In this appeal, the employer disputes the trial court’s order requiring it to provide the employee a panel of physicians. The employee alleged he injured his back while lifting a box at work. Before providing the employee with a panel of physicians, the employer arranged for a test called an “electrodiagnostic functional assessment” to be performed. That test was interpretated to indicate that the employee did not suffer any acute work- related injury, and, as a result, the employer declined to provide a panel of physicians, asserting it had a valid defense to the claim based on the testing results. The employee argued the testing was not a sufficient basis for the employer to avoid its statutory obligation to provide a panel. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court determined the employee was entitled to a panel of physicians pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(3)(A)(i). The employer has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and remand the case.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. While incarcerated and working as a laundry porter at Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility (“WHVCF”), Kelly Rhodes suffered a severe skull fracture and other injuries when an industrial laundry cart—weighing as much as 400 pounds—fell from the truck from which it was being unloaded and struck her. Rhodes brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages against the State of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), and various individuals for their roles in the incident, alleging, inter alia, violations of the Eighth Amendment and substantive due process. After Rhodes voluntarily dismissed the other defendants, the district court granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to Richard Jones, an MDOC employee who was driving the laundry truck, and Paul McPherson, a WHVCF officer who was operating the truck’s hydraulic lift gate when the incident occurred. For the reasons that follow, we REVERSE in part, AFFIRM in part, and REMAND for further proceedings.

The Petitioner, Zachary Gale Rattler, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he was deprived of a fair and impartial jury and received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal concerns the dismissal of one of the defendants involved in the underlying case. Because there is no written order evidencing how the operative claims against the subject defendant were resolved, we vacate the trial court’s dismissal of the defendant and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Opinion.

This interlocutory appeal concerns the trial court’s refusal to enforce a forum selection clause contained in a stock bonus transfer agreement in this action arising out of the termination of the plaintiff’s employment. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue, citing the forum selection clause, which specified New York as the sole venue for litigating claims. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The defendants appeal. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. To control the spread of COVID-19, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (“MDHHS”) required that all persons five years of age and older wear a mask in indoor public settings, including while attending public and private K–12 schools. Plaintiffs Resurrection School, a Catholic elementary school in Lansing, Michigan, and two parents with children enrolled at the school, on behalf of themselves and their minor children, challenge the mask requirement as a violation of their free exercise of religion, equal protection, and substantive due process rights. Since Plaintiffs filed suit, MDHHS has rescinded almost all COVID-19 pandemic emergency orders, including the challenged mask requirement. We hold that Plaintiffs’ challenge to the mask requirement is not moot, and we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on the merits.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Victor Taylor murdered two high-school students in 1984, for which a jury convicted him of capital murder and recommended a sentence of death. The trial judge imposed that sentence and the Kentucky Supreme Court repeatedly denied Taylor’s claims for relief. Taylor eventually filed a federal habeas petition, arguing (among many other things) that the prosecutor at his trial had discriminated against African-American members of his venire. The district court denied Taylor’s petition. We affirm.

The Defendant, Devin L. Legon, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit theft of property valued over $60,000, aggravated burglary, and theft of property valued over $60,000. He agreed to pay $60,000 in restitution and to serve an effective ten-year sentence on probation. A revocation warrant was issued, and following a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Defendants, Kavasia S. Bonds and Charles Allen Jones, along with a co-defendant Brian Davis, were indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for aggravated assault while acting in concert with two or more other persons. Following a jury trial, Defendants Bonds and Jones were convicted as charged, and the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to Defendant Davis. For their convictions, Defendant Bonds was sentenced to 16 years’ incarceration, and Defendant Jones was sentenced to 14 years. In this appeal as of right, Defendants Bonds and Jones both challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Defendant Bonds also asserts that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a photograph of the victim’s eye and that the prosecutor improperly commented on Defendant Bonds’ silence at trial during closing arguments. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we find no error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Members of a nonprofit corporation sought to compel production of election records from the election of the corporation’s board of directors. The trial court ordered production of the records pursuant to a protective order. This Court granted the Rule 10 appeal to determine whether production of the election ballots is required under the Tennessee Nonprofit Corporation Act, whether the members have a privacy right with respect to their votes, and whether the trial court’s protective order protects that privacy right. We hold that production of the ballots is required under the statute, members have a limited privacy right with respect to their votes, and the protective order protects that right.