Registration is open for this year's Disability Law Forum, which will be in person for the first time since 2019! Make plans to join your colleagues on Oct. 20 at Bluegrass Yacht & Country Club in Hendersonville. Attendees can earn up to three general and one dual CLE credits. Sessions will cover a variety of topics applicable to disability law practitioners, including ways to prepare a successful GRID case, a session featuring best practices from a vocational expert, a DDS/OHO update and an ethics course designed to help you "un-stick" stuck cases. A happy hour will follow the day's programming.

Former President Donald Trump was indicted on felony charges in connection with his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, AP reports. The four-count indictment alleges Trump conspired to defraud the U.S. by preventing Congress from certifying President Joe Biden's victory and to deprive voters of their right to a fair election. In the 45-page court document, prosecutors allege a coordinated conspiracy across multiple states, in which Trump and his allies advanced claims of fraud they knew to be untrue but repeated them to "create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger and erode public faith in the administration of the election." Trump was ordered to make an initial appearance in federal court on Thursday.

Join us Aug. 17 in Memphis for the CLE: Intersections of Family Law. Hosted by the TBA Family Law Section, this event will examine how domestic law intersects with other legal segments to provide a more holistic view to incorporate into practice. Find out more and register.

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Eric Patterson was injured in an auto accident. Patterson’s medical expenses were paid by his insurer, United. He also recovered for his injuries from the other driver. United claimed that Patterson’s insurance plan obliged him to pay those monies to United. Eventually, the parties settled the matter, with Patterson agreeing to pay the plan $25,000. Patterson later obtained a copy of the plan document, which contained no provision for reimbursement rights. So he filed suit against United and related entities under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The district court dismissed some of Patterson’s claims due to a lack of standing and the others because they failed to state a claim. We reverse in part and affirm in part.

PER CURIAM. The district court preliminarily enjoined Kentucky’s ban on sex-transition care for minors but later stayed its injunction in light of L.W. ex rel. Williams v. Skrmetti, No. 23-5600, 2023 WL 4410576 (6th Cir. July 8, 2023). Plaintiffs ask us to lift the district court’s stay.

Our decision is governed by four factors: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the balance of harms, and the public interest. Roberts v. Neace, 958 F.3d 409, 413 (6th Cir. 2020). We recently balanced these factors in a case involving Tennessee’s ban on sex-transition care for minors and held that they favored allowing Tennessee to enforce its law. Skrmetti, 2023 WL 4410576, at *8.

In short, plaintiffs’ requested stay presents the same issues decided in Skrmetti. We decline to lift the district court’s stay.

Pro-se petitioner, Chris M. Jones, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his “Rule 36 Plain Error Motion for New Trial.” Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Decedent’s siblings filed a document they alleged to be decedent’s last will and testament. Decedent’s husband, the personal representative of her estate, moved to declare the alleged will invalid for lack of an effective signature. The trial court concluded that the will was ineffective due to the lack of decedent’s signature, and declined to admit it to probate. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Heather B. (“Mother”) and John S., III (“Father”) are the biological parents of Serenity S. Mother and Raymond R. are the biological parents of Harmony R., Mellody O., and Angel O. Tina S. (“Grandmother”) and John S., Jr. (“Grandfather” or, together with Grandmother, “Petitioners”) petitioned the Chancery Court for Giles County (the “trial court”) for termination of Mother’s and Raymond R.’s parental rights in April of 2021 and for adoption of the children. Father voluntarily surrendered his parental rights as to Serenity S. As for the grounds for termination, Petitioners alleged: substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, persistence of conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume legal and physical custody of the children. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that Petitioners proved all three statutory grounds for termination and that termination was in the Children’s best interests. Mother appeals to this Court. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the trial court’s order must be vacated and remanded. Because Petitioners proved no statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, we need not consider whether termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Children’s best interests.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court terminated the parental rights of the parents to two children, finding that there was clear and convincing evidence as to both parents regarding the ground of severe child abuse and that termination of the parents’ rights was in the children’s best interest. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm.

In this appeal, the employer asserts the trial court erred by failing to address in its compensation order the employer’s potential entitlement to an offset against permanent partial disability payments arising from the employee’s anticipated future social security benefits. The employee was not receiving social security benefits at the time of maximum medical improvement or as of the date of trial. In addition, the employee asserts the trial court erred by limiting the employer’s liability for unpaid medical expenses to the amounts mandated by Tennessee’s medical fee schedule and by not awarding attorneys’ fees on the amount of unpaid medical expenses to be paid by the employer. After careful consideration, we conclude the issue of a potential social security offset is not ripe for adjudication, and we affirm the trial court’s order in all other respects and certify it as final.