Grants & Denials List

June 1, 2020 - June 5, 2020

The Petitioner, Joey Lee, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction for aggravated robbery. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to challenge the victim’s identification of the Petitioner after she sat next to him in court at a suppression hearing without recognizing that he was one of the men who robbed her and in failing to challenge the prosecutor’s actions, in suggesting to the victim that she was sitting next to her aggressor, as prosecutorial misconduct. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Monterio Funzie, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for sexual battery by an authority figure and sexual battery. According to the judgment, Defendant pleaded guilty to sexual battery, and the remaining charge was dismissed on motion of the State. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a multiple offender to three years to be served in a workhouse. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for judicial diversion and that his sentence is excessive. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a termination of parental rights cases. The trial court terminated Appellant mother’s parental rights on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; (2) abandonment by an incarcerated parent by wanton disregard; (3) failure to substantially comply with the requirements of the permanency plans; (4) persistence of the conditions that led to removal of the children; (5) severe child abuse; and (6) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The trial court also found that termination of her parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Appellants, mother and father, appeal the trial court’s termination of their respective parental rights to the two minor children. The court terminated mother’s parental rights on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; (2) failure to substantially comply with the requirements of the parenting plans; and (3) persistence of the conditions that led to the children’s removal. The trial court terminated father’s parental rights on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; (2) abandonment by an incarcerated parent by wanton disregard; (2) persistence of the conditions that led to the children’s removal; and (3) severe child abuse. The trial court also found that termination of appellants’ parental rights was in the children’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal involves a legal malpractice suit. Previously, the defendants represented the plaintiff in a federal failure to hire case. In the federal case, the jury rendered a defense verdict. Thereafter, the plaintiff sued her attorneys, alleging legal malpractice. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing they exercised the required standard of care in representing the plaintiff. In support of their motion, the defendants submitted their own affidavits and an affidavit of a third-party attorney who was retained as a testifying expert. In response, the plaintiff did not provide expert proof on whether the defendants met the appropriate standard of care. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff appealed. We affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remand.

An employee filed a workers’ compensation claim alleging he suffered permanent hearing loss in the course and scope of his employment. The trial court ruled that the employee’s hearing loss was compensable and, based on an anatomical impairment rating of 14.1 percent, awarded the employee 56.4 percent vocational disability for loss of hearing in both ears. We affirm the trial court’s judgment as to compensability but find that the award of vocational disability was excessive. We modify the award of vocational disability to thirty percent for loss of hearing in both ears.

Brian Bowling (“Employee”) was employed as a laborer for Potter South East (“Employer”). During his employment with Employer, he was constantly exposed to loud noise from jackhammers, sledgehammers, power drivers and heavy equipment. Employee initially developed hearing loss in 2010 or 2011. Employer filed a motion for summary judgment raising the one-year statute of limitations. The motion was supported by the evaluating physician’s C-32 report. The trial court granted Employer’s motion and entered an order dismissing Employee’s claim. Employee has appealed from that order. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Hamilton County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Patrick Carmody, of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and the trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of life and twenty-two years, respectively. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions because the only evidence against him was that of co-conspirators and accomplices and that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce evidence about his ownership of a gun. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The employee sustained a work-related injury to her right ring finger and developed complications in her hand. She was subsequently diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome in her right upper extremity. After she reached maximum medical improvement, her authorized treating physician assigned a permanent medical impairment rating. The employer then retained a physician to review medical records and express an opinion regarding the employee’s permanent medical impairment. Thereafter, because the opinions of the two rating physicians differed, the employer requested an impairment evaluation through the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation’s Medical Impairment Rating Registry (“MIRR”). The employee moved to quash the employer’s request for an MIRR evaluation, contending that a medical records review is an insufficient basis to support the existence of a dispute concerning the medical impairment rating. The trial court concluded there was no legal basis to quash the employer’s request for an MIRR evaluation and denied the employee’s motion. The employee has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.