GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Under Michigan law, an insurer may rescind a life-insurance policy if the applicant makes a material misrepresentation when applying for coverage. Ewanda Ferguson (Ewanda)materially misrepresented her driving history when applying for life insurance through defendant MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company a/k/a Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (Brighthouse). Brighthouse therefore rescinded the policy and refused to pay any death benefit to plaintiff Elizabeth Ferguson (Ferguson), the beneficiary under the policy. Ferguson sued, asserting that she was an “innocent third party” under Michigan law and, thus, entitled to equitable balancing before the policy could be rescinded. The district court disagreed, ordered rescission, and granted summary judgment in favor of Brighthouse. We affirm.

The Defendant, Marty Allison Hobdy, Jr., was convicted of aggravated assault and placed on probation for seven years. While on probation, he was charged with a second assault but was acquitted by a jury. After the acquittal, the State sought to revoke the Defendant’s suspended sentence based on the same alleged conduct. At the revocation hearing, the State presented no proof and instead urged the trial court to rely on its memory of testimony and credibility assessments from the prior trial. The trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation on that basis. On appeal, the Defendant contends, among other things, that the State’s procedure caused the trial court to cease functioning as a neutral and detached decisionmaker. Upon our review, we agree with the Defendant. Accordingly, we respectfully reverse and vacate the order revoking the Defendant’s suspended sentence and remand the case for a new hearing.

A circuit court found four children dependent and neglected because they were suffering from abuse or neglect. It also determined that the children’s father committed severe child abuse. Upon review, we conclude that the court’s severe child abuse finding is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. So we reverse that finding and affirm the lower court’s decision as modified.

In this interlocutory recusal appeal, Appellant argues that in addition to the grounds for recusal relied upon in the trial court, the trial judge’s failure to promptly rule on his motion constitutes an additional basis for recusal. Based on Appellant’s failure to comply with Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee, we dismiss this appeal.

This is a premises liability case brought by a sales representative for a product vendor who was injured while in a Tractor Supply store performing his job. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Tractor Supply. On appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court’s decision based upon the conclusion that Tractor Supply was the statutory employer of the sales representative under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-113(a) and was, therefore, shielded by the exclusive remedy provision of the workers’ compensation statutes. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal, concluded that Tractor Supply was not the sales representative’s statutory employer, and remanded the case to this Court to consider the pretermitted issues. We have determined that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Tractor Supply on the issue of whether Tractor Supply owed a duty of care to the sales representative. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employer questions the trial court’s order requiring it to provide certain medical treatment recommended by an authorized physician. The employee reported injuries after she was attacked by a resident while working at the employer’s facility. After accepting the compensability of the incident and authorizing certain medical treatment, the employer declined to authorize a recommended surgical procedure. It supported its decision with a utilization review report recommending non- certification of the procedure. The authorized physician appealed the utilization review to the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation’s Medical Director, who agreed with the employer’s denial. The parties then deposed the authorized physician, who testified that the work incident was more than fifty percent the cause of the employee’s need for surgery. The physician also described how the non-operative treatment he previously prescribed had failed before he recommended surgery. In a decision on the record, the trial court ordered the employer to provide the surgical treatment ordered by the authorized treating physician. In its order, the court emphasized that treatment recommended by an authorized treating physician is presumed medically necessary and that an employer has the burden to rebut that presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court concluded that the employer failed to do so, and the employer has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and remand the case.

TBA’s Legislative Updates podcast is new this week with attorneys and TBA lobbyists Berkley Schwarz with Pier Strategies and Brad Lampley of Adams & Reese. This week they discussed SB1958/HB1971, a sovereign immunity bill; SB1731/HB1791, an interlocutory appeals bill; and SB609/HB590, which covers parental contact rights. Tune in to the podcast on the TBA website or through this link.

On Feb. 20, the Tennessee Supreme Court reinstated Rutherford County lawyer Dalen L.P. Farmer to the active practice of law. Farmer was temporarily suspended on Jan. 22 for failing to respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility concerning a misconduct complaint. Farmer filed a petition for dissolution of the suspension on Feb. 12, showing he had responded to the complaint. The board found the petition to be satisfactory.

Belmont University College of Law alumna Sarah Ingalls was admitted to the bar of the U.S Supreme Court last November, a rare early-career milestone achieved just six years after earning her law degree. Ingalls, now an associate at Thompson Burton in Nashville, worked on a case that reached the nation’s highest court, which agrees to review fewer than 1% of the roughly 8,000 petitions it receives each term. A former journalist who enrolled at Belmont Law in 2017, Ingalls gained experience through moot court and judicial clerkships before joining the firm after graduation, where she focuses on complex commercial and appellate litigation. She traveled to Washington, D.C. to observe veteran Supreme Court advocate Lisa Blatt present oral arguments in the case and was admitted to the Supreme Court bar under Blatt’s mentorship, allowing her to argue before the court in the future. Belmont University has more on Ingalls’ story.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Tennessee is asking a federal appeals court to revive a lawsuit filed on behalf of Blount Pride, alleging the group’s First Amendment rights were violated after the Blount County District Attorney’s Office warned organizers they could face prosecution over certain acts at the group’s 2023 festival. According to WBIR, District Attorney Ryan Desmond said his office would prosecute organizers if “adult cabaret” performances occurred, citing Tennessee’s Adult Entertainment Act, which prohibits performances on public property or where minors can view them if they are deemed harmful to minors. The ACLU sued Desmond and Maryville Police Chief Tony Crisp in federal court, and U.S. District Judge J. Ronnie Greer issued a temporary order blocking enforcement of the law before later dismissing the case. On Feb. 19, the ACLU announced it had filed an appeal with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that Desmond and Crisp violated Blount Pride’s free speech rights by threatening enforcement tied to a drag performance advertised for the event.