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

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

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

Court reviews whether a child was a resident of a household for the purposes of insurance liability

COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. JAMI McNAIR TUCK, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. November 9, 2012)

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.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/cottonstates_110912.pdf

Court reviews whether a medical expert failed to identify the standard of care in a wrongful death case

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)

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.

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.

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.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/griffithb_110112.pdf

Tennessee Supreme Court reviews an emotional distress case involving the mishandling of a corpse.

RONDAL AKERS ET AL. v. PRIME SUCCESSION OF TENNESSEE, INC. ET AL. (Tenn. October 26, 2012)

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.

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.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/akersr_COR_102612.pdf

Court reviews whether a collision occurred between the Plaintiff and a tractor-trailer

SHERRY HUTSON v. SAFE STAR TRUCKING ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. October 31, 2012)

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.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/hutsons_103112.pdf

Court reviews whether a municipality's 911 operator negligently failed to summon emergency personnel from a neighboring county

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)

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.

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.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/gregoryl_102912.pdf

TWCA reviews whether the reconsideration of a settlement was barred by the statute of limitations

JOHN FREEMAN v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY ET AL. (TWCA October 22, 2012)

The employee sought reconsideration of workers’ compensation settlements concerning a back injury in 2003 and a right knee injury in 2006. The trial court granted the petition and increased the previous permanent partial disability awards to 30% to the body as a whole for the back injury and 100% to the leg for the knee injury.

The employer has appealed, contending that reconsideration of the back injury was barred by the statute of limitations, that the awards for both injuries were excessive, that the trial court incorrectly awarded benefits in excess of six times the anatomical impairment for the knee injury, and that the trial court erred by awarding benefits in a lump sum.

The employee contends that the trial court erred by failing to award permanent total disability benefits. We conclude that the employee’s petition for reconsideration of the settlement of his back injury was not timely filed and reverse that part of the judgment. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/freemanj_102212.pdf

Court reviews whether a nurse assistant abused an elderly person in his care at a nursing home.

DANIEL A. RILEY, C.N.A. v. JOHN DREYZEHNER, M.D., M.P.H., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (Tenn. Ct. App. October 22, 2012)

Appellant nurse assistant’s name was placed on the Abuse Registry after the Appellee Tennessee Department of Health concluded that he had committed an act of abuse on an elderly person in his care at a nursing home. Appellant appeals, arguing that substantial and material evidence does not exist to show that he committed an act of abuse on the nursing home resident. Having determined that substantial and material evidence in the record supports the decision of the Tennessee Department of Health, we affirm.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/rileyd_102212.pdf

Court reviews whether an auto insurance policy covers damages resulting from a car owner's independent acts of negligence in a case involving a car accident

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL. v. SOUTHERN TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY (Tenn. Ct. App. October 24, 2012)

This is a dispute between insurance companies over coverage related to a car accident. We conclude that the trial court erred in finding that the driver’s auto policy covered damages resulting from the independent acts of negligence of the car owner.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/statefarm_102412.pdf

Court reviews a worker's compensation case involving a fraud upon the court

CHEYENNE DUFFER v. KEYSTOPS, LLC. (Tenn. Ct. App. August 1, 2012)

This appeal arises out of a personal injury suit, wherein the plaintiff and Dewayne Duffer filed suit against a trucking company for injuries suffered in an accident and for loss of consortium as a result of the accident. Plaintiff’s employer intervened to recover worker’s compensation benefits paid to plaintiff.

Soon thereafter, the trucking company discovered that plaintiff was male, had filed the action using an assumed female identity, and had lied throughout the discovery process. The trucking company filed a motion for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion and dismissed plaintiff’s and employer’s complaints, finding that plaintiff had committed a fraud upon the court and that employer had failed to file suit within the applicable statute of limitations because plaintiff’s complaint was rendered void ab initio. Plaintiff and employer appeal. We affirm the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint but reverse the dismissal of employer’s complaint.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/dufferc_080112.pdf

TWCA reviews the voluntariness of an employee's retirement and the extend of his disability for the purposes of awarding benefits

DANA AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS GROUP, LLC ET AL. v. LARRY EVANS (TWCA August 2, 2012)

An employee developed carpal tunnel syndrome. Before receiving medical treatment for that condition, he accepted an offer from his employer to resign in exchange for a lump sum payment of his retirement benefits. The offer was unrelated to the work injury.

The trial court granted the employer’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1)(A) (2008) limited the employee’s award of benefits to one and one-half times the anatomical impairment in light of his voluntary retirement.

On the date scheduled for trial, the trial court declined to hear evidence or permit an offer of proof concerning the voluntariness of his retirement and the extent of his vocational disability. Judgment was entered awarding permanent partial disability of one and one-half times the medical impairment. The employee has appealed. We vacate the judgment and remand the case to the trial court for a determination on the merits of the case.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/danaautomotive_080212.pdf

Court reviews whether a medical expert's testimony was properly entered into evidence

BETTY FRANKLIN v. DURO STANDARD PRODUCTS CO., INC. (Tenn. Ct. App. August 1, 2012)

In this claim for workers’ compensation benefits, the trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits to the employee for hearing loss. Her employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of the employee’s medical expert into evidence and by finding that her hearing loss was caused by her employment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/franklinb_080112.pdf

Court reviews whether an insurance company's refusal to pay insurance proceeds was made in bad faith

TONY WILLIAMS ET AL. v. TENNESSEE FARMERS LIFE REASSURANCE COMPANY ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. August 1, 2012)

This action was filed after the defendant, a life insurance company, denied payment of benefits on the grounds that the decedent/insured made material misrepresentations in her application for life insurance. The specific basis for the denial was that the insured allegedly failed to disclose “methadone treatment for a narcotic addiction.”

The trial court found there was no proof that the insured was taking methadone at the time of the application or that she was ever treated for “drug related problems.” On this basis, the trial court concluded the insured did not make any misrepresentations in her application for life insurance and ordered the defendant to pay the death benefit plus pre-judgment interest. We affirm.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/williamst_080112.pdf

Court reviews an insurance company's refusal to pay proceeds based on misrepresentations made in the initial application for coverage

EDWARD G. ROCHELLE v. GRANGE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. August 1, 2012)

This appeal results from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee insurance company. Appellee denied Appellant’s claim for fire loss on the ground that Appellant made material misrepresentations in the application for insurance. The trial court determined that Appellant took contradictory positions in his examination under oath and in his discovery deposition on the question of whether his application for insurance was completed when he signed it, or whether he signed it in blank before it was completed by the insurance agent.

The trial court determined that Appellant’s inconsistent statements were not effective to create a dispute of material fact for purposes of summary judgment. We conclude that the motion for summary judgment was improperly granted. Reversed and remanded.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/rochellee_080112.pdf

Court reviews the judgment of a libel and false light invasion of privacy case

DANIEL B. EISENSTEIN v. WTVF-TV, NEWS CHANNEL 5 NETWORK, LLC ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2012)

The plaintiff, a public official, sued the defendants for libel and false light invasion of privacy. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on the truth of the statements. The plaintiff sought to complete discovery before the motion was heard. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion and plaintiff appealed. We affirm the grant of summary judgment as to the libel claims, but reverse the grant of summary judgment as to some of the false light claims.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/eisensteind_073112.pdf

Court reviews a dispute between an insurance company and a trucking company involving over-the-road drivers

AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY v. MVT SERVICES, INC., D/B/A MESILLA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION (Tenn. Ct. App. July 30, 2012)

This appeal involves retrospective insurance premiums on a workers’ compensation insurance policy. The defendant trucking company operates in several states, including Texas and Tennessee. Tennessee requires employers to maintain worker’s compensation insurance for certain employees, but Texas does not.

The defendant trucking company purchased workers’ compensation insurance for its Tennessee employees from the plaintiff insurance company. The trucking company employed over-the-road truck drivers who were Tennessee residents. The trucking company decided to classify its Tennessee-resident over- the-road drivers as Texas employees whose on-the-job injuries would not be covered by the Tennessee workers’ compensation insurance policy. Consequently, the trucking company did not pay insurance premiums to cover those employees.

The plaintiff insurance company conducted a retrospective premium audit; in the audit, it determined that the Tennessee- resident over-the-road drivers presented a risk of loss to the insurance company. Consequently, the insurance company notified the trucking company that it owed retrospective premiums based on those drivers. The trucking company refused to pay, so the insurance company canceled the insurance policy and filed this lawsuit for the retrospective premiums. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company, and the trucking company now appeals.

We affirm, finding under the undisputed facts that the Tennessee-resident over-the-road employees presented a risk of loss to the insurer under the workers’ compensation insurance policy during the relevant policy periods.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/americanzurich_073012.pdf

Court reviews an allocation of fault in a case involving a motor vehicle accident

REBECCA W. FORD v. STATE OF TENNESSEE (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2012)

Rebecca W. Ford (“Plaintiff”) sued the State of Tennessee (“State”) regarding a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of Plaintiff’s daughter, Lynsey M. Ford.

After a bench trial, the Trial Court entered its judgment finding and holding, inter alia, that the State had not violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(I) or § 9-8-307(a)(1)(J), and that the actions of Zachary L. Robinson were the sole proximate cause of the accident. Plaintiff appeals to this Court. We reversed the Trial Court’s judgment as to Zachary L. Robinson being solely at fault, and held that the State was 50% at fault for the Accident in our Opinion in Robinson v. State, docket No. E2011-01540-COA-R3-CV (“Robinson v. State”), released contemporaneously with this Opinion. We, therefore, remand this case to the Trial Court for the calculation of damages awarded to Plaintiff from the State for the death of Lynsey M. Ford.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/fordr_073112.pdf

Court allocates the fault in a case involving a motor vehicle accident

WADE ROBINSON, ET AL. v. STATE OF TENNESSEE (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2012)

Wade Robinson and Melanie Robinson (“Plaintiffs”) sued the State of Tennessee (“State”) regarding a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of Plaintiffs’ son, Zachary L. Robinson. After a bench trial, the Trial Court entered its judgment finding and holding, inter alia, that the State had not violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(I) or § 9-8-307(a)(1)(J), and that the actions of Zachary L. Robinson were the sole proximate cause of the accident.

We find and hold that the evidence preponderates against the Trial Court’s findings that the State did not violate Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(I), that the State did not violate Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(J), and that Zachary L. Robinson was the sole proximate cause of the accident. We find and hold that Zachary L. Robinson was 50% at fault for the accident and that the State was 50% at fault for the accident.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/robinsonw_073112.pdf