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

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.,

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 greatuncle, 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

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 nonstructural 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 sameelements 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

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

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,

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 8-47101), 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

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

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

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 outof-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 50-6204(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

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