McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Jones Brothers, Inc. appeals a decision by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (the “Commission”) upholding citations issued against it by the Federal Mine Safety & Health Administration (the “Administration”) for violations occurring at a Jones Brothers worksite (the “Site”). Jones Brothers argues that the Administration did not have jurisdiction over the Site under the Mine Act, as the Site was a borrow pit subject instead to the jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). The Administrative Law Judge found that the Site did not meet the required criteria of a borrow pit, and the Commission declined to review and thus upheld that decision. We find that there was substantial evidence upon which the ALJ concluded that at least one borrow pit factor was not met, and thus affirm the decision of the Commission.

The Petitioner, Angela Buchanan, appeals from the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief, wherein she challenged her convictions for criminally negligent homicide and aggravated child neglect. On appeal, the Petitioner argues: (1) she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (2) her convictions were based on inadmissible Rule 404(b) evidence; (3) she received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; and (4) the trial court, in violation of Tennessee law and article I, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution, failed to inform her that she could make a statement of allocution at sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Darius Alston, appeals from the Lauderdale County Circuit Court's denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of first degree felony murder, two counts of especially aggravated robbery, and unlawful possession of a firearm and his sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim and that he was prejudiced by the cumulative effect of counsel's multiple instances of deficient performance. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This case arises from the demise of a short-lived business venture. For three years, two of the parties owned and operated a wellness center from the same location as an existing medical clinic. When disputes arose, the plaintiff (co-owner of the wellness center) sued the defendants, asserting twelve counts in his complaint and seeking judicial dissolution of the company. The plaintiff died during the course of the proceeding, and the executor of his estate was substituted as the plaintiff. A special master held a three-day hearing regarding fifteen issues, and the trial court adopted the majority of his findings. The trial court then held a seven-day bench trial. Ultimately, the trial court ruled in favor of the defendants on all counts and judicially dissolved the company upon agreement of the parties. The plaintiff appeals, raising very limited issues regarding his claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and judicial dissolution. We affirm and remand for further proceedings.

A mother appeals the trial court’s decision to terminate her parental rights based on the grounds of (1) abandonment by failure to support; (2) persistence of conditions; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody or financial responsibility of the child. She further challenges the trial court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of the children. We reverse the trial court’s finding of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, but we affirm the trial court in all other respects.

This appeal arises from an incident in which the nude body of a resident at an assisted living facility was exposed on a video call via telephone when an employee of the healthcare facility engaged in a personal call while assisting the resident in the shower. The resident, by and through her conservator/daughter (“Plaintiff”), sued the owner and operator of the healthcare facility, Life Care Centers of America d/b/a Life Care Center of Tullahoma (“Defendant”), asserting a claim of “Negligence Pursuant to the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act” and a generalized claim for invasion of privacy with allegations of “Gross Negligence, Willful, Wanton, Reckless, Malicious and/or Intentional Misconduct.” Relying on the undisputed fact that the resident was unaware and never informed that the incident occurred, Defendant moved for summary judgment due to the lack of a cognizable injury or recoverable damages. Plaintiff opposed the motion, contending that actual damages were not an essential element of her claims and, in the alternative, moved to amend the complaint to specifically assert a claim for invasion of privacy based on intrusion upon the resident’s seclusion and a claim for negligent supervision. The trial court summarily dismissed the complaint on the ground “that damages for invasion of privacy . . . cannot be proven as it would be impossible to suffer from personal humiliation, mental anguish or similar damages since [the resident] is unaware that the incident happened” and denied the motion to amend the complaint on the basis of futility. Plaintiff appealed. We have determined that the gravamen of the complaint states a claim for invasion of privacy based upon the distinct tort of intrusion upon seclusion. We have also determined that actual damages are not an essential element of a claim for invasion of privacy based on the distinct tort of intrusion upon seclusion. Thus, Defendant was not entitled to summary judgment. Moreover, granting leave to amend the complaint would not have been futile. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s decision to summarily dismiss the complaint, reverse the decision to deny the motion to amend the complaint, and remand with instruction to reinstate the complaint, grant the motion to amend the complaint, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Gov. Bill Lee signed an executive order Tuesday creating the Tennessee Nuclear Energy Advisory Council, reported WJHL News Channel 11. The announcement was held at the University of Tennessee Zeanah Engineering Complex. The council will consist of 15 members, including members of the Lee administration, the Tennessee General Assembly and Tennessee’s congressional delegation. The council will make recommendations on legislative policy related to nuclear energy facilities in Tennessee, storage and waste practices and potential partnerships with federal agencies.

Make plans now to join the TBA on June 23 from 11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. CDT for a webcast with the “CLE Performer” Stuart Teicher. Teicher's lecture, Eight Reasons Movie-Lawyers Would Be Disciplined, will cover the sometimes obvious and sometimes subtle ethics violations committed by lawyers in movies and on TV. Register here.

John Crawford, the education manager for Tennessee's Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), was presented the 2022 Public Service Award at the Tennessee State Clerks of Court Education Conference in Nashville. Gary Behler, juvenile court clerk of Hamilton County and 2022 conference president gave Crawford the award “in recognition of an awesome job of dedicated service for the Court Clerk’s Education Conferences and outstanding assistance to the State Court Clerk’s Association of Tennessee for just being there to answer our questions.” Read more from the AOC.

The Tennessee Supreme Court said Monday it would uphold the forgery convictions and sentences of five defendants who filed more than 100 fraudulent financing statements on the Secretary of State’s website, the Chattanoogan reports. The financing statements falsely claimed liens for the defendants’ alleged security interest in the victims’ property as collateral for millions of dollars in fictitious debt. The defendants were named in a multi-count indictment that charged them with 102 counts of filing a lien without a reasonable basis, a Class E felony, and 102 counts of forgery of at least $250,000, a Class A felony. The Court of Criminal Appeals had affirmed their convictions and sentences ranging from 20 to 50 years.