Digest of Tennessee Supreme Court Cases 2003

 

 

Search and Seizure.  In State v. Garcia,  No. M2000-01760-SC-R11-CD (Oct. 1, 2003),  the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Gonzalo Moran Garcia, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for drug trafficking.  In May 1999, Nashville police claimed Garcia was swerving the car he was driving in traffic and pulled him over.   A search of his car revealed forty pounds of methamphetamine hidden in the rocker panels of his car.  The discovery led to the largest one-time seizure of methamphetamine in the state.

But the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the police vehicle videotape did not support the arresting officer's claim that Garcia's car was swerving in traffic.  There, the police had no probable cause to stop the car and subsequently search it.  At the time of his arrest, Mr. Garcia resided in Maywood, CA.

Jury Verdicts in Insanity Cases.  Also in August, a sharply divided Supreme Court reinstated two murder convictions of Christopher Flake, 31, of Germantown.  The court's 3-2 decision in State v. Flake, No. W2001-00568-SC-R11-CD (April 10, 2003), indicated wide deference should be given to jury verdicts in insanity cases.  Flake has now resumed serving two consecutive life sentences without parole for the April 5, 1997, murders of former employee Mike Fultz, 31, and acquaintance Fred Bizot, 70.

Child Support Enforcement.  In Gallaher v. Elam, No. E2000-02719-SC-R11-CV,

 ___ S.W.3d ___   , 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 337, 2003 WL 2010731 (Tenn. May 2, 2003), a  Knox County married  man, who fathered a child out of wedlock, argued that the trial court's child support enforcement order did not give him credit for the amount he spends to support three children who live with him. Yet he would receive credit if, instead of taking care of these children as a custodial parent, the man had been ordered to pay child support for these three children. The Tennessee Supreme Court found that the state has a rational basis for this distinction, because children who live with their parents benefit from the parent's lifestyle.  The court also found no due process violation, because no fundamental right was implicated.  The appellee had argued that her expenses should be taken into consideration in setting the child support amount, but the court held that the father's income alone may be used by the state to determine his child support obligation.

The Supreme Court's decision may not be sound economics.   Economists frequently focus on disposable income, and a man supporting a wife and three children has less disposable income than a man who earns the same income but lives alone.  By ignoring the number of children that the married father supports at home, the court's decision leads to the following conclusion. According to Tennessee's highest court, a single parent with 12 children living at home can afford to pay the same amount in child support as another person earning the same salary but living alone.  The court's decision was unanimous and reversed a decision by the Court of Appeals. Fortunately, the state legislature corrected the Supreme Court's error by passing legislation that effectively overruled this Supreme Court decision. Under the new child support guidelines, the state is required to take into consideration the amount of income being spent to support other children.

Confidentiality of Complaints Against Attorneys.  Aggrieved clients who file complaints against their attorneys with the Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR) could be found in contempt and face fines and jail sanctions if they publicize their complaints.  The case that reached the Supreme Court arose from a certified question to the Supreme Court from a federal district judge in Memphis.  The Memphis federal case concerns a challenge to the constitutionality of the BPR's confidentiality rule.  The plaintiff in that federal case is prevented from publicizing the way in which an attorney mishandled his case as well as the BPR's failure to find anything wrong.

Both the disciplinary rules for attorneys in Tennessee as well as the BPR's own governing authority are contained in the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court, namely Rules 8 and 9.  One of the BPR rules states that all information relating to proceedings against an attorney must be kept confidential unless and until the BPR chooses to make it public. When the BPR decides not to take action or takes minor action, the cases generally remain private.

In 2001, Memphis attorney Ronald Krelstein filed a federal constitutional challenge to the BPR's confidentiality rule on behalf of a man identified in court records by the fictitious name of Richard Roe.  The constitutional challenge contends the BPR rule violates the client's First Amendment right of free speech.  The client believes his right to talk about his former lawyer's alleged misconduct and how the BPR chose to take no action in against the lawyer is being abridged by the BPR confidentiality rule. 

In May 2003, the Tennessee Supreme Court responded to a certified question by the Memphis federal judge and held that under Tennessee law, non-lawyers are required to keep confidential the substance of their BPR complaints as well as the BPR's conduct in handling the complaint.  Doe v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tenn., 104 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn., May 8, 2003).  The Supreme Court's decision now adds a legal basis to Richard Roe's claim that the state is forcing him to remain silent under threat of contempt.  The Memphis attorney who filed the constitutional challenge remains optimistic.  "I think I will be successful, because everyone else has been successful on these issues," said attorney Ronald Krelstein.

While confidentiality of BPR proceedings preserves the reputation of lawyers who are unfairly accused of wrongdoing by disgruntled clients, it also leaves the BPR free to operate without any public scrutiny. The Supreme Court ruling means that anyone who violates the confidentiality rule in Tennessee may be found in criminal contempt and ordered to pay a fine of up to $50 as well as serve  a sentence of up to 10 days in jail.  But for Roe, the Supreme Court's decision is a victory, because it means his case can proceed in federal court.

Parental Consortium.  In March, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that children in Tennessee may not collect consortium damages for injuries that their parents sustained.  Taylor v. Beard, 104 S.W.3d 507 (March 3, 2003).  The Memphis case that reached the Supreme Court on appeal concerned children whose mother had been hurt in an automobile accident.  However, Tennessee does permit children to recover damages for a parent's wrongful death under the state wrongful death statute.  Tennessee has no similar statute governing damages to children of parents who are injured but not killed.

For cases involving injuries but not death of a family member, Tennessee only recognizes spousal loss of consortium.  For years, the action for loss of consortium remained available only to husbands as the Supreme Court of Tennessee chose to defer its further development to the legislature. The legislature responded in 1969 by codifying the common law action for loss of consortium and making it available to both spouses in personal injury cases. 1969 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 86, § 1, now codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 25-1-106 (2000). 

In Taylor v. Beard, the high court recognized the reality of the children's loss when the relationship with a parent is impaired.  However, the court left it to the state legislature to enact a law that would authorize the recovery of consortium damages by children of an injured parent. "There's really no surprise in it whatsoever," said attorney John Day, of the Brentwood law firm Branham & Day. "Tennessee courts are historically conservative, and this decision reflects their willingness to follow that conservative trend and not push the envelope on new law."

Nationally most states don't recognize the right of children to collect for loss of the companionship of an injured parent, Justice E. Riley Anderson wrote for the court.  Nashville attorney Bob Boston, of Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, said the decision may affect where some lawsuits are filed, based on whether another state recognized the children's right. But attorney Randall Kinnard, president of the Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association, said, "There are just very few parental (injury) situations where consortium is just totally lost."

 

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

SEPARATE ARTICLE BEGINS HERE

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

Digest of Tennessee Supreme Court Workers Compensation Cases

 

"On Call" But Not At Work.  Each year the Tennessee Supreme Court hears a number of interesting cases involving workers' compensation claims.  One unpublished decision from 2001 deserves special attention.  In that case, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of a Special Workers' Compensation Panel that had awarded compensation to physician Larry Donald Howard  for injuries he sustained when a car crossed the median and crashed into his car.  Howard v. Cornerstone Medical Associates, (Tenn., August 31, 2001).  At the time of the accident, Dr. Howard was traveling to see new patients at a nursing home, where he served as medical director as part of his contract with his employer.

From the automobile accident, the doctor sustained severe facial injuries, a closed head injury, and the loss of his left eye.  The head injury caused him to lose fine motor skills in his right hand.  The disability in his right hand affected the doctor's ability to write progress notes or perform delicate procedures.

For the first two years after his accident, Dr. Howard was covered by his medical group's self-insured workers' compensation plan. But in August 1998, he was informed that his contract would not be renewed, because injuries did not allow him to see enough patients to justify his salary.  The doctor lost his workers' compensation coverage at the same time his employment ended and sued for continued coverage.  The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer and ruled that because the doctor did not stop by his office before heading for the nursing home, the accident did not occur "within the course" of his employment, and was therefore not compensable.

The state's Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel reversed and held that an injury "is in the course and scope of employment, for workers' compensation purposes, if it has a rational connection to the work, and occurs while the employee is engaged in the duties of his employment."  On appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the decision and ruled that since the doctor's accident occurred while traveling to or from work, it was not covered by workers' compensation.

This case depends less on interpretations of the law and more on how we define a professional "on call " who responds to a request for service.  The Supreme Court determined that Dr. Howard is "at work" when he is performing medical services, not when he is driving his car.  That ruling would be appropriate if the doctor had been involved in a car accident, e.g., while on his way to purchase supplies for his office.

However, in this case, the doctor had just returned from vacation and was summoned to the nursing home by a duty nurse who said patients needed to see him.  The doctor's duties of employment included serving as medical director for the nursing home.  Arguably, the doctor began his medical service / employment when he grabbed his medical bag and headed for the nursing home.  It is surprising that with his scope of employment defined as caring for nursing home patients, the Supreme Court would hold that the doctor was not "at work"on his trip to the nursing home.

Fear of HIV Not Compensable.  In a separate workers' compensation case, Guess v. Sharp Mfg. Co. of Am., No. W2002- 00818-WC-R3-CV (August 27, 2003), the Tennessee Supreme Court again reversed a Special Workers' Compensation Panel's decision to award compensation for stress-related injuries to a Shelby County woman who feared she had been exposed to HIV by a co-worker.  Last August, in  an unanimous decision, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that the woman's claims must be substantiated by proof of actual exposure to the virus.  "If a plaintiff were allowed to recover under the facts of the present case, anybody suffering from a mental injury stemming from any perceived or imagined exposure to harmful substances or situations would be entitled to recovery," according to the court.

Claimant Mary Guess was spattered with a co-worker's blood in an accident at work.  The co-worker was believed to be HIV-positive. Guess was subsequently diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder caused by a "work related injury," although she never tested positive for HIV.

Temporary Benefits Before Trial.  In McCall v. National Health Corp., No. M2001-03166-SC-R9-CV (March 14, 2003), the Tennessee Supreme decided a case of first impression.  The court ruled that a trial court can initiate temporary workers' compensation benefits before trial and without holding a full evidentiary hearing. The employer had denied Charlotte McCall's request for temporary workers' compensation benefits based on what doctors agreed was a mental injury from when McCall's supervisor shook her violently by the shoulders and screamed at her.  McCall then petitioned a trial court for temporary benefits, which it granted.

On appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court rejected the employer's contention that under the Tennessee workers' compensation statute, only specialists  can initiate pretrial temporary benefits. The high court ruled that the specialist program was implemented as an alternative, faster track to filing a lawsuit in court.  However, the specialist statute did not divest trial courts of their power to award pretrial benefits.

Aggravating Preexisting Condition.  In Andrews v. Maint. & Indus. Servs., 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 679 (Tenn., July 18, 2003), the Supreme Court heard a rare Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) Appeal as of Right direct from the Chancery Court for Rutherford County.  The appellee injured employee suffered an accident arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment with the appellant.  He injured his left knee and, after surgery, exacerbated a condition in his right knee. The trial court concluded that the employee sustained a vocational disability of 28 percent to the left leg and 15 percent to the right leg. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's finding and affirmed the judgment.

The employer had argued that the employee did not show proof of an additional injury to the right knee that exacerbated the pre-existing arthritis.  It contended that the injuries to his right knee were not compensable, as they resulted from the natural progression of osteoarthritis. The employee's surgeon testified that the pre-existing condition in the employee's right knee was aggravated during the post-operative period following the left knee surgery. Further, another doctor's testimony revealed that the employee's increased reliance on the right leg following the left knee surgery may have had some small aggravating affect to the right knee. A pseudogot was discovered in the right knee aspiration performed during the period following the left knee surgery.

Given that medical testimony, the Supreme Court of Tennessee found that the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's finding that the pre-existing condition to the right knee was aggravated by the work-related injury to the left knee and was compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-101 et seq. Additionally, the right knee replacement would last only 12 to 15 years.

 

 

© Copyright 2007 by Michael A. S. Guth. All Rights Reserved.  No portion of this article, including this web page, may be copied, retransmitted, reposted, or duplicated in significant portion without the express written permission of Dr. Michael Guth. Users are always welcome to establish links to this web page or to quote from it freely.