This interlocutory appeal concerns the time within which an employee must file a petition for benefits following an earlier involuntary dismissal of the claim. The employee sustained two work-related injuries, the first occurring on April 2, 2018, and the second occurring on March 20, 2019. The employee filed a petition for benefits on February 26, 2019, and, following the second injury, the employer’s workers’ compensation insurer chose to treat the two injuries as one claim. On December 18, 2019, the trial court dismissed the employee’s petition without prejudice. The employer continued voluntarily paying workers’ compensation benefits until March 2020. On April 30, 2020, the employee filed a second petition seeking additional medical treatment for her injuries and subsequently requested an expedited hearing. In response to the employer’s argument that the second petition was untimely, the court determined the employee’s April 30, 2020 petition was timely and that the employee was likely to prevail at trial regarding her request for additional medical benefits. The employer has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s determinations and remand the case.

The appellants filed the instant action seeking a declaratory judgment concerning the rights and obligations of the parties under a 2001 contract. The contract, to which the three appellees were parties, concerns the governance of the FedEx Forum in Memphis, Tennessee. In a previously filed action, the appellants sought similar relief, but the trial court dismissed the case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In the instant case, however, the trial court granted the appellees’ motions under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02 to dismiss the complaint based on the court’s conclusion that the appellants lacked standing. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but for a different reason. The intermediate appellate court instead concluded that dismissal was appropriate because the complaint was barred by the doctrine of res judicata and, as such, declined to address the standing issue. After thorough review, we conclude that the Court of Appeals’ decision was erroneous because an essential element of the res judicata doctrine—an underlying judgment that was final and on the merits—has not been established. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for consideration of whether the trial court properly dismissed the complaint based on the doctrine of standing.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. A group of high school students from Kentucky received widespread attention for their conduct at the Lincoln Memorial during the 2019 March for Life rally. In the wake of negative coverage and critical posts on social media, the students sued a number of media defendants and people who had engaged in online commentary about the incident. Here, the district court dismissed two cases against Twitter users Sujana Chandrasekhar and Kathy Griffin for lack of personal jurisdiction. We agree that the district court lacks personal jurisdiction over the two defendants and affirm.

The Appellant, Edward Wayne Shumacker, was convicted in the Hamilton County Criminal Court of driving under the influence (DUI), DUI per se, driving on a revoked license, violating the seatbelt law, violating the financial responsibility law, and violating the vehicle registration law, all misdemeanors. After the jury found the Appellant guilty, he stipulated that he had five prior convictions of DUI and two prior convictions of driving on a revoked license. The trial court sentenced the Appellant as a Range III, persistent offender to twelve years for each conviction of sixth offense DUI, Class C felonies; merged the convictions; and ordered that the Appellant serve the twelve-year sentence concurrently with his misdemeanor sentences. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion for additional discovery, that the trial court erred by denying his motion to exclude references to other bad acts, that the trial court erred by overruling his objection to the admissibility of expert testimony, and that his twelve-year sentence for DUI is excessive. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that there is no reversible error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A discharged employee sued his former employer and two managers for (1) retaliatory discharge under the Tennessee Public Protection Act, (2) common law retaliatory discharge, (3) negligent retention, and (4) breach of contract. The trial court dismissed the employee’s claims pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6). After our independent examination of the pleadings, we conclude that the employee failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Buyers filed this breach of contract action alleging that the seller failed to timely complete construction of their custom home. Buyers also sought damages for conversion based on the seller’s failure to return fixtures and other items purchased by the buyers for use in the construction. The seller maintained that construction was complete, as that term was defined in the parties’ agreement. In its counterclaim for breach of contract, the seller alleged that the buyers committed the first material breach by refusing to finalize the purchase. After a bench trial, the trial court found that the buyers had committed the first material breach by refusing to close the purchase after the seller had completed performance. The court dismissed the buyers’ claims and awarded the seller damages and attorney’s fees. The evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings with respect to the parties’ breach of contract claims. But we conclude that the court erred in dismissing the buyers’ conversion claim. All the elements of a conversion claim were established at trial. So we reverse the dismissal of the conversion claim and remand for a determination of damages on that claim. Otherwise, we affirm.

This appeal arises from a divorce action. The matter in controversy concerns an attorney’s fee lien and abstract of suit filed and recorded by the wife’s former counsel following the entry of the divorce decree. In pertinent part, the decree required the husband to pay the entire equity in jointly owned real property to the wife contemporaneous with the wife quitclaiming her interest in the property to the husband; however, the husband died prior to the conveyance or the payment. Thereafter, the wife’s former counsel filed a motion to perfect and enforce its attorney’s lien on the property, and the court granted the motion. The administrator of the husband’s estate filed a motion to release the attorney’s lien, and the court ruled that the lien was valid and enforceable because neither party performed their respective obligations under the divorce decree. The administrator for the husband’s estate then filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.04 motion to alter or amend on the grounds (1) there was no legal basis for allowing the wife’s attorneys to file a charging lien against property awarded to the husband and (2) the lien was not valid because the attorneys based the lien on the wrong section of the statute. The court denied the Rule 59.04 motion to alter or amend, and this appeal followed. The singular issue in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Rule 59.04 motion. Because the administrator’s motion was not based on a change in controlling law, previously unavailable evidence, or a clear error of law, see In re M.L.D., 182 S.W.3d 890, 895 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying it. Therefore, we affirm.

The employee suffered work-related injuries to her left wrist when she fell from a stepladder, requiring emergency surgery. The employer provided ongoing medical treatment with the physician who performed the emergency surgery. After returning to work, the employee complained of right knee pain and swelling. An MRI revealed meniscal tears that the authorized doctor said were caused by the employee’s fall. The employee underwent knee surgery but continued to experience symptoms with her knee. The authorized doctor placed the employee at maximum medical improvement and returned her to work, stating arthritis and other changes in her knee seen during surgery were degenerative and not work-related. Without advising the employer, the employee sought further treatment for her wrist and knee with an unauthorized doctor who recommended a referral to a wrist specialist and a second arthroscopic knee surgery for a meniscal tear seen in a more recent MRI. The employee requested a hearing in which she sought to replace her authorized doctor with the physician from whom she sought unauthorized treatment and to obtain the additional treatment he recommended. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court accepted the causation opinion of the physician selected by the employee, concluding the employee would likely prevail at trial in establishing that the meniscal tear seen in the more recent MRI arose out of her employment. Further, the court determined that the authorized doctor failed to treat the employee’s ongoing symptoms and that this failure justified a change in the treating physician. The employer has appealed. We reverse the trial court’s decision and remand the case.

Defendant, Samantha Grissom Scott, pleaded guilty to possession with the intent to deliver more than twenty-six grams of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia but specifically reserved a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court, Defendant, and the State all agreed that the certified question is dispositive of the case. The question pertained to the legality of the initial search of Defendant’s house during which law enforcement discovered illegal contraband. In a split opinion, the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal after determining that the certified question is not dispositive because the evidence would have been admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine notwithstanding the search in question. We conclude that the certified question is dispositive of the case, that the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply, that exigent circumstances did not exist, that Defendant’s consent to the search was involuntary, and that the case against her should be dismissed. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and dismiss Defendant’s convictions.

The Defendant, Nona Kilgore, pleaded guilty to possession of a schedule IV controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver. The Defendant reserved a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2) as to whether the warrantless search of the Defendant’s home was lawful based on the issue of consent. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we conclude that the reserved question of law is not dispositive of the case and, accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.