The Petitioner, Devin Torquin Watkins, appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court denying the petition.

The Defendant, Jack Edward Thomas, pled guilty to arson and received a five-year sentence, with one year of incarceration to be followed by four years of probation. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered restitution in the amount of $4,320, with the Defendant to make installment payments of $90 per month. The Defendant appeals the restitution award, arguing that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of the victim’s pecuniary loss because the victim’s testimony was uncertain and unreliable. The Defendant also asserts that the judgment form erroneously reflects a restitution award of $7,000, which was the victim’s total pecuniary loss as determined by the trial court, because it exceeded the total amount the trial court found that the Defendant was able to pay in $90 per month installments for four years ($4,320). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the State introduced inadequate proof regarding the valuation of the loss. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new restitution hearing. The Defendant’s alternative argument regarding correction of the judgment form is rendered moot, though it does have merit.

James Bidwell filed this health care liability action individually and on behalf of his deceased wife, Clarissa Bidwell, and her estate against Drs. Timothy Strait and Jeffrey Colburn (“the physician Defendants”) and the entities he believed to be their employers—The Neurosurgical Group of Chattanooga, P.C., EmCare Inc., and Envision Healthcare Corporation. Mr. Bidwell timely provided pre-suit notice to the named defendants and timely filed his lawsuit. Mr. Bidwell did not provide Chattanooga- Hamilton County Hospital Authority (“Erlanger”) with pre-suit notice, nor did he name Erlanger as a defendant. Furthermore, Dr. Strait and Dr. Colburn did not provide Mr. Bidwell written notice of Erlanger as their correct employer within thirty days of receiving pre-suit notice. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(5). Dr. Strait answered Mr. Bidwell’s complaint, denying the allegations made against him and asserting that he was employed by Erlanger at all relevant times. Dr. Colburn similarly answered, denying the allegations made against him and that either EmCare Inc. or Envision Healthcare Corporation was his employer. Drs. Strait and Colburn then moved for summary judgment arguing that, pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act, no judgment could be rendered against them because Mr. Bidwell had failed to name as a defendant their actual employer, Erlanger. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-310(b). Within ninety days of Dr. Strait’s and Dr. Colburn’s answers, Mr. Bidwell filed two motions for leave to amend his complaint to add Erlanger as a defendant. Mr. Bidwell relied on Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119, which provides a plaintiff with a ninety-day “grace period” within which to amend a complaint when comparative fault “is or becomes an issue,” and section 29-26-121(a)(5), which he argued required the physician Defendants to notify him of Erlanger within thirty days of receiving pre-suit notice. The trial court granted Dr. Strait’s and Dr. Colburn’s motions for summary judgment, finding that Mr. Bidwell’s motions to amend were futile because he had not provided Erlanger with presuit notice. Mr. Bidwell appealed, and the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. Dr. Strait and Dr. Colburn subsequently filed an application for permission to appeal with this Court. We hold that, although the physician Defendants failed to comply with section Tennessee Code Annotated 29-26-121(a)(5), the statute provides no remedy for noncompliance, and their noncompliance does not constitute extraordinary cause sufficient to excuse Mr. Bidwell’s failure to provide Erlanger with pre-suit notice. However, we additionally hold that Dr. Strait’s and Dr. Colburn’s answers sufficiently asserted Erlanger’s comparative fault. Therefore, Mr. Bidwell was entitled to amend his complaint to name Erlanger as a defendant pursuant to section 20-1-119, so long as he amended his complaint and caused process to issue to Erlanger within ninety days of Dr. Strait’s answer—the first answer alleging Erlanger’s fault. Because section 20-1-119 applied, Mr. Bidwell was not obligated to provide Erlanger with pre-suit notice under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(c). We conclude that, because the record on appeal reflects that Mr. Bidwell failed to file an amended complaint and cause process to issue, he is not entitled to amend his complaint to add Erlanger as a defendant. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals on the grounds stated herein and reinstate the trial court’s orders granting the physician Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and denying the Plaintiff’s motions to amend.

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. To participate in a program that provided opportunities to blind vendors under federal and state law, James Cyrus signed a contract with a state agency establishing vending facilities. As a condition of participating in the program, he agreed to pay commissions to state and county facilities in Ohio. But everything changed after the Ohio Attorney General issued a formal opinion finding the commissions paid to state facilities illegal. Cyrus stopped making those payments and sought damages from a state agency for about a half-million dollars in commissions he had paid both to a state facility and to county facilities. The state agency rejected his arguments. But a federal arbitration panel agreed with Cyrus and awarded him damages, attorneys’ fees, and prospective relief.

The State sought review of the arbitration order by suing in federal court. And the district court mainly ruled in the State’s favor. Cyrus now appeals. He urges us to overturn the district court’s decision and reinstate his damages awards and prospective relief. Because we believe that the district court got it right except as to prospective relief for the commissions charged by counties, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Christina Rembert appeals an award of attorney’s fees in her Fair Labor Standards Act suit against A Plus Home Health Care Agency. Although the derelictions of defense counsel significantly prolonged this litigation, the district court reduced the fee request of plaintiff’s counsel by nearly two-thirds. We reverse.

This appeal arises out of a divorce action in which the wife requested alimony. Following a trial, the trial court awarded the wife alimony in futuro and alimony in solido to assist her in paying for health insurance premiums and attorney’s fees, respectively. On appeal, the husband claims the wife had no need for such support; rather, the trial court used the alimony awards as a means to punish the husband for his infidelity. We find that, while the trial court considered the husband’s fault in making its decision, it did so in conjunction with other relevant factors in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(i), including the wife’s financial need, her relative earning potential, her contributions to the marriage, and the parties’ standard of living. Having determined that the trial court applied the correct legal principles, made factual findings supported by the evidence in the record, and reached a decision within the range of acceptable dispositions, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

An interstate pipeline company filed this direct appeal from a decision of the Tennessee Board of Equalization rejecting the company’s claims for equalization relief. Having considered the company’s arguments that Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-501(10)(B)(iii) has been inconsistently applied, we affirm the Board’s decision.

This appeal concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Cocke County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Shauntel C. (“Mother”) to her minor children Azariah R. and Ahleigha C. (“Azariah” and “Ahleigha” respectively; “the Children” collectively). After a hearing, the Juvenile Court entered an order terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children. Mother appeals, arguing that the Juvenile Court erred in its best interest determination by failing to account for her improvements over the course of the case. Although we reverse the ground of failure to visit, we affirm the grounds of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. We also affirm the Juvenile Court’s best interest determination, finding Mother’s improved efforts in some areas to be real but insufficient. We thus affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, resulting in our affirming the termination of Mother’s parental rights to the Children.

Week of January 19, 2021 - January 22, 2021

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Cassandra Thompson brought this employment-discrimination action against her former employer, Fresh Products, LLC, and the human-resources manager of Fresh Products, Dawn Shaferly (together, “Fresh Products”), after she was laid off as part of a reduction-in-force. Thompson alleged disability discrimination, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12117; age discrimination, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–634; race discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2–2000e-5; and disability and race discrimination, in violation of Ohio law, Ohio Rev. Code §§ 4112.01–4112.99. The district court granted summary judgment to Fresh Products on all claims, and Thompson appealed.

Because Thompson has not established a prima facie case of discrimination, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.