In this health care liability action, an initial jury trial resulted in a verdict for the defendant physicians. The plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court granted. Prior to the second jury trial, the trial court determined that the trial should be bifurcated such that the first phase would address only the applicable standard of care and whether the defendants deviated therefrom, and the second phase would address causation. Following completion of the standard of care phase, the jury again ruled in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff filed a second motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. The plaintiff timely appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This appeal involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his son. The trial court found grounds for termination based on persistent conditions and failure to manifest a willingness and ability to assume custody or financial responsibility. It also found by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the best interest of the child. We reverse the trial court’s finding of persistent conditions but otherwise affirm the termination of parental rights and remand.

The employee reported injuring his right shoulder, wrist, and elbow when a large piece of furniture fell from a ramp and struck him. The employer denied the employee’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits, asserting: (1) the employee was not working on the date of the alleged incident; (2) it did not employ a sufficient number of people to trigger the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law; and (3) the employee’s alleged medical conditions did not arise primarily out of a work-related accident. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court denied the employee’s request for temporary disability and medical benefits. Thereafter, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment in which it argued, among other things, that the employee’s evidence of medical causation was insufficient as a matter of law. In an order granting the employee’s request for an extension of time, the court set a deadline for the employee to respond to the employer’s motion and scheduled a motion hearing. Within the response deadline set by the trial court, but less than twenty days before the hearing, the employee filed a response to the motion for summary judgment and a Standard Form Medical Report (Form C-32). The employer timely objected to the notice of the employee’s intent to use a Form C-32. In its order granting the employer’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court excluded the Form C-32 from evidence, and the employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed this case, we affirm the trial court’s order and certify it as final.

The employee, a licensed practical nurse (LPN) at a medical detox facility, alleged suffering a work-related mental injury after hearing a violent confrontation between a co-worker and a patient at the facility and seeing the aftermath of the altercation. The employer denied the claim, asserting the employee’s alleged mental injury was not the result of a sudden or unusual stimulus. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court concluded the employee presented sufficient evidence to establish she was entitled to a panel of physicians. The employer has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and remand the case.

Week of June 14, 2021 - June 18, 2021

Carlos Alfonso Garcia-DeLeon petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion for administrative closure. For the following reasons, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s order, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Desmond Price, Defendant, entered a guilty plea to one count of attempted conspiracy to possess more than 150 grams of heroin in exchange for a nine-year sentence and the dismissal of the remaining three counts of the indictment. The parties agreed that Defendant would serve his sentence consecutively to the sentence for another unrelated conviction. Subsequently, Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Rule 35 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, arguing that he was a candidate for split confinement. The trial court denied the motion. This appeal followed. After our review, we determine that the trial court properly denied the relief sought by Defendant in the Rule 35 motion. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for entry of judgments dismissing the remaining three counts of the indictment.

The notice of appeal filed by the appellant, Flora Gordon, stated that the appellant was appealing the judgment entered on April 1, 2021. Because the order appealed from does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. A jury found Jason Jarvis guilty of committing a series of bank robberies. He now seeks a reduced sentence. The district court denied his motion for compassionate release, concluding that non-retroactive changes in the law could not serve as the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” required for a sentence reduction. We agree and affirm.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Mark Hack appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify the restitution order in his case. On appeal, the Government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which a motions panel denied, holding that we have jurisdiction to hear Hack’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We now consider the issue the motions panel did not reach: whether Hack’s plea agreement, which contains an appeal waiver provision, bars him from pursuing the relief he seeks on appeal. Because we conclude that it does, we AFFIRM the district court’s order.