TAM-BYTES

June 6, 2016
Vol. 19, No. 23
TAM Webinars
Tennessee Probate Case Law & Legislative Update, 60-minute webinar
presented by Rebecca Blair & Julie Travis Moss with The Blair Law Firm
in Brentwood, on Tuesday, June 21, at 2 p.m. (Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern).
*Earn 1 hour of GENERAL credit
Attorneys 2016 Employment Law Update: Latest from the Tennessee
Legislature and Courts, 60-minute webinar presented by David L.
Johnson & Brent E. Siler with Butler Snow, on Tuesday, June 28, at 2
p.m. (Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern).
*Earn 1 hour of GENERAL credit
Litigating Causation Issues in Tennessee Healthcare Liability Cases, 60minute webinar presented by Chris Tardio with Gideon, Cooper & Essary in
Nashville, on Wednesday, June 29, at 10 a.m. (Central), 11 a.m. (Eastern).
*Earn 1 hour of GENERAL credit
Social Security Disability: How to Succeed at the ALJ Hearing, 60minute webinar presented by Chris Gentry with The McMahan Law Firm in
Chattanooga, on Wednesday, July 13, at 10 a.m. (Central), 11 a.m. (Eastern).
*Earn 1 hour of GENERAL credit
Tennessee Child Support Guidelines: What Attorneys Need to Know,
90-minute webinar presented by Barbara Broersma Assistant Commissioner,
Appeals & Hearings, with the Tennessee Department of Human Services, on
Wednesday, July 13, at 2 p.m. (Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern).
*Earn 1.5 hours of GENERAL credit
Child Custody in Tennessee: When May a Parent Relocate with
Children?, 60-minute audio conference presented by Kevin
Shepherd, Maryville attorney, on Tuesday, July 19, at 2 p.m. (Central),
3 p.m. (Eastern).
*Earn 1 hour of GENERAL credit

Test for General Jurisdiction over Corporations: At Home Not

Doing Business, 60-minute webinar presented by Cannon Lawley with
Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart in Birmingham, on Wednesday, July 20, at 10
a.m. (Central), 11 a.m. (Eastern).
*Earn 1 hour of GENERAL credit
How to Handle Creditor Claims and Debts When Administering a
Tennessee Estate, 60-minute webinar presented by Grayson Smith
Cannon with Phillips & Ingrum in Gallatin, on Wednesday, July 20, at 2
p.m. (Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern).
*Earn 1 hour of GENERAL credit
Estate Planning in Tennessee: Digital Assets and Social Media
Accounts, 60-minute webinar presented by Donald Farinato with Hodges,
Doughty & Carson in Knoxville, on Thursday, July 21, at 10 a.m. (Central),
11 a.m. (Eastern).
*Earn 1 hour of GENERAL credit
Injury Damages in Tennessee after West v. Shelby County Healthcare, 60minute webinar presented by Brandon Bass with Law Offices of John Day in
Brentwood, on Tuesday, July 26, at 2 p.m. (Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern).
*Earn 1 hour of GENERAL credit

TAM On-Site Event

Personal Injury Law Conference for Tennessee Attorneys

WHEN: Friday, September 23
WHERE: Nashville Nashville School of Law
CLE: Earn up to 7.5 hours of CLE (6.5 GENERAL and 1 DUAL)
FACULTY: Judge Don R. Ash, Tennessee Senior Judge; Edward U. (Ned)
Babb, Butler, Vines and Babb, PLLC, Knoxville; Laura Baker, Law Offices
of John Day PC, Brentwood; Brandon Bass, Law Offices of John Day PC,
Brentwood; Daniel Clayton, Kinnard, Clayton & Beveridge, Nashville;
Chuck Mangelsdorf, MGC Insurance Defense, Nashville; J. Bryan
Moseley, Moseley & Moseley, Murfreesboro; and T. Kenan Smith, Hodges,
Doughty & Carson, PLLC, Knoxville

HIGHLIGHTS: How West v. Shelby County Healthcare impacts medical

damages; negotiating with insurance adjusters; proving medical bills in a
personal injury case; Medicare set-aside allocations, approvals, and
administration; truck accident litigation trial strategies for both the plaintiff
and the defense; best practices in uninsured motorist cases; voir dire -- first
impressions, team building, and primary objectives; review of recent
personal injury cases; and dealing with a judge who is acting unethically.
For more information or to register call us at (800) 274-6774 or visit
www.mleesmith.com/tn-personal-injury-law
*************************************************************
19th Annual Tennessee Workers Compensation Educational
Conference, presented by The Tennessee Bureau of Workers
Compensation, to be held on Tuesday, Wednesday, & Thursday, June 21
through June 23, in Murfreesboro at the Embassy Suites Nashville SEMurfreesboro.
For additional information or to register for either of these events, contact
the IWCF at (386) 677-0041 or email IWCF@bellsouth.net

IN THIS WEEKS TAM-Bytes

Court of Appeals, in reversing denial of petition for qualified
protective order in healthcare liability action, rules TCA 29-26-121(f)
is not preempted by HIPAA;
Court of Appeals rejects argument in personal injury case that
Tennessee Supreme Courts decision in West v. Shelby County
Healthcare Corp. established new standard in Tennessee for
determining reasonable amount of medical expenses as matter of law;
Court of Appeals, in case of first impression, holds general discovery
rule did not apply in case against trustee for breach of trust;
Court of Appeals says there is no provision in Child Support
Guidelines allowing credit for Social Security disability payments
retroactive to filing of petition for modification and that such
allowance would be contrary to operation of TCA 36-5-101(f)(1); and

 Court of Criminal Appeals says in cases of multiple robbery

convictions, proper unit of prosecution for robbery in Tennessee is
the number of takings, i.e., the number of thefts, and defendants who
put multiple people in fear during course of one theft may be
convicted of aggravated assault in addition to robbery to acknowledge
each victim.

COURT OF APPEALS
TORTS: When plaintiff filed healthcare liability action on behalf of patient
against multiple healthcare providers, defendants filed petitions for qualified
protective order (QPO) pursuant to TCA 29-26-121(f), and plaintiff
objected, asserting that HIPAA preempted TCA 29-26-121(f), trial court
erred in denying petitions for QPOs; TCA 29-26-121(f) is not preempted by
HIPAA; trial court erred in denying petition for QPOs when there was no
dispute that defendants complied with statutes procedural requirements and
plaintiff did not object based upon relevance; by requiring that defendants
take discovery-only depositions of treating healthcare providers, trial court
ignored mandates of TCA 29-26-121(f), which does not contemplate
formality of deposition; legislative intent was to authorize defendants to
conduct ex parte interviews where certain conditions are met. Caldwell v.
Baptist Memorial Hospital, 6/3/16, Jackson, Bennett, 13 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/caldwellaopn.pdf

TORTS: When pedestrian was struck by defendant driver, pedestrians

insurer, as subrogee, filed suit alleging that defendant should be liable for
negligence and negligence per se, and trial court assessed liability against
defendant and awarded pedestrians insurer $50,000 in damages, trial court
had no basis upon which to assess liability against defendant; statement of
evidence provided was inadequate to establish requisite elements of
negligence claim when statement of evidence provided only that pedestrian
was walking along sidewalk and awoke in hospital with no memory of how
she came to be there, defendant was driving on roadway, his car never left
roadway, and pedestrians body came into contact with passenger side of
defendants car; evidence did not establish that defendant breached duty of
care that he owed to pedestrian; there was no proof of elements of
negligence per se. Omni Insurance Co. v. Nickoloff, 6/2/16, Knoxville,
Frierson, 7 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/omni.opn_.finalversion2.pdf

TORTS: When plaintiff filed suit alleging that defendant driver failed to
stop in obedience to stop sign and drove his truck into intersection, causing
plaintiff, who had right-of-way, to swerve and collide with another
automobile, jury found plaintiff was 40% at fault and defendant driver was
60% at fault and assessed damages at $333,000, and trial court entered
judgment for $199,800, material evidence supported finding that defendant
driver was 60% at fault for accident and that plaintiff was 40% at fault;
material evidence supported award of damages for past and future lost
earnings when plaintiff testified that he made $400 or $500 per week before
accident, that following accident, he lacked mobility in his left arm, could
only lift three pounds with arm, and could not work in his physical state,
doctor diagnosed acute left brachial plexopathy, or brachial plex injury, and
doctor assigned 28% impairment rating. Bachar v. Partin, 5/27/16,
Nashville, Dinkins, 8 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/bachar.l._opn.pdf

DAMAGES: When, prior to trial in personal injury case, plaintiffs

submitted expert testimony from treating physician to establish
reasonableness of their claimed medical expenses, defendants filed motion
in limine seeking to exclude evidence of what they deemed unreasonable
medical expense, and they argued that Tennessee Supreme Courts decision
in West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp., 459 SW3d 33 (Tenn. 2014),
established new standard in Tennessee for determining reasonable amount of
medical expenses as matter of law, trial court erred in granting defendants
motion in limine, thus excluding testimony of treating physician; West court
concluded that hospitals non-discounted charges should not be considered
reasonable charges for purpose of TCA 29-22-101(a), but court did not mean
for its holding, standing alone, to control all determinations of
reasonableness with regard to medical expenses under Tennessee law;
existing law makes clear that defendants are permitted to offer proof
contradicting reasonableness of medical expenses, but, in doing so, they
must not run afoul of collateral source rule. Dedmon v. Steelman, 6/2/16,
Jackson, Gibson, concurrence by Riley, 20 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/dedmonjeanopn_0.pdf
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/dedmonjeancon_0.pdf

EMPLOYMENT: When 59-year-old plaintiff lost his job as chemical

operator after working in that position for over 37 years, plaintiff applied for
positon of general operator with another company (defendant), and 12
individuals were hired by other company, all of whom were younger than

plaintiff and most of whom were less experienced, material evidence

supported jury verdict finding defendant engaged in age discrimination in
failing to offer plaintiff positon as general operator; there is no basis upon
which to rule that amount of damages jury determined was appropriate -$100,000 ($42,991 in lost wages and, presumably, $57,009 for humiliation
and embarrassment) to award plaintiff, and trial court approved after
observing him testify, was unreasonable; award of front pay contributes to
making plaintiff whole and placing him closer to where he would have been
had defendant offered him position of general operator in 2012. Vawter v.
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 6/2/16, Jackson, Bennett, 12 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/vawterdopn.pdf

PROPERTY: In case in which father, believing his property might be

subject to claims of creditors after death of his wife, sought advice from his
son on how to preserve his real property for benefit of his two children and
grandchildren, son engaged attorney to prepare quitclaim deed reserving life
estate for father and conveying remainder interest in property to fathers two
children (son and daughter), father executed deed without reading it, two
years later, after realizing he only held life estate, father asked both children
to re-convey property, and daughter complied, but when son refused, father
filed suit against son seeking to rescind quitclaim deed on ground that deed
was procured by sons fraud or constructive fraud, evidence preponderated
against trial courts rescission of dead and its finding that father was under
dominion and control of son at time he signed deed; although father trusted
son completely, relied on son for financial advice, and could be persuaded
by sons ardent opinions, given fact that father was in good physical and
mental health at time he signed deed, lived separately from son, and was not
dependent on son or anyone else for his daily needs, father was not under
sons dominion and control at time deed was signed, and son owed no
affirmative duty to disclose to father all material facts relevant to
transaction; because son did not owe affirmative duty to disclose all material
facts relevant to transaction, fathers claim that son procured deed by fraud
or constructive fraud cannot be sustained. Eledge v. Eledge, 5/26/16,
Nashville, Clement, 19 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/eledgeh.opn_.pdf

ESTATES & TRUSTS: When trust became operative in 1980 upon death
of settlor, in 11/15/05 letter addressed to beneficiaries and one beneficiarys
husband, trustee stated that letter served as notice of trustees resignation
effective 12/31/05, beneficiaries stated that trustees attorney refused to

complete termination process because beneficiaries would not agree to

release all claims against trustee, beneficiaries sued to terminate trust in
11/06, trust was terminated by court order on 5/16/07, by 11/07, all of assets
of trust had been transferred, until assets of trust had been distributed, bank
continued to act in its capacity as trustee pursuant to its residual powers, and
beneficiaries filed suit against trustee on 5/13/10 seeking damages for breach
of trust, trustee is not entitled to summary judgment on grounds that
beneficiaries claim was barred by statute of limitation; applying general
discovery rule to statute of limitation for breach of trust claim would
override explicit requirement in TCA 35-15-1005(a) that one-year period
begins running date adequate report is sent to beneficiary or its
representative; since one-year statute of limitation in TCA 35-15-1005(a)
begins to run when beneficiary is sent report with information described in
statute, trustees assertion that beneficiaries had actual knowledge of their
claims as of December 28, 2005 is not sufficient to establish that one-year
statute of limitation was triggered on that date; trustee failed to meet its
burden on summary judgment to establish that beneficiaries claim is barred
by one-year statute of limitation in TCA 35-15-1005(a); of events listed in
TCA 35-15-1005(c), termination of trust on 5/16/07 would be first to occur,
beneficiaries filed suit against trustee within three years of that date, and
hence, trustee is not entitled to summary judgment on ground that
beneficiaries claim was barred by three-year statute of limitation in TCA
35-15-1005(c). Meyers v. First Tennessee Bank N.A., 5/27/16, Knoxville,
Susano, 26 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/meyers_v._first_tn_bank.pdf

FAMILY LAW: In case in which father was designated primary residential

parent of parties three children on 9/11/14, that same day, father filed
petition seeking to modify parenting plan to allow him to relocate with
children to Arizona, mother filed petition opposing relocation on 10/17/14,
and father argued that because mothers petition was not filed within
statutorily-mandated 30 days, he should have been allowed to relocate with
children pursuant to TCA 36-6-108(g), trial court determined that mothers
response was timely and denied fathers request to relocate trial court
found that letter father claimed to have sent to mother notifying her of his
intent to relocate with children had been returned as undeliverable and that
date letter was returned unclaimed by U.S. Postal Service, i.e., 9/25/14, was
date when 30 days would begin for mother to file her response, thus,
mothers response, filed on 10/17/14, was timely; because envelope, which
was addressed to mother and postmarked certified mail on 9/5/14, was

entered into record sealed, and it remains sealed, letter does not prove that
father sent notice to mother that complies with TCA 36-6-108 in order to
make determination that letter was actually sufficient to meet statutory
notice requirement, sealed envelope would have to be opened, something
appellate court does not have authority to do because appellate court would
then be reviewing and basing its decision upon evidence that was never
presented to trial court. McDonough v. McDonough, 5/26/16, Nashville,
Swiney, 8 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/mcdonoughj.opn_.pdf

FAMILY LAW: Social Security disability benefit payments paid to

custodial parent on behalf of child may be credited against disabled parents
support obligation, but there is no provision in Child Support Guidelines
allowing credit for Social Security disability payments retroactive to filing
of petition for modification, and such allowance would be contrary to
operation of TCA 36-5-101(f)(1). Sewell v. Sewell, 5/27/16, Knoxville,
Frierson, 19 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/sewell_opinion_final.pdf

FAMILY LAW: Mother did not satisfy her obligation set forth in parties
parenting plan to provide child with health insurance by enrolling child in
TennCare eligibility for or enrollment of child in TennCare or Medicaid
will not satisfy requirement that child support order provide for childs
health care needs; trial court did not abuse discretion in failing to hold
mother in contempt for failing to provide health insurance for child when
fact that mother was unable to afford insurance coverage for child other than
TennCare would likely negate willfulness requirement for finding of
contempt, and there was no evidence to show that mother knew that
provision of TennCare was not sufficient to satisfy courts order to maintain
childs health insurance; trial court properly required father to provide health
insurance for child until child reaches age 21 when child is considered
disabled under Americans with Disabilities Act, such that father should be
ordered to provide health insurance coverage for child past childs majority
child was diagnosed with autosomal recessive blood disorder called
Pyruvate Kinase Deficiency, which severely compromises her immune
system, and fact that child can participate in activities and does not need
constant medical assistance does not negate underlying diagnosis that can
lead to life-threatening amplification of even most minor cold. Stewart v.
Rowland, 6/2/16, Jackson, Armstrong, 14 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/stewartnatalieopn.pdf

FAMILY LAW: In case in which trial court entered judgment enforcing

enhanced judgment lien filed on behalf of wifes former counsel in divorce
action, because record contains no proof of notice to wife of hearing at
which trial court awarded enhanced judgment lien, wifes due process rights
were violated and that portion of trial courts judgment enforcing enhanced
portion of attorneys lien is vacated; while charging lien serves to secure
attorney fees, it does not function as adjudication of rights between lawyer
and his or her client, and if client disputes attorneys right to fees or amount
thereof, fact that court retains jurisdiction over res of lien does not relieve
attorney from burden of proving his or her fees in evidentiary hearing.
McCarter v. McCarter, 6/1/16, Knoxville, Frierson, 9 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/mccarter_ii_opinion_final.pdf

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appellate record was procedurally flawed in not

containing required affidavit in support of motion to recuse, and hence, trial
courts order denying motion for recusal is affirmed. Childress v. United
Parcel Service Inc., 6/3/16, Jackson, Armstrong, 5 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/childressjudyopn.pdf

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

CRIMINAL LAW: In case in which defendant, licensed attorney, was
convicted of six counts of vehicular homicide, trial court did not err in
finding that defendant was competent to stand trial when, although
defendant testified that he was unable to work, to drive, to handle his own
finances, to follow instructions, or to carry on consistent conversation, and
that he was receiving disability benefits for his injuries, defendant possessed
at least general understanding of legal proceedings against him as well as
ability to converse with his counsel, he understood various legal processes,
and he was not cooperative with testing administered by state and made
various statements recognizing that answering questions posed by states
experts was not in his best self-interest; trial court properly determined that
defendants impaired memory did not impact his ability to assist in his
defense. State v. Naifeh, 5/27/16, Jackson, McMullen, 23 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/naifehtimothyopn.pdf

CRIMINAL LAW: Defendants two convictions for especially aggravated

robbery, based on robbery of Davis and robbery of Cowan, violate double
jeopardy; because only one theft occurred during which defendant took
money that Davis removed from nightstand and threw on bed, but Davis

testified that she was unaware of moneys presence in her nightstand and
that Cowan hid money and marijuana around house, jury could have found
beyond reasonable doubt that property taken belonged to Cowan defendant
shot Cowan and then took his money from another room in apartment;
evidence was sufficient to support defendants conviction in Count 5,
especially aggravated robbery of Cowan, but because only one theft
occurred, conviction in Count 8, especially aggravated robbery of Davis,
must be reduced to aggravated assault; in cases of multiple robbery
convictions, proper unit of prosecution for robbery in Tennessee is the
number of takings, i.e., the number of thefts, and defendants who put
multiple people in fear during course of one theft may be convicted of
aggravated assault in addition to robbery conviction to acknowledge each
victim. State v. Tolbert, 5/27/16, Knoxville, Montgomery, 21 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/tolbertjosephopn.pdf

CRIMINAL LAW: In case in which defendant was charged with three

counts of aggravated cruelty to animals under TCA 39-14-212 by causing
serious physical injury to companion animal, i.e., horses belonging to victim,
and he was ultimately convicted of three counts of lesser included offense of
cruelty to animals, shooting of victims horses was not aggravated cruelty to
animals as defined by statute when aggravated cruelty to animals statute
states that its provisions do not apply to equine animals; because
indictments failed to charge offense, trial court lacked authority to instruct
jury on cruelty to animals, and hence, defendants three convictions for
cruelty to animals are reversed. State v. Robertson, 5/27/16, Nashville,
Thomas, 11 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/robertsondopn.pdf

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Surety is not automatically released from its

obligations whenever superseding indictment is filed. In re Jenkins
Bonding Co., 5/27/16, Nashville, McMullen, 4 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/inrejenkinsopn.pdf

PUBLIC CHAPTERS
CRIMINAL LAW: Harassment statute is revised to encompass more
means of communication, including social media. 2016 PC 884, effective
7/1/16, 3 pages.
http://share.tn.gov/sos/acts/109/pub/pc0884.pdf

CRIMINAL SENTENCING: Various provisions are revised regarding

sentencing for DUI-related offenses and other offenses. 2016 PC 876,
effective 7/1/16, 5 pages.
http://share.tn.gov/sos/acts/109/pub/pc0876.pdf

COURT OF WORKERS COMP CLAIMS

WORKERS COMPENSATION: Employee did not present
preponderance of evidence sufficient to prove to reasonable degree of
medical certainty that she suffered compensable aggravation of her preexisting osteoarthritis when she fell at work, doctor performed total rightknee replacement, employee had sought medical treatment for arthritis in
both knees before fall, and doctor opined that employee suffered increased
symptoms but that her fall at work did not primarily cause these symptoms.
Gibson v. Claiborne County Board of Education, 12/21/15, Kingsport,
Addington, 10 pages.
http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1279&context=utk_workerscomp

WORKERS COMPENSATION: Authorized treating physicians

multiple statements as to cause of employees need for treatment and surgery
are sufficient to establish that employee sustained compensable aggravation
of his pre-existing and dormant low back spondylolisthesis and stenosis;
physicians statements of injury having certainly led to surgery and
most likely being aggravated by job support finding of injury
aggravating pre-exiting condition by more than 50% in causing disablement
and need for medical treatment. Housewright v. City of Kingsport, 12/21/15,
Kingsport, Addington, 11 pages.
http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1278&context=utk_workerscomp

WORKERS COMPENSATION: When employee, package driver,

alleged that he sustained back injury while working on 12/2/14, employee
established, through opinions of Drs. Boruff and Koenig, that he is likely to
succeed at hearing on merits that his back condition arose primarily from his
employment when Boruff, employees primary care physician for 20 years,
opined that employees back condition is related to his employment, and
Koenig, orthopedic surgeon, performed exam and opined that employees
back condition resulted from employment activities; when employer chose
to direct employee to Dr. Copeland, rather than providing panel of
physicians as required by TCA 50-6-204(3)(A)(i), Copelands opinion is not
entitled to statutory presumption; based on employees unrefuted testimony

that Copeland did not perform physical exam, did not obtain x-rays, and was
only in exam room for 60 to 75 seconds, not much weight is placed on his
opinion that employees back condition was not work related. Pickens v.
United Parcel Service, 12/22/15, Knoxville, Knott, 12 pages.
http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1275&context=utk_workerscomp

WORKERS COMPENSATION: Injured employee was not entitled

to temporary partial disability benefits up to his uncontested maximum
medical improvement date when employer acted within terms of its
Drug Policy when it suspended, and later terminated employees
employment and in so doing, enforced its workplace rules and
employer had work available within employees restrictions both before
and after his suspension and later termination. Booher v. Microporous
LLC, 12/18/15, Kingsport, Addington, 10 pages.
http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1273&context=utk_workerscomp

BOARD OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

PROFESSION OF LAW: Rutherford County Juvenile Court Judge Donna
S. Davenport received public reprimand in connection with her transfer of
child custody case to another county in which she referred to father and/or
his counsel as sneaky snake[s] and accused them of manipulating the
court schedule. In re Davenport, 5/23/16, Craft, 3 pages.
http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/docs/documents/board-judicial-conduct/judge-donna-s-davenport-public-reprimand-may-23-2016

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