A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her child on the ground of severe child abuse. She concedes the ground for termination, but challenges the trial court’s finding that termination of her parental rights was in the child’s best interest. We affirm the trial court’s conclusion that clear and convincing evidence supports the aforementioned ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

A father appealed an order requiring his children to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. While the appeal was pending, both children received the vaccine. Because we determine that the appeal is moot, we dismiss the appeal.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Vincent White, Jr., a state prisoner, sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied his petition but granted a certificate of appealability on a single issue: whether White had shown that his attorney was laboring under a conflict of interest that required automatic reversal of White’s conviction. White’s claim depends on facts outside the state court record, so the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Shinn v. Ramirez, 142 S. Ct. 1718 (2022), likely precludes relief. But even if we could consider the new facts introduced in federal habeas court, White’s claim fails. White’s attorney informed White of the facts underlying the purported conflict of interest, and White did not object. So White was required to show that the alleged conflict adversely affected counsel’s performance. White has not made such a showing, so we AFFIRM.

The Defendant-Appellant, Justin Darnay Graves, was convicted as charged by a Madison County jury of simple possession of cocaine, felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of drug paraphernalia, for which he received an effective sentence of six years’ plus eleven months and twenty-nine days’ imprisonment to be served consecutively to several unrelated convictions including case numbers 20-330 (sale and delivery of heroin), 20-331 (sale and delivery of heroin and sale and delivery of methamphetamine), 20-332 (sale and delivery of heroin and sale and delivery of methamphetamine),1 20-334 (possession of drugs; traffic offense; introduction of contraband into a penal facility; driving without a license; tampering with evidence), 2 and 20-335 (leaving the scene of accident resulting in death), two of which were committed while the Appellant was released on bond. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-111(b). Prior to trial, the Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the traffic stop which formed the basis of his convictions. As grounds for the motion to suppress, the Appellant argued that “the amount of time between the initial traffic stop and the arrival of the [canine] unit [was] unreasonable” and in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Constitution of Tennessee. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion to suppress. In this appeal, the Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress and the trial court’s imposition of partially consecutive sentencing. Because the State failed to establish that the otherwise lawful traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged in time and scope, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court, vacate the judgments, and dismiss the case.

This health care liability action was brought against a hospital and a physician. The plaintiff sent pre-suit notice to three1 potential defendants prior to initiating the action. The trial court found, however, that the plaintiff failed to include as part of the pre-suit notice a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization because one of the six core elements was incorrect on the authorization. Following a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the action against the defendant hospital due to noncompliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121. The plaintiff argues, among other things, that he should have been allowed to conduct limited discovery in order to determine whether the defendant hospital had been prejudiced by his failure to provide a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization. We vacate the trial court’s grant of the motion to dismiss and hold that the plaintiff should have been permitted to conduct limited discovery regarding whether prejudice existed for the trial court to consider in its determination of whether the plaintiff substantially complied with the pre-suit notice requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121.

All of the claims asserted in this action arise from a prior healthcare liability action in which Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”) sued Dr. John Rosdeutscher and his medical group for damages resulting from breast reduction surgery. In the action now on appeal, the complaint asserts claims for invasion of privacy, abuse of process, intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract against Dr. Rosdeutscher, his medical group, and the attorneys who represented them in the prior healthcare liability action. All of Plaintiff’s claims pertain to the fact that the defendants filed Plaintiff’s medical records in the healthcare liability action, which included nude photographs of Plaintiff and details about her sexual and mental health history—information that Plaintiff contends had “nothing to do” with her healthcare liability claims. The defendants responded to the complaint by serving a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 11 notice on Plaintiff’s counsel. Shortly thereafter, the defendants filed a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02 motion to dismiss all claims on various grounds. The trial court granted the Rule 12 motion, dismissed all claims, and assessed $10,000 in damages pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 20-12-119 against Plaintiff. The trial court also assessed Rule 11 sanctions against Afsoon Hagh, Plaintiff’s attorney, in the additional amount of $32,151.67. Plaintiff appealed; her attorney did not. Finding no error, we affirm. We also find this appeal to be frivolous and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including a determination of the reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and expenses incurred by the defendants in defending this appeal and entry of judgment thereon.

The employee sustained an injury to her right hand and right knee after tripping over a pallet in the course of her employment. The employer accepted the claim as compensable and provided medical benefits, including authorization of a partial knee replacement. After that surgery, the employee began experiencing back and hip pain, prompting a referral for a neurosurgical evaluation that resulted in a recommendation for lumbar surgery. A dispute arose over the employer’s authorization of decompression surgery but denial of a recommended fusion, and the employee filed a petition seeking to compel the employer to authorize both procedures and to pay temporary disability benefits for the period of time she alleged she was disabled as a result of her hip and lumbar conditions. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court ordered the employer to authorize the recommended surgery in full and concluded the employee was entitled to temporary disability benefits. On appeal, we affirmed the trial court’s interlocutory order. After the surgery was completed, the employer continued to contest the compensability of the spinal conditions. After a compensation hearing, the trial court determined the employee proved by a preponderance of the evidence that her spinal conditions were compensable. It further identified a date of maximum medical improvement it concluded was consistent with the expert medical evidence. The employer has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and certify it as final.

The Appellant, Christopher M. Black, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted.

Appellant appeals the decision of the probate court to name other parties as the conservators of her daughter on the basis that the trial court improperly placed time limitations on the presentation of proof at the final hearing. Because Appellant has failed to show any reversible error in the trial court’s decision, we affirm.

The trial court clerk notified this Court that a final judgment has not been entered. This Court ordered the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed. Appellant failed to respond to our show cause order. As no final judgment has been entered, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.