expedited hearing in Tennessee

2024Moreover, as stated by the Tennessee Supreme Court, “[i]t is not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her.” Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010).

2020We note “[i]t is not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her.” Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010)). “[W]here a party fails to develop an argument in support of his or her contention . . . the issue is waived.” Id.

2017We have gleaned the facts from the pleadings, Employee’s affidavit, exhibits, and the trial court’s compensation order. 3 The trial court’s expedited hearing order is not included in the record on appeal. 2 would have supported the action of the trial court.”); Leek v. Powell, 884 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (“In the absence of a transcript or a statement of the evidence, we must conclusively presume that every fact admissible under the pleadings was found or should have been found favorably to the appellee.”).

2015See Leek v. Powell, 884 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (“In the absence of a transcript or a statement of the evidence, we must conclusively presume that every fact admissible under the pleadings was found or should have been found favorably to the appellee.”). 2 Because transcripts of the hearings were not provided by the appellant in these cases, we have gleaned the facts from the pleadings and the trial court’s expedited hearing orders. 2 In addition, although Employer states in each notice of appeal that the “date of injury remains disputed,” there is no indication in either of the

2017No contrary medical opinion appears in the record.5 Although an injured worker has the burden of proof on every element of his or her claim, at an expedited hearing an employee need not prove every element by a 4 “When the trial court has heard in-court testimony, considerable deference must be afforded in reviewing the trial court’s findings of credibility and assessment of the weight to be given to that testimony.” Tryon v. Saturn Corp., 254 S.W.3d 321, 327 (Tenn. 2008). 5 Employer contends that by observing that “the court has no other medical opinion at this time [besides Dr. West’s opinio

2017Such determinations are entitled to significant deference on appeal, Tryon v. Saturn Corp., 254 S.W.3d 321, 327 (Tenn. 2008), and we find nothing in the record mandating a contrary result on this issue.

2018The trial court noted in its expedited hearing order that “[d]uring the hearing” the employee “urged the Court . . . to require [the employer] to pay reasonable attorney’s fees for the time spent litigating his right to pain management.” 3 National Health Corporation, 100 S.W.3d 209 (Tenn. 2003), wherein the Court held that a trial court had the authority to order an employer to initiate workers’ compensation benefits prior to a trial on the merits and without a full evidentiary hearing.

2016R. & Regs. 0800 -02-21-.14(1)(a) (2015). 3 During the expedited hearing at the close of Ms. Mathis’ case-in-chief, Kroger moved to dismiss her claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under McCall v. Nat’l Health Corp., 100 S.W.3d 209, 214 (Tenn. 2003).

2026See Long v. Mid-Tenn. Ford Truck Sales, Inc., 160 S.W.3d 504, 511 (Tenn. 2005).

2024“An abuse of discretion exists when the reviewing court is firmly convinced that the lower court has made a mistake in that it affirmatively appears that the lower court’s decision has no basis in law or in fact and is therefore arbitrary, illogical, or unconscionable.” State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 18 S.W.3d 186, 191 (Tenn. 2000) (citations omitted).

2022Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-405 (b). 5 In Keisling, the Court noted the three factors that should be considered in determining the procedural protections warranted by a particular situation: “(1) the private interest at stake; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of the interest through the procedures used and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally (3) the government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” 92 S.W.3d at 377 -78 (qu

2020She can return to work with her current restrictions.” When an employee “becomes able to work at any employment permitted by the nature of his [or her] injuries, temporary total disability ends at that time.” Anderson v. Dean Truck Line, 682 S.W.2d 900, 903 (Tenn. 1984).

2020Nothing in the record indicates the date of Employee’s retirement was disputed. 4 The record is silent as to why June 14, 2019 was listed as the date of injury. 2 Memphis, 363 S.W.3d 436, 445 (Tenn. 2012).

2018In responding to Solae’s motion, Mr. Jefferson must “demonstrate the existence of specific facts in the record which could lead a rational trier of fact to find in his favor[.]’ Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 265 (Tenn. 2015).

2018Relying on a pre-trial brief on appeal “inherently fails to address in a direct way the decision under review and, as [a] result, does not effectively come to grips with the [trial] court’s analysis.” Claeys v. Mohr, 681 Fed.

2018A court’s primary task in construing statutes “is to carry out legislative intent without broadening or restricting the statute beyond its intended scope.” Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889, 895 (Tenn. 2011).

2018Indeed, adverse rulings of a trial judge, “even if erroneous, numerous and continuous, do not, without more, justify disqualification.” State v. Cannon, 254 S.W.3d 287, 308 (Tenn. 2008). 7 Moreover, in reviewing the transcript of the expedited hearing, it is apparent to us that the trial judge exhibited considerable patience and treated Employee with the utmost respect.

2017Our Supreme Court has observed that “trial judges should always use restraint and not interject themselves into a role in a trial which may be perceived as that of an advocate rather than an impartial arbiter.” State v. Riels, 216 S.W.3d 737, 747 (Tenn. 2007).

2017In affirming the decision on appeal, we relied on a Tennessee Supreme Court case in holding that “‘a trial court may under certain circumstances and upon adequate grounds therefor, sua sponte order the involuntary dismissal of an action.’” Id. at *16 (quoting Harris v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp., 574 S.W.2d 730, 731 (Tenn. 1978)). 2 We have not been provided transcripts of the expedited hearing, the status conferences, or the show cause hearing. 2 Furthermore, we reasoned, “[i]n determining whether a case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the trial judge may ‘inspect the entire procedural

2017Each case, of course, must be evaluated within its own procedural context.’” Id. at *19-20 (quoting Sheaffer v. Warehouse Employees Union, 408 F.2d 204, 206 (D.C.

2017See, e.g., Blackburn v. Blackburn, 270 S.W.3d 42, 55-56 (Tenn. 2008) (trial court has inherent authority to enter orders to “amend or rectify the record”); Weatherspoon v. Minard, No W2015-01099-COA-R3-CV, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 965 , at *11 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2015) (“[I]t is well-settled that Tennessee courts are afforded broad inherent authority over their court proceedings.”).

2017Each case, of course, must be evaluated within its own procedural context.’” Id. at *19-20 (quoting Sheaffer v. Warehouse Employees Union, 408 F.2d 204, 206 (D.C.

2017“Resort to judicial notice is, however, subject to limitations, as indicated by Rule 201 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence . . . .” State v. Lawson, 291 S.W.3d 864, 868 (Tenn. 2009).

2017See Wilhelm, 235 S.W.3d at 128-29 .

2016See Overstreet v. Shoney’s, Inc., 4 S.W.3d 694, 701 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (A stipulation is an agreement between the parties, entered into voluntarily, regarding particular business before the court that eliminates the need for the parties to present evidence regarding the stipulated matters.).

2015Co. v. Moore, 347 S.W.2d 493, 496 (Tenn. 1961) (when an assault upon an employee is "incidental to some duty of his employment ... the assault is ordinarily held to [a]rise out of the employment"). in support of her request for an expedited hearing as required by Tenn. Comp.

2015See Bearman, 385 S.W.2d at 93 .

2015Simpson v. Frontier Cmty. Credit Union, 810 S.W.2d 147, 153 (Tenn. 1991).

2012In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d at 651 ; see also State v. T.M.B.K., 197 S.W.3d 282, 288 (Tenn. Ct. 3 Mother points out that, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-159 (c), a party who perfects an appeal to circuit court of a decision involving removal of a child from a parent’s custody is entitled to an expedited hearing.