Court Reviews a Finding of No Fault in a Case Involving a Motor Vehicle Accident

BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. d/b/a AT&T (TN) v. SHUNDRA Y. YOUNG and MAUREEN F. KINSELLA (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2011)

Plaintiff sued Defendants for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The trial court struck, from Defendants' answers, allegations regarding the comparative fault of an unidentified nonparty. However, the trial court allowed references to such nonparty at trial, and the jury assigned no fault to Defendants. Finding no error in the trial court's allowance, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Opinion available here:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/bellsouth_062111.pdf

TWCA Reviews Whether a Hydrotherapy Tub Falls Within the "Future Medical Treatment" Provision of a Workers' Compensation Settlement

JERRY LINDSEY v. TIM REEVES D/B/A TIM'S TREE SERVICE (TWCA June 16, 2011)



The employee suffered a compensable spinal cord injury. He settled his workers' compensation claim with his employer in 2007. The settlement provided for future medical treatment in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a) (2008). In 2009, the employee sought authorization and payment for a hydrotherapy tub. His employer declined to authorize installation of the tub. The employee filed a motion for authorization of medical care in February 2010 and supported the motion by attaching a note from his authorized treating physician that he would "benefit" from use of the tub. The trial court granted the motion. On appeal, we reverse.


Opinion available at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/lindseyj_061611.pdf

Court Reviews a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim in a Case Involving a Hospital

MCCALL BRISTER v. HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF TENNESSEE, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2011)



This is an appeal from the trial court's grant of a hospital's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The trial court determined that plaintiff's claim sounded in medical malpractice and dismissed plaintiff's claim for failure to comply with the written notice and certificate of good faith requirements of the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act. Finding that Plaintiff's complaint states claim for ordinary negligence and premises liability, we reverse the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings. 


Opinion available at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/bristerm_060911.pdf

TWCA reviews the percentage of permanent partial disability allocated by the trial court

DANIEL CLAY LEWIS v. DANA HOLDING CORPORATION (TWCA June 8, 2011)


An employee sustained an injury to his shoulder at work. After a surgical repair, he briefly returned to work but was laid off prior to reaching maximum medical improvement. He filed a complaint in chancery court seeking workers' compensation benefits from his employer. His treating physician assigned no impairment rating and placed no restrictions on his activities. An evaluating physician assigned 6% impairment to the body as a whole and recommended that Mr. Lewis avoid certain activities.

The trial court awarded 36% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The employer has appealed, contending that the award is excessive. We modify the judgment to award 24% permanent partial disability to the employee. We also conclude that local Rule 17A of the Chancery Court of the 28th Judicial District of Tennessee conflicts with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 58. 


Opinion available at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/lewisd_060811.pdf

TWCA reviews whether an employee was injured during the usual course of his employment

VICTOR POWELL ET AL. v. BRETT MARTER, INDIVIDUALLY and D/B/A QUALITY FLOOR COVERING (TWCA June 7, 2011)



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 filed a workers' compensation action contending his injury while cutting trees at his employer's home was in the usual course of his employment at his employer's floor covering business. The trial court held that employee's work was casual employment not in the usual course of his employer's business as defined by TCA section 50-6-106(2) and not covered by the workers' compensation statute. We affirm the judgment. 


Opinion available at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/powellv_060711.pdf

TWCA reviews a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute in a workers' compensation case

MASON FISCHER v. SVERDRUP TECHNOLOGY, INC. (TWCA June 7, 2011)



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 filed a Worker's Compensation action on August 22, 2003 alleging a compensable injury in the course of his employment with his employer in December 1998. The employer filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02.

The trial court entered an order in September 2008, stating that the employer was withdrawing the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute based upon the employee's commitment to take a medical deposition within sixty days. A second motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute was filed and heard on March 15, 2010 because the medical deposition had not been taken. The trial court granted the motion with prejudice. The employee has appealed. We affirm the judgment. 


Opinion available at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/fischerm_060711.pdf

Court reviews whether Plainiff's expert was qualified to testify in a case involving medical malpractice

BRANDE KIRK, ET AL. v. MICHAEL A. CHAVIN, M.D. (Tenn. Ct. App. June 3, 2011)


Brande Kirk and Amanda Jordan, as children of Barbara Jordan, ("Plaintiffs") sued Michael A. Chavin, M.D. alleging medical malpractice in his treatment of Barbara Jordan. Dr. Chavin filed a motion for summary judgment. After a hearing, the Trial Court entered its order on August 30, 2010 finding and holding that Plaintiffs' expert was not qualified to testify in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 29-26-115, and granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We affirm. 


Opinion available at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/kirkb_060311.pdf

Court reviews whether defendant negated causation in his motion for summary judgment in a wrongful death medical malpractice case

JEFFEREY D. KEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF RANDALL EUGENE KEY ET AL.v. BLOUNT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC. ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2011)



This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment to the defendant hospital in a medical malpractice wrongful death case. The trial court struck as untimely the materials filed by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The responsive materials were filed less than five days before the date originally scheduled for a hearing on the defendant's motion; however the hearing was continued for several months. Having struck the plaintiff's filings, the court held that the motion negated violation of the standard of care and causation and granted the motion as unopposed.

The plaintiff contends on appeal that the defendant did not negate either violation of the standard of care or causation; that the materials responsive to the motion should not have been stricken; and that, if the materials filed in opposition to the motion are considered, the plaintiff presented issues of material fact for trial. We vacate the trial court's grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. 


Opinion available at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/keyj_053111.pdf

TWCA Reviews a Finding of an Employee's Meaningful Return to Work

JOHN ERNEST HAYES v. AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL. (TWCA May 25, 2011)



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 trial court found that the employee had sustained a compensable injury. In addition, it found that the employee had a meaningful return to work, and his award of permanent partial disability ("PPD") benefits was limited to one and one-half times his anatomical impairment pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1).

On appeal, the employee contends the trial court erred by finding that he had a meaningful return to work. The employer contends the trial court erred by admitting a discovery deposition of an expert into evidence over its objection based upon Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 32.01(3), and finding that the injury at issue was not concurrent with injuries which were the subject of a separate lawsuit. We affirm the judgment. 


Opinion available at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/hayesj_052511.pdf

General Assembly passes major legislation, including the Civil Justice Act, and looks toward adjournment

The Tennessee General Assembly worked in marathon floor and committee sessions this week towards the conclusion of the 2011 legislative session. Among major legislation approved by the State Senate is a civil justice law sponsors say will establish a climate to help create jobs in Tennessee, several measures cracking down on child sex offenders and those who engage in human trafficking, and state's rights legislation.

According to its sponsors, the Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011 is designed to provide certainty and predictability for businesses, while ensuring that injured plaintiffs receive all of the economic, quantifiable damages they suffer. The bill's sponsors say the state's current civil justice system puts the state at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to attracting new businesses and jobs. Opponents of the bill say it is harmful to injured plaintiffs by limiting the amount they can recover and that Tennessee has not seen runaway jury verdicts as in other states.

Key provisions of Senate Bill 1522 include:
- The bill limits the maximum appeal bond amount from $75 million to $25 million or 125 percent of the judgment amount.
- It defines two components of compensatory damages: economic and non-economic damages.
- The measure places a cap on non-economic damages, which are subjective damages like pain and suffering, at $750,000 per injured plaintiff for both healthcare liability action and other personal injury actions. However, if the harm suffered is intentional, the caps would not apply.
- As amended, the bill raises the cap to $1.0 million if the plaintiff becomes a paraplegic or quadriplegic because of spinal cord injury, sustains third degree burns over 40 percent or more of his or her body or face, has an amputation of a hand or foot, or wrongfully dies leaving one or more minor children.
- There is no cap, under the measure, on economic damages and any damages that can be objectively quantified may be recovered.
- Caps punitive damages, which must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, at two times compensatory damage or $500,000, whichever is greater, unless the defendant intended to injure the plaintiff, was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or intentionally falsified records to avoid liability.
- Prevents punitive damages in products liability actions, unless the seller had substantial control over the design or manufacturing of the product or had actual knowledge of the defect in the product at the time it was sold.

The bill now goes back to the House of Representatives for approval of an amendment before it is sent to the governor for his signature. It will take effect October 1, 2011, and apply to all liability actions for injuries accruing after that date.

Court Reviews A Jury Verdict in a Medical Malpractice and Wrongful Death Action

PATTI ZAKOUR, DECEASED, BY NEXT OF KIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NATURAL CHILDREN, NEXT FRIEND AND ON BEHALF OF ANY AND ALL WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF PATTI ZAKOUR, DECEASED v. UT MEDICAL GROUP, INC. (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2011)



The trial court granted Defendant's motion to set aside the judgment arising from a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiffs in this medical malpractice/wrongful death action. It also conditionally granted Defendant's alternative motion for a new trial. In light of Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings. 


Opinion available at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/zakourp_051911.pdf

TWCA Reviews Whether Employee's Injury was Compensable

STEVE MCBROOM v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. ET AL. (TWCA May 10, 2011)

The employee alleged that he sustained a lower back injury as a result of his job. His employer denied the claim based upon findings by its work site medical staff. An evaluating physician opined that the employee's job had caused an aggravation of a pre-existing degenerative disc disease.

The trial court found that the employee had sustained a compensable injury and awarded benefits. The employer appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding. We affirm the judgment, but we decline the employee's request to find the appeal to be frivolous.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/mcbrooms_051011.pdf

Court Reviews a Summary Judgment Ruling in a Slip and Fall Case

DAVID MACKLIN v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, d/b/a DOLLAR GENERAL STORE #2311 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 4, 2011)



This is a premises liability case. The plaintiff slipped and fell on a clear liquid at the defendant's store. The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing it did not have a reasonable opportunity to clean the floor, warn the customer of the clear liquid, or take adequate precautionary measures upon receiving notice of the dangerous condition.

The trial court granted the motion and the plaintiff appealed. Having determined the defendant effectively moved for and received only partial summary judgment, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 


Opinion may be found at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/macklind_050411.pdf

TWCA Reviews Whether Employee Sustained any Permanent Impairment or Disability

BRENDA COLE v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY ET AL. (TWCA May 2, 2011)



An employee was struck in the back of the leg by a wooden pallet while at work. She alleged that she sustained permanent injuries to her neck, back, and foot as a result of that incident and filed a complaint against her employer in chancery court for workers' compensation benefits. Her employer denied that she had sustained any permanent impairment or disability. The chancery court held that the employee sustained a compensable injury and awarded 20% permanent partial disability benefits. The employer has appealed. We affirm the judgment. 


Opinion may be found at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/coleb_050211.pdf

Court Reviews the issue of Negligence in a Wrongful Death Case

JAMES ANTONY WILSON, SR. v. EAST TENNESSEE HUMAN RESOURCE AGENCY, INC. (Tenn. Ct. App. April 29, 2011)



James Antony Wilson, Sr. sued East Tennessee Human Resource Agency, Inc. ("ETHRA") individually, and as next friend and Personal Representative of the Estate of Callie Irene Wilson, on behalf of himself and all wrongful death beneficiaries of Callie Irene Wilson, Deceased. This suit involves a fall and injuries suffered by Callie Irene Wilson ("Callie Wilson") while ETHRA was in the process of transporting Callie Wilson to a dialysis appointment, and her death resulting from these injuries.

After a trial, the Trial Court entered its order on July 29, 2010 finding and holding, inter alia, that the ETHRA driver acted appropriately and was not negligent. Mr. Wilson appeals to this Court. We find that the evidence in the record on appeal preponderates against the Trial Court's finding that ETHRA's employee, Mr. Clabo, was not negligent. We reverse, and remand this case to the Trial Court for a determination of comparative fault and damages. 


Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/wilsonj_042911.pdf

Court Reviews the Foreseeability of the Driver’s Unconsiousness in a Case Involving a Motor Vehicle Accident

TIMOTHY SCHWANDNER v. DANA S. HIGDON (Tenn. Ct. App. April 27, 2011)



The driver of a car suddenly passed out, causing her vehicle to strike a stopped pickup truck and seriously injure its driver. The pickup driver sued, and the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that she was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries because her sudden loss of consciousness was unforeseeable. Since it was undisputed that prior to the accident the defendant had not eaten during a full day of busy activity, the plaintiff argued that it was foreseeable that the she would lose consciousness. The trial court did not agree, and it granted the defendant's motion. We affirm the trial court.


Opinion may be found at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/schwandnert_042711.pdf

Republican Sen. Mike Faulk Against TN Tort Reform Bills

Tennessee Republican Senator Mike Faulk appears to be the only voice of reason among Tennessee Republicans who are determined to fix a tort system that is not broken. He opposes Governor Haslam's tort reform bill which has been improperly touted as a jobs creations bill. Senator Faulk is absolutely correct that the current Tennessee tort system and criminal systems work and that the tort system is based on bedrock conservative priniples of personal responsibility and limited government. Please read his opinion piece and call your legislators and ask them to vote against the Governor's bill. The bill will be up for final passage by the Senate next week so time is of the essence. Ask your legislator to refuse this gift to businesses and insurance companies at the expense of all Tennesseans.

JAMIE RANDOLPH, on behalf of her deceased mother, CAROLYN RANDOLPH v. GIANFRANCO MEDURI, M.D., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 2, 2011)

This appeal arises out of an action to hold UT Medical Group, Inc. vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of its employees. In 1997, the original plaintiff filed an amended complaint for medical malpractice and wrongful death which specifically named two doctors as employees of the defendant who negligently caused the death of a patient. As trial approached, a substitute plaintiff attempted to add new allegations concerning the negligence of a third doctor. The trial court denied the motion to amend and later granted a motion in limine to exclude evidence concerning the alleged negligence of the third doctor as beyond the scope of the 1997 amended complaint. The plaintiff consequently was unable to offer expert testimony at trial to prove an employee of the defendant negligently caused the patient's death, and the trial court granted judgment in favor of the defendant. We affirm.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/randolphj_030211.pdf

Say NO to TN Tort Reform - The Stories of Courtney Hill and Amanda Travis

Governor Haslam's tort reform bill is proceeding through the House with little opposition. The Republican controlled legislature, backed by countless corporate interests and physicians, is pushing the bill through as fast as possible while their momentum is high. The families of Courtney Hill - a young woman and mother who died as a result of medical negligence - and Amanda Travis - a young child who died as a result of medical negligence -want you to see how they lost their loved ones. Please view these stories and contact one or more members of the House Judiciary Committee below and ask them not to vote for the Governor's unneeded bill. Please do not be complacent because you believe these things cannot happen to you or your family. If you have more questions about the bill, see former Senator Fred Thompson's testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on why Tennessee's tort system is not broken and why the Governor's bill is a gift to corporations and insurers paid for by Tennessee citizens. House Judiciary: Officers: Eric Watson (R) Cleveland – 201 WMB -615-741-7799 – rep.eric.watson@capitol.tn.gov Jim Coley (R) Bartlett – 207 WMB - 615-741-8201 – rep.jim.coley@capitol.tn.gov Vance Dennis (R) Savannah – 209 A WMB – 615-741-2190 – rep.vance.dennis@capitol.tn.gov Members: Eddie Bass (D) Prospect – 109 WMB – 615-741-1864 – rep.eddie.bass@capitol.tn.gov Karen Camper (D) Memphis – 20 LP – 615-741-1898 – rep.karen.camper@capitol.tn.gov Linda Elam (R) Mt. Juliet – 212 WMB – 615-741-7462 – rep.linda.elam@capitol.tn.gov Jeremy Faison (R) Cosby – 202 WMB – 615-741-6871 – rep.jeremy.faison@capitol.tn.gov Jim Gotto (R) Nashville – 205 WMB – 615-741-6959 – rep.jim.gotto@capitol.tn.gov Jon Lundburg (R) Bristol – 20 LP – 615-741-7623 – rep.jon.lundberg@capitol.tn.gov Debra Maggart (R) Hendersonville – 114 WMB – 615-741-3893 –rep.debra.maggart@capitol.tn.gov Judd Matheny (R) Tullahoma – 15 LP – 615-741-7448 – rep.judd.matheny@capitol.tn.gov Gary Moore (D) Joelton – 35 LP – 615-741-4317 – rep.gary.moore@capitol.tn.gov Barrett Rich (R) Somerville - 117 WMB – 615-741-8690 – rep.barrett.rich@capitol.tn.gov Janis Sontany (D) Nashville – 23 LP – 615-741-6862 – rep.janis.sontany@capitol.tn.gov Mike Stewart (D) Nashville – 24 LP – 615-741-2184 – rep.mike.stewart@capitol.tn.gov Rick Womick (R) Murfreesboro - 207 WMB – 615-741-2804 –rep.rick.womick@capitol.tn.gov

Tell Your Legislators - Governor's Tort Reform Bill Goes Too Far

In 12 years of practice, every injured client I ever represented shared one common trait - they never thought it would happen to them. When I then proceeded to explain to many of them how little they could expect to recover based on employer-favorable worker's compensation laws or state-mandated minimum auto insurance coverage carried by a defendant driver they were stunned.

Given that Governor Haslam's Tort Reform is on the verge of passage without much opposition, it appears that, like my clients, most Tennesseans assume they will never be injured by another's negligence. I sincerely hope that you and your family are never harmed by a speeding trucker, a drunk driver, a careless professional, an unscrupulous insurer or a greedy financial institutiuon. However, statistically, many of us will experience one or more of these unfortunate events.

If you are affected by such events, you will be stunned by the limits the Governor's bill will have placed on the options for you and your family. Just consider one component of the bill which modifies what is known as the Collateral Source Rule. Although the bill does not mention "collateral source", the changes to the rule are real and are a hidden gem for defendants and insurers alike.

The current Collateral Source Rule recognizes personal responsibility and treats all defendants in injury suits equally. If you responsibly purchased health insurance, medical payments coverage or disability coverage for you and your family and it pays you while you are injured or out of work the person who injures you and his/her insurer does not benefit from your insurance.

For example, if you pay $400 per month for health insurance - by doing so you have paid for the right not to pay retail prices for healthcare. If you are injured and undergo a $1,000 MRI and your insurer has negotiated with the MRI provider to charge you only $500, you and/or your insurer pay only $500 and the balance is written off. At trial, you are allowed to claim the $1,000 bill in full. Why? Because you paid thousands of dollars in premiums for the right to receive the $500 reduction.

Under the Governor's bill, the Collateral Source Rule would be modified or eliminated such that you can only claim the $500 paid by your insurer. The effect is the person who injured you and his/her insurer get the benefit of the health insurance coverage you bought and paid for.

In another example, assume you are injured, out of work and receive money from a disability policy which you paid for. If you lost $10,000 in wages and your disability plan paid you $7,500 while you were off, the Governor's bill would only require the person who injured you to pay you the other $2,500. Again, the person who injured you and his/her insurer save $7,500 because you paid years of premiums for the disability coverage.

In these examples, the person who injured you caused $11,000 in actual damage, but he and his insurer paid only $3,000 in damages to you because YOU paid high premiums for additional insurance coverage. Under the same bill, a person who is injured and did not buy health or disability coverage would receive the full $11,000 in damages.

Why would a conservative Governor and Republican led Legislature reward a negligent party at the expense of a responsible individual who paid premiums and planned for unforseen injury? Why would they advocate for a rule that provides more damages for an individual who did not bother to buy health or disability coverage for his/her family? The only answer is that it will decrease the amount of claims paid by Tennessee auto and other insurers.

In short, it is a gift to insurers who have been seeking this change in the Collateral Source Rule for years. It's the perfect system - insurers collect your premium dollars; pay as little as possible if you have a health or disability claim; and then if an insured driver harms you his/her insurer pays you as little as possible from that person's premiums. What a system.

The Collateral Source Rule is a major component of the Governor's "job creating" tort reform bill. I challenge you to find one individual in the Governor's administration or in the Tennessee Legislature who can explain how this gift to insurers will create a single job. I walked the halls of the Hill last month and asked numerous legislators why they would vote for such a bill. In some cases I received blank stares asking me "what is Collateral Source?" Others simply could not believe that such an offensive rule was buried in the bill they clearly had not read. Needless to say - I was stunned.

If we cannot count on a conservative Legislature and Governor not to reward insurers at the expense of working men and women who responsibly buy insurance to protect themselves - where do we turn? If you are as bothered as me by this bill - call or e-mail members of the House Judiciary Committee (listed below) and tell them. They will pass on this bill this week. Ask them if they have paid insurance premiums for themselves and their families and, if so, why in the world would they support these changes to Collateral Source. Then ask them to remove it from the bill.

Finally, listen to former Senator Fred Thompson's testimony on tort reform before the House Judiciary Committee. If you agree that the reform bill is a solution in search of a problem disguised as a jobs machine - tell the Committee how you feel.


House Judiciary: Officers: Eric Watson (R) Cleveland – 201 WMB -615-741-7799 – rep.eric.watson@capitol.tn.gov Jim Coley (R) Bartlett – 207 WMB - 615-741-8201 – rep.jim.coley@capitol.tn.gov Vance Dennis (R) Savannah – 209 A WMB – 615-741-2190 – rep.vance.dennis@capitol.tn.gov Members: Eddie Bass (D) Prospect – 109 WMB – 615-741-1864 – rep.eddie.bass@capitol.tn.gov Karen Camper (D) Memphis – 20 LP – 615-741-1898 – rep.karen.camper@capitol.tn.gov Linda Elam (R) Mt. Juliet – 212 WMB – 615-741-7462 – rep.linda.elam@capitol.tn.gov Jeremy Faison (R) Cosby – 202 WMB – 615-741-6871 – rep.jeremy.faison@capitol.tn.gov Jim Gotto (R) Nashville – 205 WMB – 615-741-6959 – rep.jim.gotto@capitol.tn.gov Jon Lundburg (R) Bristol – 20 LP – 615-741-7623 – rep.jon.lundberg@capitol.tn.gov Debra Maggart (R) Hendersonville – 114 WMB – 615-741-3893 –rep.debra.maggart@capitol.tn.gov Judd Matheny (R) Tullahoma – 15 LP – 615-741-7448 – rep.judd.matheny@capitol.tn.gov Gary Moore (D) Joelton – 35 LP – 615-741-4317 – rep.gary.moore@capitol.tn.gov Barrett Rich (R) Somerville - 117 WMB – 615-741-8690 – rep.barrett.rich@capitol.tn.gov Janis Sontany (D) Nashville – 23 LP – 615-741-6862 – rep.janis.sontany@capitol.tn.gov Mike Stewart (D) Nashville – 24 LP – 615-741-2184 – rep.mike.stewart@capitol.tn.gov Rick Womick (R) Murfreesboro - 207 WMB – 615-741-2804 –rep.rick.womick@capitol.tn.gov