TAM-BYTES

June 29, 2015

Vol. 18, No. 26

2015 TAM CLE CALENDAR

Webinars

Tennessee Landlord and Tenant Law: Evictions, Court, and Litigation,

60-minute webinar presented by Joshua Kahane, with Glankler Brown in Memphis, on Thursday, July 16, at 2 p.m. (Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern).

*Earn 1 hour of GENERAL credit

Tennessee's New Business Court is Now Open for Business, 60-minute

webinar presented by Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle, Davidson County Chancery Court, on Thursday, July 23, at 2 p.m. (Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern).

*Earn 1 hour of GENERAL credit

Litigating Personal Injury Claims in Tennessee: ACA and HIPAA

Rules, 60-minute webinar presented by Mathew Zenner, with McCune, Zenner & Happell in Brentwood, on Wednesday, August 12, at 2 p.m.

(Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern).

*Earn 1 hour of GENERAL credit

For more information or to register for any of our CLE events, call (800) 274-6774 or

visit us at www.mleesmith.com

On-Site Events

Personal Injury Law Conference for Tennessee Attorneys

WHEN: Friday, September 25 WHERE: Nashville Nashville School of Law

CLE: Earn up to 7.5 hours of CLE, including 6.5 hours of GENERAL and

1 hour of DUAL credit

FACULTY: 16th Judicial District Circuit Judge Mark Rogers; Laura

Baker, Law Offices of John Day; Brandon Bass, Law Offices of John Day;

Philip N. Elbert, Neal & Harwell; Michael H. Johnson, Howard, Tate,

Sowell, Wilson, Leathers & Johnson; Chris Tardio, Gideon, Cooper &

Essary; and Bryan K. Williams, Gullett Sanford Robinson & Martin

HIGHLIGHTS: Review of recent personal injury cases; constitutionality

of caps on damages; recent developments in healthcare liability pre-suit

notice and certificate of good faith requirements and ex parte

communications; trial judges dos and donts for arguing for or against a

motion for summary judgment; handling complex subrogation and lien

issues; social media, the internet, and ESI challenges; effective direct

examination, cross-examination, and redirect; deposition strategies

preparing for deposition, preparing the witness, and taking the deposition;

and interplay of ethics, evidence, and experts.

To learn more or to register, visit: www.mleesmith.com/tn-personal-injury-law

Family Law Conference for Tennessee Practitioners *Two dates in Nashville this year*

WHEN: Thursday & Friday, October 8 & 9 AND

Thursday & Friday, December 3 & 4 WHERE: Nashville Nashville School of Law

CLE: Earn up to 15 hours of CLE, including 12 hours of GENERAL and 3

hours of DUAL credit

OCTOBER FACULTY: Judge Don R. Ash, senior judge, Tennessee

Senior Program; Judge Mike Binkley, circuit court, 21st Judicial District

(Hickman, Lewis, Perry, and Williamson counties); Judge Philip Smith,

circuit court, Davidson County; and Judge Thomas Wright, circuit court,

3rd Judicial Circuit (Greene, Hamblen, Hancock, and Hawkins counties);

along with attorneys Barry Gold, McWilliams & Gold, Chattanooga; John

J. Hollins, Jr., Hollins, Raybin & Weissman PC, Nashville; Cathy Speers

Johnson, Thompson Burton PLLC, Nashville; Stanley A. Kweller,

Jackson, Kweller, McKinney, Hayes, Lewis & Garrett, Nashville; Marlene

Moses, MTR Family Law, PLLC, Nashville; Linley Richter, Jr., Richter &

Rasberry, P.C., Memphis; Kevin Shepherd, Maryville attorney; Greg

Smith, Stites & Harbison PLLC, Nashville; and Jacob Thorington,

Cheatham, Palermo & Garrett Law, Nashville.

DECEMBER FACULTY: Judge Robert L. Childers, circuit court,

Shelby County; Judge Phillip Robinson, circuit court, Davidson County;

Judge Joseph Woodruff, circuit court, 21st Judicial District (Hickman,

Lewis, Perry, and Williamson counties); and Judge Thomas Wright, circuit

court, 3rd Judicial Circuit (Greene, Hamblen, Hancock, and Hawkins

http://www.mleesmith.com/tn-personal-injury-law

counties); along with attorneys Amy J. Amundsen, Rice, Amundsen &

Caperton PLLC, Memphis; John J. Hollins, Jr., Hollins, Raybin &

Weissman PC, Nashville; Cathy Speers Johnson, Thompson Burton PLLC,

Nashville; Stanley A. Kweller, Jackson, Kweller, McKinney, Hayes, Lewis

& Garrett, Nashville; Marlene Moses, MTR Family Law, PLLC, Nashville;

Linley Richter, Jr., Richter & Rasberry, P.C., Memphis; Kevin Shepherd,

Maryville attorney; Greg Smith, Stites & Harbison PLLC, Nashville; and

Jacob Thorington, Cheatham, Palermo & Garrett Law, Nashville.

HIGHLIGHTS: Protecting a clients separate assets; valuing and dividing

marital property; access to mental health records in a custody case; special

issues in military divorce; practical tips from judges on issues such as

attorney fees, contempt, and child custody modification; marketing yourself

and your law firm; social media tips and tricks; domestic violence cases and

mediation; cohabiting couples and same-sex marriages; attorney fees in

family matters and contempt; case law/legislative update; and ethical

considerations in family law.

To learn more or to register, visit: http://www.mleesmith.com/family-law-15

Probate & Estate Planning Conference for Tennessee

Attorneys

WHEN: Thursday & Friday, October 22 & 23 WHERE: Nashville Nashville School of Law

CLE: Earn up to 15 hours of CLE, including 12 hours of GENERAL and 3

hours of DUAL credit

FACULTY: Rebecca Blair, The Blair Law Firm, Brentwood; Julie A.

Boswell, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Nashville;

Jennifer Surber, Surber, Asher, Surber & Moushon, PLLC, Nashville;

Harlan Dodson, Dodson, Parker, Behm & Capparella P.C., Nashville;

Donald J. Farinato, Holbrook Peterson Smith, PLLC, Knoxville; David

Heller, Martin Heller Potempa & Sheppard, Nashville; Steve McDaniel,

Wyatt Tarrant & Combs LLP, Memphis; John McDonald, Evans, Jones &

Reynolds, PC, Nashville; Hunter R. Mobley, Howard Mobley Hayes &

Gontarek, PLLC, Nashville; Jeff Mobley, Howard Mobley Hayes &

Gontarek, PLLC, Nashville; Joel D. Roettger, Gentry, Tipton & McLemore,

P.C., Knoxville; Stacy Roettger, The Trust Company of Knoxville,

Knoxville; Brian S. Shelton, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP,

Nashville; Alexander M. Taylor, Kennerly Montgomery & Finley, P.C.,

http://www.mleesmith.com/family-law-15

Knoxville; and Matthew Thornton, Bourland, Heflin, Alvarez, Minor &

Matthews, PLC, Memphis.

HIGHLIGHTS: Advanced estate planning tips; checklists with trust drafting

tips; estate planning with trusts; will drafting tips - planning opportunities and

challenges for 2015 and beyond; planning for digital assets; revocable trusts

versus traditional will; planning for a gradual transfer of land within the

family; features of properly designed grantor trust for Medicaid and veteran's

planning; minimizing fees and costs by utilizing alternatives to probate; how

to use retirement assets to fund long-term care; strategies for resolving

TennCare claims; trusts, estate planning, and probate update; tips for

practicing in probate court; ethical issues arising in estate planning and estate

administration, such as client confidentiality, billing inquiries, and other

difficult-to-resolve dilemmas; and sample forms and checklists.

To learn more or to register, visit: http://www.mleesmith.com/probate

IN THIS WEEKS TAM-Bytes

Supreme Court holds that defendants dual convictions for attempted voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault did not violate double

jeopardy, and hence, trial judge did not err in failing to merge two

convictions;

Court of Appeals affirms trial courts finding that material change in circumstance had occurred warranting modification of parties

parenting plan to name father childrens primary residential parent

when trial court found that mother was unreasonable and

confrontational, that she was over-protective of children, that she

overreacted to minor incidents, and that she interfered with fathers

parenting time;

Court of Appeals, in case in which paternal great-aunt and great-uncle, who were named primary residential parents of child, filed

petition to terminate parents parental rights to child, rules trial court

erred in excluding evidence of alleged sibling abuse, i.e., abuse of

childs younger brother, in rendering its decision that grounds of

severe abuse were not proven;

Court of Criminal Appeals says evidence was not sufficient to convict defendant of attempted terrorism under TCA 39-13-805 when,

although defendant initiated report about impending emergency, i.e.,

defendant bringing AK-47 to school to kill others and himself, and

defendant knew this report was false or baseless, state failed to

http://www.mleesmith.com/probate

establish that defendant acted knowing that his false report would

place person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;

Court of Criminal Appeals awards new trial when prosecutors comments on defendants right not to testify constitute reversible non-

structural constitutional error; and

U.S. Supreme Court says Fourteenth Amendment requires state to license marriage between people of same sex and to recognize

marriage between two people of same sex when their marriage was

lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state.

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL LAW: Defendants dual convictions for attempted voluntary

manslaughter and aggravated assault did not violate double jeopardy, and

hence, trial judge did not err in failing to merge two convictions; adoption,

in 2012 in State v. Watkins, 362 SW3d 530 (Tenn. 2012), of same-

elements test, as enunciated by U.S. Supreme Court in Blockburger v.

United States, 284 US 299 (1932), and abandonment of four-part test set

forth in State v Denton, 938 SW2d 373 (Tenn. 1996), brought Tennessee law

into conformity with majority of other jurisdictions and did not constitute

the sort of unfair and arbitrary judicial action against which the Due

Process Clause aims to protect; because retroactive application of Watkins

does not offend due process, defendant is not entitled to have his double

jeopardy claim evaluated pursuant to Denton test. State v. Feaster, 6/25/15,

Knoxville, Wade, unanimous, 10 pages. http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/feasterterrenceopn.pdf

WORKERS COMP APPEALS PANEL

WORKERS COMPENSATION: In case in which employee, cable

technician, fell from pole during climbing recertification procedure, trial

court did not abuse discretion by excluding evidence regarding employees

arrest for manufacturing methamphetamine and his drug addiction when,

through depositions of Drs. Maccree and Baker, employer introduced

evidence that employee failed to disclose any potential history of illegal drug

use prior to doctors assessments, Baker said that failure to disclose

negatively impacted employees credibility, Maccree said that although prior

drug use could be red flag, it did not change non-subjective findings

visible on MRI and his diagnosis did not change when he learned of

employees prior drug problem, employee disclosed his oxycodone

prescription to Maccree, none of authorized physicians prescribed narcotic

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/feasterterrenceopn.pdf

pain medication to employee or were asked to do so, although Baker and

Maccree reached different conclusions, each made objective findings that

employee had loss of strength, muscle atrophy, diminished sensation, and

decreased range of motion, and hence, Maccrees opinion was premised on

more than employees subjective complaints; evidence did not preponderate

against trial courts finding that employee suffered permanent vocational

disability of 70% as result of injuries when trial court accredited testimony

of Maccree, neurosurgeon, who examined employee at time much closer to

work accident than did Baker, pain specialist, Maccree saw employee on

several occasions, while Baker conducted single examination, Baker argued

that spinal cord injury would be observable on MRI image, Maccree testified

that there was brightness of spinal cord on MRI, and Maccree based his

opinion on MRI images themselves, while Baker reviewed only radiologists

reports. Lewis v. Comcast, 6/17/15, Knoxville, Ogle, 17 pages. http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/lewis-comcast_opnjud.pdf

COURT OF APPEALS

TORTS: When plaintiff was admitted on 12/28/12 to Lincoln Medical

Center, hospital owned and operated by Lincoln County, to have catheter

inserted into his urethra, plaintiff sent chief executive officer of Lincoln

County Health System notice on 12/23/13 of potential claim against hospital,

as required by Health Care Liability Act (HCLA), and plaintiff filed suit on

12/27/13 under HCLA and Governmental Tort Liability Act, trial court

properly dismissed complaint for failure to state cause of action, holding that

plaintiff did not demonstrate extraordinary cause to institute suit prior to

expiration of 60 days from giving notice of his claim under HCLA; plaintiff

asserted that he was forced to file suit four days after giving hospital notice

in accordance with holding in Cunningham v. Williamson County Hospital

District, 405 SW3d 41 (Tenn. 2013), that 2009 amendments to HCLA,

which extended statute of limitation by 120 days where notice was properly

given, did not apply to GTLA actions, but question is whether plaintiff

demonstrated extraordinary cause for failing to give required 60-day notice

prior to filing suit mandated by TCA 29-26-121(b), not whether he showed

extraordinary cause for filing suit when he did. Patterson v. Lincoln

Medical Center, 6/23/15, MS, Dinkins, 6 pages. http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/pattersonj.v.lincolnmed.opn_.pdf

ESTATES & TRUSTS: When will provided that Property in Hartshaw

Addition will go to the persons that take care of me until my death, will

contained latent ambiguity requiring trial court to determine who qualified

as person(s) who took care of decedent until her death; evidence did not

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/lewis-comcast_opnjud.pdfhttp://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/pattersonj.v.lincolnmed.opn_.pdf

preponderate against trial courts finding that decedents nephew Holt was

person who took care of decedent when although Lane performed some

services for decedent, Holt was person who assisted decedent with her

financial and medical matters. In re Estate of Smelcer, 6/22/15, ES, Swiney,

12 pages. http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/inreestateofgeorgiamyerssmelceropn.pdf

FAMILY LAW: In case in which parties were divorced in 2007, mother

was designated as primary residential parent of parties two children, and

father filed petition in 2013 seeking to be designated childrens primary

residential parent, evidence did not preponderate against trial courts finding

that material change in circumstance had occurred warranting modification

of parties parenting plan to name father childrens primary residential

parent trial court found that mother was unreasonable and

confrontational, that she was over-protective of children, that she

overreacted to minor incidents, that she attempted to alienate fathers parents

from children, and that she interfered with fathers parenting time; trial court

did not abuse discretion in allowing father and stepmother to testify that they

heard parties son say no mommy, dont do this here, during art show

incident between mother and father and stepmother, when statement did not

qualify as hearsay commands or instructions are not hearsay if they are not

offered to prove truth of matter asserted -- and trial court found that

statement spoke volumes about effect of parents toxic relationship on

children and that statement was admissible as excited utterance. Whitten v.

Whitten, 6/18/15, WS at Nashville, Gibson, 12 pages. http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/whittenmarkthomas.opn_.pdf

FAMILY LAW: In case in which paternal great-aunt and great-uncle, who

were named primary residential parents of child, filed petition to terminate

parents parental rights to child on grounds of persistence of conditions that

led to removal, severe abuse, abandonment by failure to visit, and

abandonment by failure to support, and trial court held that grounds did not

exist for termination and returned child to parents custody, trial court erred

in excluding evidence of alleged sibling abuse, i.e., abuse of childs younger

brother, in rendering its decision that grounds of severe abuse were not

proven; evidence regarding injuries childs younger brother allegedly

sustained at hands of his parents is properly considered in analysis of

whether mothers and fathers parental rights as to child should be

terminated; evidence supported termination of parents parental rights on

ground of abandonment by willful failure to support when, even if parents

were following the process of the Child Support Division of the District

Attorney in establishing any support that may have been due, this fact alone

does not justify determination that their failure to support was not willful,

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/inreestateofgeorgiamyerssmelceropn.pdfhttp://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/whittenmarkthomas.opn_.pdf

nor does it absolve them from responsibility to support their child financially

while matter was pending final resolution; case is remanded to trial court for

determination as to whether termination of parents parental rights is in

childs best interest. In re Makenzie L., 6/17/15, MS, Bennett, 30 pages. http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/inremakenziel.opn_.pdf

FAMILY LAW: In case in which trial court granted fathers petition to

modify childs residential parenting schedule to give mother and father equal

residential parenting time with child, and after modifying residential

parenting schedule, trial court also modified parties respective child support

obligations, although fathers petition for modification of parenting plan and

supporting memorandum neglected to include child support worksheet, his

filings otherwise complied with statutory mandates, and he included

completed Administrative Office of Courts parenting plan form that was

served on mother more than 45 days before hearing, and as such, mother had

notice that modification of child support was possible (and, in fact, was trial

courts duty to establish upon modification of parenting time). Leonardo v.

Leonardo, 6/18/15, WS at Nashville, Armstrong, partial dissent by Stafford,

24 pages. http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/leonardo.dominick.opn_.pdf

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/leonardo.dominick.curr_.dis_.opn_.pdf

FAMILY LAW: While obligor parent can earn credit against child support

arrearage for necessaries parent provides to child if those necessaries are

not provided by other parent, fathers sparse argument failed to prove that

his $1,300 in rent payments to mother constituted necessaries for child;

with regard to clothes father may have purchased for child, he merely

speculated when testifying about amount he spent and was not certain of

amount, and as such, fathers proof was insufficient to justify additional

credit against his child support arrearage. In re Gabriel V., 6/24/15, MS,

Bennett, 15 pages. http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/inregabrielv.opn__1.pdf

GOVERNMENT: In case in which petitioners, 22 citizens of Anderson

County, filed action seeking to remove Yeager from position of county law

director of Anderson county pursuant to Tennessees ouster law (TCA 8-47-

101), trial court properly granted Yeagers motion to dismiss; because county

law director is subject to oversight by advisory committee that may remove

him or her at any time with subsequent approval of county legislature, county

law director is not public office, and hence, is not subject to ouster law. State

ex rel. Byrge v. Yeager, 6/25/15, ES, Gibson, 12 pages. http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/yeagernicholasjayopn.pdf

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/inremakenziel.opn_.pdfhttp://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/leonardo.dominick.opn_.pdfhttp://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/leonardo.dominick.curr_.dis_.opn_.pdfhttp://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/inregabrielv.opn__1.pdfhttp://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/yeagernicholasjayopn.pdf

GOVERNMENT: In case in which trial court ordered Marshall County

Sheriffs Office (Sheriffs Office) to produce public records, which had been

repeatedly requested by appellant pursuant to Tennessee Public Records Act

(TPRA), managing editor of Prison Legal News, publication that reports on

news and litigation related to criminal justice system, trial court abused

discretion in declining to award appellant any attorney fees based on finding

that actions of Sheriffs Office were not willful; heightened showing of

ill will or dishonest purpose is not necessary in order to establish

willfulness under TPRA; Sheriffs Office failure to comply with appellants

records request was willful when Sheriffs Offices insistence on personal

appearance by appellant before appellants records request would be granted

constituted willful denial of access to requested records. Friedmann v.

Marshall County, 6/24/15, WS at Nashville, Goldin, concurrence by

Gibson, 20 pages. http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/friedmanalex.opn_.pdf

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/freidmannalexconc.opn_.pdf

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

CRIMINAL LAW: In case in which defendant accompanied his wife (Watts)

to his step-sons school to pick up child from school, school secretary knew

that court-ordered parenting plan restricted when Watts could pick up child

without prior permission from childs father, secretary refused to allow couple

to leave with child, as secretary and principal were attempting to contact

childs father, secretary overheard defendant tell child, [w]hen I get back to

the doctor next Tuesday and [] get the news that I have cancer [y]ou have

nothing to worry about Im going to come back in here with an AK-47

Im going to kill everybody in here and then kill myself, and after being

warned by principal to never say anything like that in my school, defendant

again said something to child about getting an AK-47 and coming back in

there and killing everybody there including himself, evidence was not

sufficient to convict defendant of attempted terrorism under TCA 39-13-805

when state failed to establish all of elements of false report although

defendant initiated report about impending emergency, i.e., defendant

bringing AK-47 to school to kill others and himself, and defendant knew this

report was false or baseless, state failed to establish that defendant acted

knowing that his false report would place person in fear of imminent serious

bodily injury; defendants statements communicated intent to commit violent

act in future, after his visit to his doctor following week, act was conditioned

upon occurrence of future event, i.e., defendant receiving cancer diagnosis,

statements did not communicate intent to commit violent acts that particular

day, and although school nurse and school bookkeeper testified that they were

in fear based upon defendants comments, there is no proof that defendant was

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/friedmanalex.opn_.pdfhttp://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/freidmannalexconc.opn_.pdf

aware of their presence behind partition when he made statements, so

defendant could not have knowingly placed two employees in fear of

imminent serious bodily injury; defendants conviction for attempted

terrorism is reversed, and case is remanded for sentencing on alternative

conviction for disorderly conduct in Count 1 of indictment. State v. Watts,

6/23/15, Nashville, Holloway, 18 pages. http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/wattstyroneleroy.pdf

CRIMINAL LAW: In case in which defendant was convicted of three

counts of aggravated sexual battery, prosecutors comments on defendants

right not to testify constitute reversible non-structural constitutional error

in addition to directly referencing, during closing argument, defendants

failure to testify, prosecutor further emphasized defendants silence at trial

by repeatedly reminding jury that defendant did not have to testify,

implicitly inviting jury to use defendants silence as tacit admission of guilt;

in light of prosecutors comments on defendants right not to testify and fact

that prosecutor engaged in persistent pattern of other improper prosecutorial

misconduct, including repeatedly imploring jury to send a message and

vouching for state witnesses, cumulative effect of which constitutes plain

error, defendants convictions are reversed, and case is remanded for new

trial. State v. Robinson, 6/23/15, Nashville, Holloway, 27 pages. http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/robinsonadamwayne.pdf

CRIMINAL LAW: In case in which defendant was indicted on charge of

rape of child and subsequently convicted of lesser included offense of

aggravated sexual battery, trial judge did not commit plain error in allowing

victim to testify about other uncharged sexual acts committed by defendant

that occurred beyond trial courts jurisdiction and in permitting state to

cross-examine defendant about these events when trial judge found evidence

to be relevant to issue of motive. State v. Grimes, 6/26/15, Jackson,

Williams, partial dissent by McMullen, 26 pages. http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/grimesjmopn.pdf

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/grimesjonathandis.pdf

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: In case in which defendant was charged, in

multi-count indictment with two counts of burglary, 16 counts of aggravated

burglary, three counts of theft, and one count of unlawful possession of weapon

during offense, defendant pled guilty to six counts of aggravated burglary, with

remaining charges dismissed, and defendant filed motion asking trial court to

expunge dismissed counts from his record, trial court erred in denying

defendants expungement request; conviction for one count in multi-count

indictment or presentment does not preclude expungement of records relating to

separate count when criteria of TCA 40-32-101, as it existed at time of

defendants conviction and sentencing, were satisfied; retroactive application of

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/wattstyroneleroy.pdfhttp://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/robinsonadamwayne.pdfhttp://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/grimesjmopn.pdfhttp://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/grimesjonathandis.pdf

expungement statute, as amended in 2012, would violate ex post facto laws.

State v. Brookman, 6/26/15, Nashville, Ogle, 8 pages. http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/brookmanrogeropn.pdf

PUBLIC CHAPTER

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: When magistrate or other official releases

offender arrested for domestic violence in less than 12 hours, officials

findings must be in writing and preserved as permanent part of record. 2015

PC 375, effective 5/8/15, 3 pages. http://share.tn.gov/sos/acts/109/pub/pc0375.pdf

U.S. SUPREME COURT

FAMILY LAW: Fourteenth Amendment requires state to license marriage

between people of same sex and to recognize marriage between two people

of same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-

of-state. Obergefell v. Hodges, 6/26/15, Kennedy, dissents by Roberts,

Scalia, Thomas, & Alito, 5-4, 103 pages. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

COURT OF WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIMS

WORKERS COMPENSATION: When employee accidentally shot nail

through his left small finger, employees claim for additional medical benefits

is denied when doctor opined that employees current complaints of pain,

numbness, and discomfort in his left hand were not related to prior puncture

wound, and employees lay testimony was insufficient under law to rebut

expert medical opinion; employer argued that employee failed to comply with

medical treatment because he missed appointment with doctor and, relying

upon TCA 50-6-204(d)(1) and (d)(8), takes position that employee is not

entitled to further medical evaluation, but plain language of TCA 50-6-

204(d)(8) reads that compensation, not medical benefits, might be suspended;

provision of medical care is benefit to injured employee and is not

compensation to employee for injury; by its very nature, medical care cannot be

suspended. Burton v. Express Employment Services, 4/9/15, Phillips, 7 pages. http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1078&context=utk_workerscomp

WORKERS COMPENSATION: When employee, former truck driver,

alleged injury to his left knee on 12/16/14 as he stepped down from his

truck, employee did not establish that there was additional employment

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/brookmanrogeropn.pdfhttp://share.tn.gov/sos/acts/109/pub/pc0375.pdfhttp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdfhttp://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1078&context=utk_workerscomp

related risk element involved that enhanced his injury employee simply

placed his weight on his leg as he would do while walking or negotiating

stairs and hence, employee failed, at this time, to prove that he is likely to

succeed on merits of claim; with regard to employers motion to compel

employee to attend IME with treating physician, employee is ordered to

attend IME with employers designated physician, but such physician should

be someone other than treating physician. Lawson v. Mid-South Transport,

4/15/15, Addington, 9 pages. http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1080&context=utk_workerscomp

If you would like a copy of the full text of any of these opinions, simply

click on the link provided or, if no link is provided, you may respond to

this e-mail or call us at (615) 661-0248 in order to request a copy. You

may also view and download the full text of any state appellate court

decision by accessing the states web site by clicking here:

http://www.tncourts.gov

http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1080&context=utk_workerscomp2015 TAM CLE CALENDARWebinarsOn-Site EventsIN THIS WEEKS TAM-BytesSUPREME COURTWORKERS COMP APPEALS PANELCOURT OF APPEALSCOURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALSPUBLIC CHAPTERU.S. SUPREME COURTCOURT OF WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIMS