In this healthcare liability action, a decedent’s estate and her son sued a nursing home and the county that owned the nursing home, alleging that the nursing home was negligent in the care of the decedent. The nursing home and the county filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to comply with the certificate of good faith filing requirement in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-122. The trial court denied the motion, finding that an exhibit attached to the complaint satisfied the certificate of good faith filing requirement. Because the exhibit did not contain all of the information required for a certificate of good faith, we reverse and remand.

In this post-divorce proceeding, Father appeals a default judgment entered against him as a sanction that: 1) modified the parties’ parenting plan and decreased his child support obligation based on the emancipation of one of his children and 2) awarded Mother a monetary judgment in the amount of $7,635 ($2,000 as reimbursement for half of the middle child’s vehicle; $500 for sanctions not paid; and $5,135 for attorney’s fees and court costs paid by Mother). Father filed a motion requesting the trial court to set aside the default judgment, asserting he did not receive proper notice of Mother’s motion for default. The trial court summarily denied Father’s motion without holding a hearing. We vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. While being held in a county detention center, Sheri Trozzi complained of abdominal pain to two correction officers and a jailhouse nurse. Those officials responded to Trozzi’s complaints but stopped short of calling 911. The next day, a jail doctor examined Trozzi and sent her to a hospital, where she ultimately underwent surgery.

Invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Trozzi sued the two officers and the nurse. According to Trozzi, the three were deliberately indifferent to her serious medical needs, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, due to their failure to call for emergency help after her initial complaints. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. Examining Trozzi’s claims under the modified deliberate indifference standard announced in Brawner v. Scott County, we affirm.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Pierre Salame Ajami (“Salame”) petitioned for the return of his two minor children under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Abduction. The children were removed from Venezuela, their country of habitual residence, to the United States by their mother, Veronica Tescari Solano (“Tescari”). The district court granted Salame’s petition and ordered the children be returned to Venezuela. We affirm.

A Van Buren County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Joel Ernest Blanton, for seven counts of rape of his eleven-year-old daughter and one count of aggravated sexual battery of his ten-year-old daughter. At the conclusion of trial, the jury convicted the Defendant of six counts of rape of a child and two counts of aggravated sexual battery, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of 212 years. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions for rape of a child in Counts 1, 2, and 4 and that his sentence is excessive.1 We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Brenda F.1 (“Mother”) and David F. (“Father”) to their three children who were then minors. As grounds, DCS alleged: (1) abandonment by failure to visit one of the children, Orian F.; (2) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home for the children; (3) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; (4) persistence of the conditions that led to the children’s removal; (5) incompetency of the parents to provide care and supervision of the children; and (6) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children. The trial court found that DCS established all six grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, and that termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interest. Although the parents have appealed only the ground of abandonment by failure to visit and the trial court’s best interest findings, we have reviewed all of the alleged grounds, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves a mother’s petition seeking to relocate to Canada with the parties’ minor child. Determining relocation to Canada with the mother to be in the child’s best interest, the juvenile court approved the mother’s petition, and the father appealed to this Court. Discerning no error, we affirm.

For the week of March 21, 2022 - March 25, 2022

Michael James Elrod, Defendant, was indicted by the McMinn County Grand Jury for second degree murder and aggravated assault after attacking his parents with a hunting knife. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted as charged. The trial court sentenced Defendant to 20 years for second degree murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to three years, suspended to probation, for aggravated assault. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. Defendant maintains on appeal (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions based on his insanity and diminished capacity defenses; and (2) that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The employee, a home healthcare provider, alleged she suffered an injury to her neck when transferring a client. She initially believed she had pulled a muscle and did not report the incident immediately. She subsequently sought emergency care when her symptoms worsened. The attending physician recommended an emergency surgical fusion, at which time the employee notified a supervisor of her injury. The employer later denied the claim, asserting the employee had not provided timely notice of an injury, which the employer contended resulted in prejudice. The employer further alleged the employee had failed to identify by time and place of occurrence an accident resulting in her injury. Following a trial, the court concluded: (1) the employee had provided sufficient notice of her injury; (2) she was entitled to payment of past medical expenses that were reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the injury; (3) she was entitled to temporary disability benefits; (4) she was entitled to permanent disability benefits based on the impairment rating assigned by her treating physician; and (5) she was entitled to additional attorneys’ fee and expenses for the employer’s “wrongful” denial of her claim. The employer has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we reverse the trial court’s award of temporary partial disability benefits and affirm its order in all other respects. We certify as final the trial court’s order as modified.