04-03T15:18:40.385-04:00Court reviews a case involving an automobile accident<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/irwine_121812.pdf">EDNA H. IRWIN, v. CHRISTOPHER MARTIN ANDERSON (Tenn. Ct. App. December 18, 2012)</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Opinion available at:<br />
<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/irwine_121812.pdf">https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/irwine_121812.pdf</a>J. Molinarohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15387907423681564161noreply@blogger.com24tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-52730860031968945322012-12-17T15:11:00.000-05:002013-04-03T15:11:37.263-04:00Court reviews a case involving battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and business-related claims<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/hursts_121412.pdf">SARAH HURST v. COLMAN S. HOCHMAN, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 14, 2012)</a><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Opinion available at:<br />
<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/hursts_121412.pdf">https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/hursts_121412.pdf</a>J. Molinarohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15387907423681564161noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-50817140458238645602012-12-12T20:51:00.000-05:002013-02-04T20:54:09.719-05:00Court reviews whether the trial court had proper jurisdiction to review an administrative order from the Labor Department<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/chguenther.pdf">C.H. GUENTHER & SON, INC. v. SUE ANN HEAD ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 10, 2012)</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Opinion available at:<br />
<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/chguenther.pdf">https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/chguenther.pdf</a>David Headrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10982737271690243057noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-64588451223301628152012-11-30T15:59:00.000-05:002012-12-15T16:00:07.646-05:00TWCA reviews whether an employee's injury was compensable.<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/strains_112912.pdf">SCOTT D. STRAIN v. MR. BULT’S, INC. ET AL. (TWCA November 29, 2012)</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Opinion available at: <br />
<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/strains_112912.pdf">https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/strains_112912.pdf</a><br />
David Headrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10982737271690243057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-70838528802347030382012-11-28T15:44:00.000-05:002012-12-15T15:45:06.150-05:00Court reviews a medical malpractice case re-filed by the original plaintiff's heir following her death<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/bullockd_112712.pdf">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)</a><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Opinion available at: <br />
<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/bullockd_112712.pdf">https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/bullockd_112712.pdf</a>David Headrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10982737271690243057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-38836681332851223482012-11-27T15:42:00.000-05:002012-12-15T15:42:28.423-05:00Court reviews the appropriate classification of employees for worker's compensation insurance coverage<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/advantage_112712.pdf">ADVANTAGE PERSONNEL CONSULTANTS, INC. v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. November 27, 2012)</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Opinion available at: <br />
<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/advantage_112712.pdf">https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/advantage_112712.pdf</a><br />
David Headrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10982737271690243057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-25253246066716198072012-11-26T15:36:00.000-05:002012-12-15T15:38:06.909-05:00TWCA reviews whether the right to reconsideration of a settlement is triggered by an across-the-board wage reduction<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/robinsonr_112112.pdf">RON W. ROBINSON v. BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS TIRE OPERATIONS, LLC (TWCA November 21, 2012)</a><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Opinion available at: <br />
<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/robinsonr_112112.pdf">https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/robinsonr_112112.pdf</a>David Headrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10982737271690243057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-45260458556045645272012-11-22T15:39:00.000-05:002012-12-15T15:39:45.341-05:00Court reviews competing claims to the proceeds of a life insurance policy.<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/williamsg_11212012.pdf">STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, GWENDOLYN R. WILLIAMS v. ONZIE O. HORNE, III (Tenn. Ct. App. November 21, 2012)</a><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Opinion available at: <br />
<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/williamsg_11212012.pdf">https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/williamsg_11212012.pdf</a>David Headrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10982737271690243057noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-2084529661708639332012-11-20T15:30:00.000-05:002012-12-15T15:38:18.991-05:00Court reviews the dismissal of a medical malpractice case based on the exclusion of expert testimony<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/nevelss_111912.pdf">SHIRLEEN NEVELS v. JOSEPH CONTARINO, M.D. ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. November 19, 2012)</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Opinion available at: <br />
<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/nevelss_111912.pdf">https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/nevelss_111912.pdf</a>David Headrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10982737271690243057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-72709859429420708522012-11-12T21:00:00.000-05:002013-02-04T21:00:58.265-05:00Court reviews whether a child was a resident of a household for the purposes of insurance liability<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/cottonstates_110912.pdf">COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. JAMI McNAIR TUCK, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. November 9, 2012)</a><br />
<br />
An insurance company filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that mother and child were residents of the insured’s household, and therefore, that coverage for the death of the child was excluded by the relevant homeowner’s insurance policy. The chancery court found that mother and child were not residents of the insured’s household at the time of the child’s death, and we affirm.<br />
<br />
Opinion available at:<br />
<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/cottonstates_110912.pdf">https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/cottonstates_110912.pdf</a>David Headrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10982737271690243057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-71849263226205104862012-11-02T15:00:00.000-04:002013-02-04T21:43:42.212-05:00Court reviews whether a medical expert failed to identify the standard of care in a wrongful death case<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/griffithb_110112.pdf">BRENDA GRIFFITH, NEXT OF KIN OF DECEDENT, BOB GRIFFITH v. DR. STEPHEN GORYL AND UPPER CUMBERLAND UROLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C. (Tenn. Ct. App. November 1, 2012)</a><br />
<br />
In this medical malpractice, wrongful death action the plaintiff alleges the defendant physician, a urologist, failed to timely diagnose and treat the decedent’s bladder cancer which caused his death. At the close of the plaintiff’s case in chief, the defendant moved for a directed verdict. <br />
<br />
The trial court held that the plaintiff’s only medical expert witness erroneously defined the standard of care and, upon that basis, excluded his testimony concerning the standard of care and breach thereof. With the exclusion of the plaintiff’s only expert testimony, the trial court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for medical malpractice and granted the motion for a directed verdict. <br />
<br />
We have determined the plaintiff’s medical expert did not erroneously identify the standard of care, he is competent to testify and, thus, the trial court erred in excluding his testimony and directing a verdict in favor of the defendant. We, therefore, reverse and remand for a new trial.<br />
<br />
Opinion available at:<br />
<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/griffithb_110112.pdf">https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/griffithb_110112.pdf</a>David Headrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10982737271690243057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-6726561158033956692012-11-01T11:30:00.000-04:002013-02-04T22:01:51.797-05:00Tennessee Supreme Court reviews an emotional distress case involving the mishandling of a corpse.<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/akersr_COR_102612.pdf">RONDAL AKERS ET AL. v. PRIME SUCCESSION OF TENNESSEE, INC. ET AL. (Tenn. October 26, 2012)</a><br />
<br />
Dr. Rondal D. Akers, Jr. and Lucinda Akers sued T. Ray Brent Marsh for the alleged mishandling of their deceased son’s body, which had been sent to Mr. Marsh’s crematorium for cremation. Following a jury verdict for the Akerses, the trial court entered judgment against Mr. Marsh based on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim but granted his motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the Akerses’ Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and bailment claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed. <br />
<br />
We hold the trial court did not err in (1) holding Mr. Marsh liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress in the amount of the jury verdict; (2) instructing the jury that they were permitted to draw a negative inference resulting from Mr. Marsh’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege during questioning; and (3) dismissing the TCPA and bailment claims. The judgments of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are affirmed.<br />
<br />
Opinion available at:<br />
<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/akersr_COR_102612.pdf">https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/akersr_COR_102612.pdf</a><br />
David Headrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10982737271690243057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-38386869097322618312012-10-31T21:52:00.000-04:002013-02-04T21:53:04.511-05:00Court reviews whether a collision occurred between the Plaintiff and a tractor-trailer<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/hutsons_103112.pdf">SHERRY HUTSON v. SAFE STAR TRUCKING ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. October 31, 2012)</a><br />
<br />
In this case, Sherry Hutson filed a complaint in which she alleged her vehicle was struck by a tractor-trailer (“the tractor”) that left the scene of the accident. She seeks to recover under the uninsured motorist (“UM”) provisions of a policy providing coverage to the vehicle she was driving. The jury found that no “actual physical contact ha[d] occurred between” the plaintiff’s vehicle and the vehicle that left the scene. She appeals. We affirm.<br />
<br />
Opinion available at:<br />
<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/hutsons_103112.pdf">https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/hutsons_103112.pdf</a>David Headrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10982737271690243057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3372815207529540502.post-52070916767935653052012-10-29T14:30:00.000-04:002013-02-04T22:05:42.648-05:00Court reviews whether a municipality's 911 operator negligently failed to summon emergency personnel from a neighboring county<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/gregoryl_102912.pdf">LORI GREGORY, IN HER CAPACITY AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES BALLENTINE v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY (Tenn. Ct. App. October 29, 2012)</a><br />
<br />
This is a negligence claim under Tennessee’s Governmental Tort Liability Act. The decedent was involved in a serious vehicular accident. A witness called the defendant municipality’s 911 emergency communications center for help. The 911 responders went to the accident scene and transported the decedent to a local hospital, where he died. <br />
<br />
The decedent’s mother filed this lawsuit against the municipality, alleging that the 911 operator was negligent in failing to summon emergency personnel from a neighboring county, because those responders were closer to the scene of the accident and could have provided aid to the decedent sooner. The municipality filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing inter alia that it owed no duty to summon aid outside of its jurisdiction. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff now appeals. We affirm.<br />
<br />
Opinion available at:<br />
<a href="https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/gregoryl_102912.pdf">https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/gregoryl_102912.pdf</a>David Headrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10982737271690243057noreply@blogger.com0