This interlocutory appeal involves a dispute over entitlement to temporary disability benefits and medical benefits. The employee injured his left shoulder and neck, and the employer provided authorized medical care for both injuries. After the physician treating the employee’s shoulder released him at maximum medical improvement, the employer ceased payment of all temporary disability benefits because no other physician had restricted the employee from working. The employee continued to treat for his neck, and the physician treating that condition later stated the employee had been and continued to be restricted from working during the entire course of treatment. Both physicians had also referred the employee for pain management, and, although the employee selected a physician from a panel provided by the employer, the employee never saw the provider. At the expedited hearing, the employee sought payment of additional temporary disability benefits and the provision of additional medical treatment, including pain management. The employer responded that the employee had submitted no admissible evidence of ongoing work restrictions and that the employee had refused medical treatment. The trial court ordered the employer to pay temporary disability benefits and provide medical treatment, including pain management, and the employer has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s order for temporary disability and medical benefits and remand the case.

For the week of March 6, 2023 - March 10, 2023

This appeal arises from a petition for declaratory judgment to construe a will. At issue is whether the testator intended to bequeath cash, coins, vehicle titles, certificates of deposit, and other financial documents in a lock box located at the testator’s residence pursuant to paragraph FIFTH, which reads: “I devise and bequeath my house and lot . . . where I live . . . to DWIGHT ANTHONY EATHERLY, and I devise and bequeath to him all personal property and household goods and furniture located thereon.” The trial court held that the rule of ejusdem generis limited the testator’s intended meaning of “all personal property” to items of like kind to “household goods and furniture.” The trial court also relied on the principle that “[i]n the absence of a contrary testatorial intent, as a general rule, a bequest of the contents of a house will not include choses in action or money found therein at the testator’s death.” Based on these and other findings, the trial court summarily ruled that the testator did not intend for the contents of the lock box to be part of the bequest in paragraph FIFTH; instead, they were to pass pursuant to the residuary clause in paragraph NINTH. This appeal followed. We affirm.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Sometimes government works. In 2020, when Congress enacted the Horseracing Safety and Integrity Act to create a national framework to regulate thoroughbred horseracing, it generated several non-delegation and anti-commandeering challenges to the validity of the Act. The lead challenge—the non-delegation challenge—turned on the reality that the Act replaced several state regulatory authorities with a private corporation, the Horseracing Authority, which became the Act’s primary rule-maker and which was not subordinate to the relevant public agency, the Federal Trade Commission, in critical ways. The Fifth Circuit declared the Act unconstitutional because it gave “a private entity the last word” on federal law.

In response, Congress amended the Act to give the Federal Trade Commission discretion to “abrogate, add to, and modify” any rules that bind the industry. Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, Pub. L. No. 117-328, 136 Stat. 4459 (2022). The Constitution anticipates, though it does not require, constructive exchanges between Congress and the federal courts. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (explaining that “interdependence” and “reciprocity” should characterize the relationship between the branches as much as “separateness” and “autonomy”). A productive dialogue occurred in this instance, and it ameliorated the concerns underlying the non-delegation challenge. As amended, the Horseracing Act gives the FTC the final say over implementation of the Act relative to the Horseracing Authority, allowing us to uphold the Act as constitutional in the face of this non-delegation challenge as well as the anti-commandeering challenge.

The Petitioner, Justus G. Onyiego, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of two counts of aggravated rape based on alternative theories. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to seventeen years for each conviction and merged the convictions. This court affirmed the convictions, and the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. The post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing, granted relief, and ordered a new trial for both counts based on trial counsel’s failure to request jury instructions on any lesserincluded offenses. The State appeals, claiming that the post-conviction court erred by granting relief, and the Petitioner cross-appeals, claiming that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his various other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, that the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s errors warrants relief, and that the post-conviction court erred by denying his requests for funding for an investigator and a DNA expert. Based on the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the postconviction court’s granting relief for the Petitioner’s conviction of aggravated rape causing bodily injury and reinstate his conviction for that offense. The judgment of the postconviction court is affirmed in all other respects, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Williamson County Grand Jury indicted Tony Dale Crass, Defendant, with driving under the influence (DUI), DUI per se, and possession of a firearm while under the influence. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the State did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop and that video evidence of Defendant’s driving was erased and deleted as a result of a malfunctioning recording system in Tennessee Highway Patrol (THP) Trooper Joey Story’s patrol car. The trial court concluded that the loss of video evidence constituted a violation of the State’s duty to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence recognized in State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999), and deprived Defendant of the right to a fair trial. The trial court granted the motion to suppress and dismissed the indictment, and the State appealed. We conclude (1) that the video was not lost or destroyed by the State, (2) that a Ferguson violation is not applicable to a suppression hearing based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause for a traffic stop, (3) that the trial court misapplied the “degree of negligence” Ferguson factor by equating perceived public policy decisions on the part of the State to negligence, and (4) that Defendant’s right to a fair trial can be protected without dismissal of the indictment. We reverse the judgment of the trial court, reinstate the indictment, and remand for further proceedings.

Plaintiff filed an action against Lauderdale County under Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-8-301 to - 303, more than one year after his cause of action accrued. The trial court examined the gravamen of the complaint and determined a one-year statute of limitations applied rather than the two or six-year limitations periods advocated for by the plaintiff. Discerning no error in the court’s analysis of the issues, we affirm.

The petitioner, Adolphus Lebron Hollingsworth, appeals the denial of his petition for post conviction relief, which petition challenged his conviction of second degree murder, alleging that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. Because the petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to post-conviction relief, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Crystal Ann Michael, was convicted by a Coffee County jury of theft of property under $1,000, a Class A misdemeanor, and sentenced to sixty days in jail. On appeal, the defendant argues the evidence is insufficient to sustain her conviction. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Jose Lemanuel Hall, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition.