This appeal arises after the trial court issued an order granting the employer’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing the employee’s workers’ compensation claim with prejudice. In November 2020, the employee filed a petition for workers’ compensation benefits for an alleged work injury that occurred in March 2019. Thereafter, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that it had paid no workers’ compensation benefits relative to the alleged March 2019 work incident and that the employee’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. 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.

Defendant, Rickeena Hamilton, appeals her convictions for second degree murder and tampering with evidence and her effective twenty-eight-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction for second degree murder; (2) the State improperly introduced speculative and improper opinion testimony from fact witnesses; (3) the trial court erred in admitting evidence that Defendant declined to make a statement following her arrest; (4) the trial court issued multiple erroneous jury instructions; (5) the State made improper comments during closing arguments; (6) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence; and (7) the cumulative effect of the errors warrants relief. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Christopher Leon Clark, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder, for which he is serving a life sentence. See T.C.A. § 39-13-202(a)(1) (2018) (subsequently amended). On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a hearing to determine whether the State complied with an alleged duty to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, (2) the court erred in denying the Defendant’s motion to suppress eyewitness identification testimony, and (3) cumulative error requires that he receive a new trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Child foster care systems in this country are administered by the various state governments. The federal government, however, will reimburse states, like Ohio, for “foster care maintenance payments” that the state makes to certified foster caregivers who meet federal-eligibility requirements. In Ohio, there are also foster caregivers whom the state does not certify as meeting those federal requirements. So Ohio withholds payments for those caregivers. Instead, Ohio provides these non-certified caregivers with less generous payments through a separate state program. The plaintiffs here are a group of foster caregivers whom Ohio has considered ineligible to receive the higher foster care maintenance payments but who argue that they meet the federal requirements and are thus entitled to those payments. So they have sued Ohio Governor Mike DeWine and the Director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.

The district court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims, finding that the Plaintiff caregivers do not have to meet the same licensing standards as licensed caregivers in Ohio and thus were not “foster family homes” as required by federal law. Because Title IV-E of the Social Security Act requires that all foster family homes eligible for payments under federal law meet the same licensing standards, we agree with the district court that the Plaintiffs are not eligible to receive the foster care maintenance payments and affirm.

This case stems from a retaliatory discharge claim under the Tennessee Public Protection Act. The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded her $3,000.00 in compensatory damages and $12,500.00 in punitive damages. The trial court then awarded the plaintiff $12,500.00 of the over $100,000.00 in attorney’s fees she requested. Following a remand from this Court, the trial court increased the attorney’s fees award to $32,000.00. Discerning no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s second attorney’s fees award, we affirm. We also award the plaintiff her reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting the first appeal.

This case involves a lawsuit alleging claims of defamation and false light arising from an online review. In response to the lawsuit, the defendant filed a petition under the Tennessee Public Participation Act to dismiss the lawsuit. The trial court ultimately granted the petition and dismissed the case. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

This is a dependency and neglect case. The child was taken into protective custody by Appellee Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) after an investigation revealed that the then ten-week-old child suffered approximately 15 bone breaks. The Juvenile Court for Davidson County conducted a hearing and adjudicated the child dependent and neglected on its finding that Appellant, the child’s mother, had committed severe child abuse. Mother appealed to the Circuit Court for Overton County (“trial court”). Following a de novo trial, the trial court held that mother perpetrated severe child abuse on the child. Consequently, the trial court adjudicated the child dependent and neglected, and found that it was in the child’s best interest to remain in the custody of Appellee Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”). Mother appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Benjamin Owen, filed a petition for the return of seized property pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-709. The Defendant, however, has no appeal as of right under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3. Because we have no subject matter jurisdiction, we dismiss the Defendant’s appeal.

The pro se petitioner, Stephen V. Walker, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Kevin D. Stodghill, appeals the trial court’s imposition of a fully incarcerative sentence for his guilty-pleaded convictions of aggravated assault and aggravated burglary. Discerning no error, we affirm.