Appellee, a Sergeant with the Madison County Sheriff’s Department, sought judicial review of the Civil Service Board’s affirmance of the Sheriff Department’s decision to terminate her employment. On its finding that the Board failed to consider all relevant evidence presented, the trial court exercised its discretion to remand the case to the Board for rehearing. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322(h). Appellant, Madison County, Tennessee, filed the instant appeal. We conclude that the trial court’s remand order is not a final, appealable order under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(a). As such, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. Appeal dismissed.

In this termination of parental rights case, Appellant Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to the two minor children on the ground of abandonment by failure to support, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1), 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv). Appellant also appeals the trial court’s finding that termination of his parental rights is in the children’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The employee alleged he sustained injuries on August 29, 2019, when a box hit his head at work. He did not report the injury until after another work incident occurred on October 10 when he was rear-ended while operating a forklift. On January 15, 2021, the employee filed a petition for workers’ compensation benefits for the August 29, 2019 accident. The employer filed a motion for summary judgment and, in support of its motion, asserted that its last voluntary payment of benefits related to that accident occurred on December 23, 2019, and that the employee had filed his petition more than one year after the issuance of its last payment. Following a hearing, the trial court concluded the employer had negated an essential element of the employee’s claim and granted its motion. The employee has appealed. Upon careful consideration of the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and certify as final its order dismissing the case.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This case arises from a contractual dispute among partners of a limited partnership formed to operate a low-income housing complex pursuant to the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, 26 U.S.C. § 42. The dispute centers around the “right of first refusal” (ROFR) provision of the Partnership Agreement, which, pursuant to § 42(i)(7) of LIHTC, granted a nonprofit organization the ROFR to purchase the property at a below-market rate following the conclusion of the LIHTC program’s compliance period. At issue is whether the conditions precedent to trigger the ROFR have been met. The district court concluded that they were not and granted summary judgment in favor of SunAmerica Housing Fund 1050 (SunAmerica). For the reasons that follow, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Defendant, Zackery Brandon, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of attempted aggravated robbery, especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated robbery and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, standard offender to an effective term of twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred in admitting the unsworn recorded statement of one of his co-defendants. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Cindy B. (“Mother”) and Francisco Q. (“Father”) to their minor daughter, Analesia Q. (the “Child”). Following a bench trial, both parents’ rights were terminated pursuant to several statutory grounds, and Father appeals. He challenges the statutory grounds for termination, the trial court’s finding that termination of his rights was in the Child’s best interests, and the trial court’s decision to admit hearsay testimony regarding potential abuse of the Child pursuant to Tenn. R. Evid. 803(25). We reverse the trial court’s decision to terminate Father’s parental rights for abandonment by failure to visit and severe abuse, and vacate the trial court’s decision to terminate Father’s parental rights for failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility of the Child. We affirm the termination of Father’s parental rights as to the remaining grounds, as well as the holding that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interests. The ultimate decision of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

The employee alleged he injured his back while lifting a case of merchandise from a pallet to a tote bag. The authorized physician opined that the employee’s injury was not due to a work incident, and the employer refused to authorize further medical care. The employee sought treatment with an unauthorized provider, who opined that the employee’s injuries arose primarily out of his employment and that the employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing his injuries and need for medical treatment. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court concluded that, based on its assessment of the competing medical opinions and the employee’s lay testimony, the opinion of the unauthorized physician was sufficient to rebut the presumption of correctness afforded to the authorized physician’s causation opinion. As such, the trial court found that the employee is likely to prevail at trial in proving the aggravation of his preexisting back condition arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. The court designated the employee’s selected physician as the authorized physician for ongoing care and awarded temporary disability benefits. Upon careful review of the record on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case for further proceedings.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Absolute immunity protects lawmakers from lawsuits for their legislative acts. At issue is whether the Ohio House Democratic Caucus performed a legislative act when it expelled a representative from its ranks and barred her from accessing party resources. We conclude that it did and affirm the district court’s decision dismissing this lawsuit against Caucus members.

The Defendant, Tadarius L. Clift, appeals his convictions for first degree premeditated murder and three counts of reckless endangerment, for which he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus four years. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions and the trial court’s decision to limit defense counsel’s cross-examination of a witness for the State. Upon reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Fayette County jury convicted the Defendant, James R. Ciaramitaro, of one count of rape of a child and two counts of aggravated sexual battery, and the trial court sentenced him to a total effective sentence of forty-four years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it admitted the victim’s forensic interview. The Defendant also contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.