In this dependency and neglect case, the juvenile court found the child dependent and neglected and awarded custody to Appellees, maternal grandparents. Appellant/father failed to timely perfect an appeal of the juvenile court’s final order in the dependency and neglect matter. However, father filed a petition to set aside or vacate the same, which the juvenile court denied. On appeal, the circuit court accepted jurisdiction over the dependency and neglect matter, and conducted a de novo hearing; however, the circuit court denied hearing as to “other issues,” including father’s petition to set aside or vacate order. We conclude that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to review the dependency and neglect petition; as such, we vacate the circuit court’s order on dependency and neglect for lack of jurisdiction. Because there is a question as to whether father’s notice of appeal concerning his motion to set aside or vacate order conferred jurisdiction on the circuit court to review that motion, we vacate the portion of the circuit court’s order wherein it determined that it would hear no other issues on appeal. We remand to the circuit court for determination of whether father perfected an appeal of the juvenile court’s order denying his motion to set aside or vacate order. If the circuit court determines that father perfected the appeal, then the circuit court should proceed with de novo review of father’s motion.

Following a bench trial in this divorce action, the trial court entered an order in October 2018, granting the parties a divorce and distributing the marital estate. Upon the wife’s appeal, this Court vacated the trial court’s distribution of marital property and remanded, directing the trial court to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01, concerning the classification and valuation of various real estate and real estate partnership assets. Following an evidentiary hearing on remand, the trial court entered a final order in September 2020. Noting that the parties had stipulated that the wife’s interests in a realty company and two property partnerships were separate property, the trial court found that the wife’s partnership interest in a fourth realty enterprise at issue was marital property and also found that several specific realty assets were marital property. The trial court determined its valuation of each property or property interest and, pursuant to the factors provided in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-4-121(c), set forth what it found to be an equitable distribution of the marital property. Wife has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Week of September 20, 2021 - September 24, 2021

Bethany Shelton (“Employee”) filed a petition for benefit determination against Hobbs Enterprises, LLC (“Employer”) alleging an injury to her right shoulder suffered in a work-related accident on August 26, 2017. She sought temporary total, permanent partial, and continued medical benefits. Following the issuance of a dispute certification notice, Employer moved for summary judgment on the basis the only medical testimony, from the Employee’s treating orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Sean Kaminsky, was insufficient as a matter of law to establish causation. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims (the “trial court”) denied the motion and denied Employer’s motion to reconsider. Employer sought an expedited appeal before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, but then sought and was granted a dismissal of that appeal. A trial was held, after which the trial court denied Employee’s claim on the ground she had failed to meet her burden to establish her right shoulder injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment with Employer. Employee filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied. She appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims.

The Defendant, Khamphonh Xayyasith, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of three counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and domestic assault, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-102 (2018) (subsequently amended) (aggravated assault); 39-13-111 (2018) (domestic assault). The trial court merged the aggravated assault convictions and imposed concurrent sentences of fifteen years for aggravated assault and eleven months, twenty-nine days for domestic assault. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his aggravated assault convictions, (2) the trial court erred by admitting a recorded jail telephone call, and (3) his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Week of September 13, 2021 - September 17, 2021

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Antoine and Austin Woods (collectively “the Woods brothers”) appeal their convictions and sentences. The Woods brothers participated in multiple drive-by shootings in an attempt to murder a member of a rival gang. Antoine Woods was indicted for several offenses in violation of the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Act (“VICAR”): conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering; attempted murder in aid of racketeering; assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering; using, carrying, and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence; and obstruction of justice. Austin Woods was indicted for conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering and using, carrying, and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. After a joint trial, the jury rendered a guilty verdict for both brothers on the conspiracy charge and one of the firearm charges. The jury also rendered a guilty verdict for Antoine on the charges of attempted murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, an additional firearm charge, and obstruction of justice. The Woods brothers appealed, and this court consolidated their cases for briefing and submission. We vacate Antoine Woods’s conviction in Count 9 for attempted murder in aid of racketeering and remand to the district court to amend its judgment as to Counts 1, 3, 16, and 17. We affirm Antoine and Austin Woods’s convictions on all other counts.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Donald Phillips, a Kentucky inmate, sought medical care for a painful, softball-size mass on his calf. A CT scan showed that his “plantaris” muscle had ruptured and caused a hematoma (internal bleeding that had pooled in the calf). The plantaris sits deep in the leg, and a person does not need it to function normally. So surgery is not the standard of care for a rupture, and a hematoma typically goes away on its own. Yet Phillips alleges that the painful mass did not go away and that his doctors violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishments” by refusing to surgically remove it. In most states, a non-incarcerated individual generally could not succeed on this type of challenge to a doctor’s professional judgment without expert medical evidence showing that the doctor behaved incompetently. And the Supreme Court has warned that the Constitution should not give prisoners an easier path to recovery than ordinary individuals have for their ordinary tort claims. Because Phillips lacks expert evidence suggesting that his doctors were grossly incompetent, we agree with the district court’s rejection of his Eighth Amendment claim. Because his other claims also lack merit, we affirm.

A property owner filed suit against the owners of a neighboring property, alleging that the neighbors had created a nuisance and trespassed by diverting surface water onto his property and causing a sinkhole to develop. After a trial on the matter, a jury returned a verdict finding that the neighbor had not created a nuisance and had not trespassed. The trial court judge confirmed the jury’s verdict and dismissed all claims against the neighbor with prejudice. Because the record contains material evidence supporting the jury’s verdict, we affirm.

Mother appeals the trial court’s decision to change the parties’ permanent parenting plan to designate Father as the primary residential parent of the children. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.