Justia Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue in this appeal was the proper procedure for obtaining judicial review of a local legislative body's land use decision under the "Jackson Law," Tenn. Code Ann. 68-211-701 to -707. The opponents of a coal ash landfill, approved by the Cumberland County Commission, filed a petition for a statutory writ of certiorari in the chancery court seeking judicial review of the Commission's decision. The trial court dismissed the petition because it was not verified as required by Tenn. Code Ann. 27-8-106. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted Petitioners' application for permission to appeal because the Jackson Law did not specifically define the procedure for seeking judicial review of a local legislative body's decisions. The Court reversed, holding (1) a local legislative body's decision under the Jackson Law may be challenged either by a petition for a statutory writ of certiorari or by a complaint for declaratory judgment, and (2) the lower courts erred by failing to treat the statutory petition for writ of certiorari as a complaint for declaratory judgment. Remanded. View "Brundage v. Cumberland County" on Justia Law

The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners suspended Dr. Joseph Rich's medical license for one year and imposed other conditions after finding that, among other things, the physician had violated Tenn. Code Ann. 63-6-214(b)(1)(4) and (12). The chancery court affirmed the Board's judgment. The court of appeals reversed because the Board failed to articulate the applicable standard of care in its deliberations. The Supreme Court (1) held that the Board was required by Tenn. Code Ann. 63-6-214(g) to articulate the applicable standard of care in its deliberations; (2) vacated the ruling of the trial court to the extent that it affirmed the Board's decision that Rich had violated sections 63-6-214(b)(1)(4) and (12); (3) vacated the judgment of the court of appeals to the extent it reversed the Board's findings that Rich violated sections 63-6-214(b)(1)(4) and (12); and (4) rather than reversing the Board's findings of violations, remanded the matter to the Board with instructions to conduct deliberations based on the existing record and articulate the applicable standard of care as required by the statute. View "Rich v. Tenn. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs" on Justia Law

Employee suffered a work-related injury and sought benefits. The benefit review conference at the Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOL) ended in an impasse after a dispute about the degree of Employee's medical impairment. Employee filed suit. Subsequently, Employer filed an application for medical impairment rating (MIR) with the DOL, seeking the appointment of an independent medical examiner pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 50-6-204(d)(5). The trial court granted Employee's motion to quash the MIR, holding that the statute was established for the purpose of resolving workers' compensation claims while the claim was before an administrative body, and therefore, DOL had relinquished jurisdiction when the benefit review process reached an impasse. The trial court then adopted the higher of the disputed impairment ratings. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the trial court, holding (1) the constitutional separation of powers question was not properly presented, argued, or litigated before the trial court; and (2) whether the Employer may attempt to resolve the dispute of degree of medical impairment by seeking the opinion of an independent medical examiner pursuant to the statute was an issue for the Employee, Employer, and Attorney General to address on remand. View "Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire" on Justia Law

While Alicia Howell worked on an assembly production line at Nissan North America, she was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. After surgery, Howell and Nissan settled Howell's workers' compensation claim for her carpal tunnel injuries. When Howell attempted to return to work, she was told she would be returning to the fast-paced assembly line. Howell resigned and was hired at minimum wage for a temporary staffing agency. Howell then filed a petition for reconsideration of her earlier settlement. The trial court held that Howell was eligible for reconsideration of her workers' compensation benefits because she did not have a meaningful return to work and awarded her a twenty-five percent permanent partial disability rating to each upper extremity. The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appeals panel and reinstated the judgment of the trial court, holding (1) the appeals panel erred in holding that Howell had a meaningful return to work and her decision to resign rather than returning to work was unreasonable, and (2) the trial court's award was not excessive. View "Howell v. Nissan N. Am., Inc." on Justia Law

Employee injured his shoulder while working for Employer. After Employee returned to work, he filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Employee and Employer settled Employee's claim. The settlement stated that the award of vocational disability benefits to which the parties agreed was not based on the medical impairment rating of either the treating physician or Employee's independent medical examiner. After Employee was laid off, he sought reconsideration of his benefits. The chancery court awarded additional permanent disability benefits based on an impairment rating computed from the percentage of permanent partial disability reflected in the settlement. Employer appealed. At issue was whether the chancery court erred in declining to apply any of three impairment ratings assigned by physicians after the original settlement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a court's reconsideration of a workers' compensation award is limited to a determination of additional permanent partial disability based on the employee's impairment rating at the time of the initial award or settlement, and therefore, the chancery court properly computed the medical impairment rating; and (2) the award was not excessive. View "Lazar v. J.W. Aluminum" on Justia Law

In 2004, Plaintiffs Dalton and Sandra Hughes sued the city of Nashville and one of its employees under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA). Mr. Hughes worked for the local fire department. He alleged that Defendant Frank Archey negligently revved the engine to a front-end loader. The loader dropped its bucket to the pavement and made a loud, scraping noise. Mr. Hughes jumped awkwardly over some guardrail to get out of the way of the loader. Mr. Hughes injured both shoulders and both knees in the fall, and ultimately had rotator-cuff surgery and a double knee replacement. Mr. Hughes incurred significant medical bills and missed work. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Mr. Hughes, and the city appealed, arguing that Mr. Archey acted outside the scope of his employment. Furthermore, the city characterized Mr. Archey's act as an "intentional tort", which absolved it from liability under the GTLA. The Supreme Court found that although Mr. Archey's conduct fell within the scope of his employment, his operation of the equipment constituted an intentional tort. The city could not be held liable under the GTLA. The Court remanded the case back to the trial court to enter a judgment against Mr. Archey.