If you have a client who has back child support which is the subject of a judgment, you have stepped into a legal minefield by representing that client.  There is an Attorney General’s opinion which is attached hereto as Appendix “C” which sets out the general rules.  If there has been a contract entered into with an attorney, which provides for attorney’s fees and costs, then the attorney may assert a lien which is superior to the child support department.  If there has been a pre-contract seizure of the asset directly with the insurance company then you are at the mercy of the child support division for fees or expenses.  The DCS does not have to agree to allow an attorney to collect any fees or recover any costs out of the work comp settlement or judgment.

I suggest to you that this is a flawed statute and an unintended consequence of a law that was passed to benefit children.  There is a complete disincentive with no fee or reimbursement of expenses to do anything except withdraw.  The client gets $0.  Child support gets $0.  This is a lose – lose situation.

There is no real solution to this if the attorney general with whom you are dealing takes an unrealistic position.  I mention this problem because you need to be aware that as part of the initial file intake, you should ask about any child support liens, arrearages, or anything that could possibly defeat your attorney’s fee and claim for costs.  Be sure that your written contract is in front of any type of seizure notification to the insurance company which should then permit your attorney fees and costs and advise your client about all of the unpleasant ramifications of being behind on child support which includes not receiving any of the proceeds although the proceeds will be applied to reduce the past due arrearage.  If the arrearage is paid in full, the excess would be paid to the client.

           (12)     Appeal and Enforcement of Medical Benefits under T.C.A. 50-6-204

As you know,  the attorney can obtain attorney’s fees and full costs for enforcement of a court order or Department of Labor order under T.C.A. 50-6-204(b)(2).  However, under what circumstances do you have to have a Department of Labor RFA before you can go into court? And can you go to court at all?

Under T.C.A. 50-6-204(g)(2)(A) whether there has been a judgment or decree entered by a court or an approval by the Department of Labor either may request the assistance of a workers’ compensation specialist to determine whether medical care and treatment will be ordered under the RFA process.

           (13)     Subparagraph 50-6-204(g)(2)(B)

Under T.C.A. 50-6-204(g)(2)(B) a workers’ compensation specialist may also order attorney’s fees and reasonable costs.  Under 50-6-204(g)(2)(D)(i) if there has been a request for assistance pursuant to a court judgment or a decree following a trial, the appeal of the specialist order may be to the original court that issued the judgment or decree.  The order of the specialist is attached to pleadings but then the original court reviews the order “de novo”.

(ii) if the request for assistance involved a request for medical care under a settlement in court or with the Department of Labor  the specialist order may be appealed through the administrative review process pursuant to T.C.A. 50-6-238(b) which is in Chancery Court in Davidson County under the “substantial evidence” test which is much more difficult than a “de novo” review.

The way to avoid taking depositions and then not really having a forum to hear the case (i.e. a trial) is to simply file with a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the medicals and bypass the Department of Labor.  It is not mandatory to go through a RFA in the Department of Labor for medical enforcement as indicated by the word “may” as set out in T.C.A. 50-6-204(g)(2)(A).  That statute is attached for reference as Appendix “D”.

            (14)     Changes to requests for admissions

The rules pertaining to requests for admissions have changed in that requests for admissions now include expert opinions.  If you have medical bills generated by five different treating physicians and you are attempting to prove the medical bills in a contested case where the medical bills were not paid, you can ask that the reasonableness and necessity of the medical bills be established through requests for admissions.  I suggest separate requests for admissions for each of the bills.  You can also request authenticity of business records and/or medical charts through using requests for admissions which will eliminate a lot of subpoenas.  In the instance of medical expenses, you can eliminate having to take multiple depositions of surgeons in perhaps two or three separate hospitals to prove medical expenses.  Many times you can have a record review to have someone review expenses to comment upon reasonableness and necessity.  Sometimes this simply does not work depending upon the complexities of the case.  The Requests for Admissions are now the vehicle to take care of that expensive and time consuming problem.  It will streamline your proof and save your client thousands of dollarGood luck and best wishes in the upcoming year.  Keep the faith. Keep litigating those cases which need to interpret the new laws. Look for novel approaches. If something obviously is wrong with a statute, have it declared void in Court or call your legislator.

The Department of Labor within the last 3 months has become increasingly pro active in performing independent ex parte investigations of plaintiffs.  Some of these investigations are also directed towards the defendants.  Most of the investigations I see are directed towards plaintiffs, because I represent plaintiffs.

There has been a tendency to not ask the attorney’s permission but to make calls directly to the client and even request and receive documentation from the client without going through the attorney or notifying the attorney that this is occurring.  Documents furnished by the client are not furnished to plaintiff’s attorney.

Another source of information which is not revealed to plaintiffs’ attorneys in any type of uniform way which I have found is information furnished by the other side.  Therefore, I find myself in a situation of receiving an opinion from the Department of Labor which contains facts and which references documents I have never heard of, seen, been furnished copies of, or had a chance to rebut.  There are also typically hearsay statements which I have never heard of before, had a chance to investigate, or rebut. This raises procedural due process questions under the State and Federal Constitutions.

Chancellor Carol McCoy in Randstad North America, L.P., vs. Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development and Erica Doud, Davidson Chancery No. 09-716-II has declared certain temporary benefit rulings unconstitutional.  Portions of the opinion, now on appeal, are attached as Appendix “A”.   This was based upon procedural due process concerns.

There is another lawsuit pending in the Chancery Court of Davidson County at Nashville, TN which is a complaint for Declaratory Relief and Judgment filed by Andy Veazey, a defense attorney.  This is the case of Royale Construction, Inc. and Westfield Insurance Company vs. Karla Davis, Commissioner of The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, et al, Davidson County Chancery Case No. 11-627-II.  (Portions of the Complaint are attached as Appendix “B” The 17 page complaint filed by Mr. Veazey claims that T.C.A. 50-6-238 is constitutionally invalid and violates due process.  In paragraph 58 on page 15 (attached) there is an allegation that the specialist to adjudicated claims based upon information such as is appropriate without tying it into a defined legal standard.  The complaint in paragraph 59 at page 15 (attached) also alleges that T.C.A. 50-6-238 disregards the laws of evidence.

Procedural due process includes safeguards such as (a) the right to confront, (b) the right to cross examine, and (c) the right to meaningfully be heard.  Where hearsay statements and other information which is defined by no known legal standard and many times information which is not even made known to both sides of the claim is being used as the basis of a decision, this makes it virtually impossible to safeguard your client’s constitutional rights under traditional notions of due process.

The net effect of constitutional challenges may be to declare the entire temporary benefit process, which the Department of Labor currently enforces, unconstitutional.  It is difficult to deal with the Department of Labor based upon unknown evidence. Ex parte communications, not revealed, lead to a secretive process which is impossible to rebut.

Without establishing hearing rooms, hearing officers, and in effect duplicating the court system (costing hundreds of millions of dollars) there is an argument that ex parte communications which form the foundations of the opinions which are being reached day in and day out, are by their very nature unconstitutional. Thus, such opinions create a violation of procedural due process which has the effect of depriving litigants of property rights.

There has to be a better way to do this.  Perhaps it is better to go back to the McCall v. National Health Corp., 100 SW 3d 209 Tenn. (2006) and Shelton v. Ads Environmental Services, 100 SW 3d 214 (2006) type hearings where one could file in Court for a start up of benefits and go through the usual court process if there is a denial of benefits by the employer or its insurer.  This would require the taking of proof and a full blown hearing in front of a Judge, but the rules of evidence, and civil procedure would apply.  I invite your thoughts. There will be a Supreme Court opinion on the Chancery case from Chancellor McCoy’s court in the near future.

Changes defining cumulative trauma and the definition of injury (set out above) as well as the other changes in Public Chapter 416 will take effect on June 6, 2011.  The changes to Overstreet take effect also on June 6, 2011.   Intoxication changes July 1, 2011 (see below)  Construction changes October 1, 2011 (see below).  Unemployment compensation changes July 1, 2011 (see below).

            (7)       Intoxication/drug use defense

The new law T.C.A. § 50-6-110(c)(1) increases the standard for the employee rebutting the presumption that a work injury was caused by drug or alcohol use.  The standard has now shifted from the “preponderance of the evidence” to “clear and convincing evidence” where there has been a drug free workplace.

In addition to the drug free workplace law which is very detailed and which an employer may or may not have in effect, the presumption also has a second requirement.  The second requirement is that there be a blood alcohol concentration level equal to or greater than .08 for non safety sensitive positions or .04 for safety sensitive positions or a confirmation of certain types of drugs.  The new code sets this out in T.C.A. §50-6-110 and takes effect July 1, 2011.

            (8)       Construction service providers exemptions 

Public Chapter 422 takes effect on October 1, 2011 and deals with the ability of officers of corporations (up to 5 may be exempt-previously 3), or limited liability companies (30% ownership dropped to 20% of the company), or limited or general partnerships (30% ownership dropped to 20%), or family owned businesses (up from 3 to 5 may be exempt) to exempt themselves from coverage.  This change in policy will affect multiple statutes within T.C.A. § 5-6-101 et. seq. and 901 et. seq.

            (9)       Unemployment compensation

Unemployment compensation takes out the period of temporary total disability from the calculation of the base period which will increase the gross pay calculation to help the people arrive at a more reasonable unemployment compensation rate.  The changes in T.C.A. § 50-6-207(1)(C) are effective July 1, 2011.

Injury expressly includes a mental injury arising out of the course of employment.  It does not include (a) a disease except when the disease arises out of the course and scope of employment or (b) cumulative trauma conditions unless these arose “primarily” out of the course and scope of employment.

What has changed?  The rule has always been that an injury has to arise out of the course and scope of employment.  Is the rule that cumulative trauma now cannot be merely aggravated or anatomically advanced but has to also be “primarily” out of the course and scope of employment?  Does this mean more than 50% advanced rather than a slight aggravation?  How does the “take them as you find them” rule apply?  If the injury was 2% of the overall condition but the added 2% precipitated the disabling condition is this “primary”?  How does this work with injuries fully manifesting later such as Oliver v. State, 762 S.W.2d 562 (Tenn. 1988)? Can we now hold in former employers under the “fully manifested” rule if 85% of the injury occurred after employment ended?

At a first reading of this, it appears that the disease part of the statute does not change much whereas the cumulative trauma portion of the statute may impose a higher standard of being “primarily” out of the course and scope of employment rather than an advancement or aggravation which is some of the language from the earlier cases.  If it “primarily” caused the disabling event but is less than 50% of the overall impairment are you in or out?  This will be litigated.  A plaintiff will argue that if the event took the person out of work, it was primary. A defendant will probably argue to the contrary.

Under cumulative trauma conditions which include hearing loss, carpal tunnel, but also repetitive overuse syndromes for elbows, shoulders, knees, or any other cumulative trauma, the employer’s physician from the panel is now presumed correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

I am not sure what has changed with this language except that the cumulative trauma now has to be “primarily” out of the course and scope of employment which needs to be interwoven into the deposition questions which are asked of the treating physician and/or IME physician.  What that really means is anyone’s guess until appellate decisions give a better definition.

(4)       Future medical expenses

            The rule used to be that we could settle future medicals.  This permitted settlement of some of the more questionable cases with high medical exposure.  Such cases would sometimes be resolved because there was additional latitude to close medicals.  These settlements were eliminated except for the nominal value “doubtful and disputed” basis settlements which have been the rule for the last few years.  That has now changed so that again future medical expenses can be closed except in cases of permanent and total disability.  This is under T.C.A. § 50-6-206(b).  But, watch out for TennCare, Medicaid, Medicare, VA, ERISA, CHAMPUS or other statutory liens including hospital liens.  If you close medicals do not create exposure for yourself or your client.

(5)       Communications with the employee’s treating physician

            Overstreet v. TRW Commercial Steering Division, 256 S.W. 3d 626 (Tenn. 2008) prevented the employer from ex parte communication with the employee’s treating physician without first obtaining a waiver of confidentiality from the employee.  This changed the law substantially.  Previously there had been open communication.

The rule was previously changed to the pre Overstreet rule effective July 1, 2009 in T.C.A. § 50-6-204(a)(2)(A) which permitted the employer to communicate orally or in writing with the treating physician.  There was a provision that the employee and his attorney should be given a prior written notice of the contact and copies of the communications.  Plaintiff and counsel should be provided with copies of written communications and/or summaries of any oral communications.  So, at the end of the day Overstreet was not completely overruled.  The prohibition against ex parte contact was changed to permit ex parte communication.  But, there was a reporting requirement back to the employee and the employee’s attorney.  This has now been changed in 2011 on the basis that it is too burdensome.  The reporting requirement now imposes only the requirement that contact information be furnished no later than 10 days before the day of the physician’s deposition. It fully allows ex parte communications which is the pre Overstreet rule.  See Public Chapter 416.

(1)      The Definition of the Injury

The new definition of injury as set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12) defines the terms of personal injury to arise out of employment as follows:

(a)       The injury is “accidental” being caused by an event that is identifiable by time and place occurrence although it can be more than one incident;

Someone, somewhere will take the position that the event will have to be identified to the hour and minute.  But, look at wording “set of incidents” which still leaves the door open to gradual injuries. i.e. unloaded from 9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. 25 pound boxes from delivery truck 10-28-11.  Does this broaden the rule of recovery for mental injuries which under <span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>Jose</span> v. <span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>Equifax</span>, 556 SW 2d 82 (1977), could not be gradual?  i.e. set or series of incidents.  A plaintiff would want to argue that it does broaden recovery for mental injuries.

(2)       Causation Presumed Correct Standard

(b)       The authorized treating physician’s opinion as to causation is presumed correct unless rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.  T.C.A. §50-6-102(12)(A)

Certainly, this is a huge contrast from the prior law which had cases stating all sorts of different propositions.  Essentially, if the appellant court wanted to rule in favor of the party with a favorable IME it would quote case law saying that the opinions of a treating physician need not necessarily be accepted.  If the appellant court wished to rule in favor of the treating physician’s opinion, there were some opinions that the treating physician’s opinion should be favored.  Usually there would be some statement as to why this was true in a particular case.  The underpinning of this line of opinions was usually the numbers of visits and treatment rendered over a lengthy period of time rather than a single visit to an independent medical evaluation.  All of this appears to be changed as to causation.

Note the earlier MIR change about the presumption as to the impairment rating.  This makes the MIR physician presumed correct as to the impairment rating absent clear and convincing evidence.

The new environment may more difficult in terms of causation because the treating physician is presumed correct.  This undercuts the IME process.  However, if one looks at the language which follows in the rest of the statute, the presumption can be rebutted by a “preponderance of the evidence”.  This eliminates that problem.  Thus, another view of the change is that not much has really changed.  The preponderance of the evidence test has always been law.  If the treating physician’s opinion on causation is presumed correct but then can be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence so what!  This means that the plaintiff has the burden of proof.  This is old news.  The plaintiff has always had the burden of proof.

Some will argue that this statute seems to force the trial court to pick a side. The judges may no longer be able to blend ratings or come up with a middle ground.  The presumption and necessity to overcome the treating physician probably means that the judges will have to make specific findings as to which rating they believe is appropriate.  However, the judges are not bound by the medical testimony and may arrive at their own findings taking judicial notice of the AMA Guide provisions.  This may lead to significantly more appeals based upon the weight of the evidence.  The issue has several moving parts which include (a) a liberal construction of the statutes in favor of the injured worker, (b) with a presumption of correctness for the authorized treating physician, (c) the trial court’s discretion on credibility of witnesses, (d) and using a preponderance of the evidence test all of which will likely be litigated heavily over the next decade.

How this will play out will be determined by appellant decisions defining what these terms mean.  I see that there is room for argument in several directions.  (a) that the presumption creates some higher burden of proof than otherwise existed, (b) nothing has changed because the presumption can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence which was the old burden of proof which plaintiffs have always had, and (c) you cannot average impairments (unless the preponderance of the evidence test indicates you should) and the judge makes an independent finding as to impairment, in which case you can. Are you confused yet? This will be litigated.

When a loved one passes, the family has many legal decisions to make concerning the property and debts of the deceased.  Unfortunately, the legal process does not give a family much time to grieve for their loss before deadlines start approaching.  And creditors are less than caring and understanding in these situations.  There are many things that you should be aware of when dealing with a love ones estate.

Testate vs. Intestate

Did the deceased make a Will? If so, then the Will must be admitted to the Court to dispose of the deceased belongings.  If there is not a Will, then the belongings will be handled according to a set of statutes set out by the Tennessee Legislature.  In essence, there is no such thing as someone passing away without knowing where there property is going to go.  If the person had a Will, you will need to file it with the Court.  How quickly you do this determines the procedures that will follow.

Opening an Estate

Anyone who would inherit from the deceased under Tennessee Law may file a petition to open an estate.  These petitions need to be filed in the county where the deceased lived at the time of their death and anyone who would inherit something under Tennessee Law must be given notice of the petition in case they want to dispute any part of the process.  Depending on when the estate is opened, you may have to publish notice to creditors in the newspaper so that people who may have been owed money by the deceased are given notice.  If there is a Will then you petition the court to admit the Will to probate.  The court will issue a Letter of Administration which allows the person designated as the representative/administrator/executor to carry out certain tasks on behalf of the estate.

After the Estate is Opened

There are many forms that need to be filled out to determine if the State is owed any taxes, if TennCare or Medicare are owed any funds, and even possible Federal taxes. If there are any unpaid funeral expenses or other creditors, they will file a claim against the estate and notify the Court how much they are owed. The representative/administrator/ executor must send a notice to all of the creditors they know about and tell them that the person is diseased and an estate has been opened.  If the creditor does not file a claim, then they are not entitled to be paid.  All of this process takes time and can involve multiple court hearings to contest certain claims against the estate.

Closing the Estate

Once all of the creditors have been identified, all of the property and assets have been identified, everyone having a right to inherit under Tennessee Law has had a chance to dispute the process, and all of the appropriate tax and TennCare forms have been filed, the estate can be closed.  To do this, everyone must acknowledge that they received what they were supposed to get from the estate.  If they cannot or will not do so, then a complete accounting of the assets must be filed with the Court.  Once all of this is completed, the clerk’s office will send a bill for the court costs and the matter will be closed.

Probate matters can be long and difficult processes with many details that prevent matters from concluding.  Even if all of the heirs are in agreement and the estate is very small, the paperwork and due process requirements can be overwhelming.  It is very difficult for a family to grieve their loss while dealing with legal issues.  Our firm is happy to help during these difficult times.  We make every effort to work efficiently, promptly, and to explain the processes to our clients in clear and plain language.  Having an attorney can help the family focus on the future without the worry and stress of navigating the legal system.

(1)       Failure to maintain a proper look-out

Inattention is a leading cause of accidents involving all types of motor vehicles.  Common forms of inattention include . . .

(a)       Looking away from the direction the motor vehicle is traveling; (b) site seeing; rubber necking at another accident, roadwork, or distractions on the side of the road; (c) text messaging; (d) dialing or talking on the mobile phone; (e) eating; drinking non-alcoholic beverages; (f) spills inside the vehicle; (g) distractions by passengers including spouse, children or pets; (h) setting map quest; (i) setting the radio/stereo; (j) setting any other vehicle controls requiring one to look away from the road such as cruise control, trip set, resetting a clock or other control/accessory within the vehicle.

(2)       Failure to yield the right-of-way

The right-of-way rules are controlled by the driving code which is a State law in Tennessee.  This includes . . .

(a)       Running into a vehicle lawfully stopped at a stop sign or traffic light; (b) changing lanes and hitting a motor vehicle in its proper lane of travel; (c) failure to obey a stop sign or traffic light and hitting a vehicle; (d) pulling from a side road with a stop or yield sign and T-boning a motor vehicle or truck on a “through street”;

(i) helpful (not so helpful) motorists waving cases.  Many times a motorist stopped in an outside lane will wave someone out of a parking lot or side street across multiple lanes of travel.  When the driver pulls out, a vehicle traveling at 30 to 40 MPH in lane two or three will T-bone the vehicle pulling out.  Do not do this.  Do not pull across multiple lanes of traffic unless you have a clear field of vision as to all lanes.  Another tip: the person waving in a negligent fashion may be sued if you can identify them.  Advice: do not pull out.  Do not wave other vehicles out.

(3)       Intoxication

Common forms of intoxication includes . . .

(a)       Alcohol-tested by field sobriety tests, breath tests, or blood tests; (b) drug use – tested by field sobriety tests, or blood tests; (c) prescription pain medications if it causes impaired driving may also be the basis of a criminal charge as well as the cause of a motor vehicle accident.

(1) Have your medical needs met;

(2) Be sure to exchange insurance information with all vehicles involved in the accident;

(3) Tell your version of the accident to the investigating officer, if possible;

(4) If you leave the scene other than by ambulance, and later have physical problems, please go to the ER and have your injury checked out. To fail to do so is especially dangerous in chest injuries and head injuries. However, the list of reasons and conditions which indicate you should go to the ER is long. If you are in pain, unless you are under the care of another medical doctor, chiropractor, or health care provider you should seek medical treatment as soon as possible.

(5) Get the reference number from the investigating officers to be able to order the accident report;

(6) Order the accident report or have your attorney do so;

(7) Keep a list of all health care providers;

(8) Keep a copy of all bills;

(9) If you are going to retain an attorney, have that attorney with you when you give your recorded statement to the insurance company;

(10) Do not give a recorded statement while under the influence of narcotics or other pain medications.

Attorney D. Russell Thomas has over 32 years of experience in handling personal injury matters. If you believe you have been injured as a result of an individual or company’s acts of failures to act, please contact our office immediately for a free case evaluation.

For specific information regarding automobile liability, please follow this link to an article on our site regarding Automobile Liability In Tennessee

There is only one way for any member of society to hold another accountable for their actions: Jury Duty.  Next to military service in a time of war, there is no greater responsibility to our country than serving as the voice and conscience of your community through jury service.  Without jurors upholding our laws and enforcing the rules of our society, people would be forced to become vigilantes or return to trial by combat.  Without a jury system that is rock solid and rooted in the principles of our society, the community would crumble leaving citizens to fend for themselves.

It is for this reason that we have compulsory jury service where we no longer have compulsory military service.  Jury service is the greatest calling in our society and often it is the only means for the average person to make a significant impact on the community.

Should you be selected for jury duty, you should be aware that you have rights. (1) If you do not understand something you have right to ask the Judge to clarify it.  Our rules are often written and rewritten over long periods of time. Specific cases cause the legislature to reword something, or we must rely on the courts to tell us what the legislature meant to say.  All of this can be confusing and frustrating, not only to jurors but to the parties and the attorneys.  But as the trier of the facts of a case, the jury, above all others, must understand what they are being asked, what the state of the law is, and what the results of their decision will mean.

(2) If a member of the jury refuses to follow the rules, whether it be by debating the case prior to the jury charge, deciding the case prior to hearing the evidence, or deciding the case without following the law, the remaining jurors have an obligation to report it to the Judge.  Not everyone can set aside their personal feelings about a particular issue.  Not everyone is honest during jury selection.  Not everyone will take the process seriously or try to follow the rules.  Jurors who ignore the law and decide cases based on something other than the Judge’s instructions are participating in “nullification”.

Again, without rules our society cannot function.  A juror who does take their service seriously, and tries to follow the rules for the protection of every member of the community, deserves to serve on a jury with 11 other people who feel the same way.  Only through a unanimous verdict from the jury can any case be decided.  Even if we do not always agree with a particular law, we must follow the laws we have.  It is not the job of a jury to make the laws.  The jury is there to enforce the laws and hold people accountable for their actions.

Often a juror’s disagreement with a particular law is due to information they believe should be a part of the consideration, but the information was not given to the jury.  The best examples are the ideas of insurance and attorney’s fees.  Jurors know that many people have health insurance to pay for their medical expenses.  Some people have short term disability plans or end up on social security disability.  Unfortunately, attorneys are not allowed to discuss insurance during a trial.  It is often not permissible to tell a jury whether a person has insurance or not.  The attorney is not allowed to tell a jury that a particular insurance company which paid for treatment wants their money back at the end of the trial.

It is likewise not permissible to discuss how the attorney’s get paid.  Some jurors think the losing party pays the other side’s attorney and all of their costs.  Some jurors believe that the Judge will award costs and fees after the jury has ruled.  In reality, the attorneys for the defendants are typically paid by an insurance company and the attorney for the plaintiff is paid a portion of whatever the jury awards to the plaintiff.  Few of the costs are recovered by the winning party.  In short, a plaintiff who is awarded a verdict must pay the litigation costs, insurance reimbursements, and attorney’s fees out of their verdict.  But the jury is not given any of this information.  They are only told not to consider any issue of insurance or any information not put before them.  This is why it is so important for a jury to follow the instructions given by the Judge.

If you ever find yourself selected for jury duty, count yourself fortunate.  You have an opportunity to be involved and make a difference.  As members of the community, we respect and honor those selected to serve on the jury.  To protect ourselves, to protect our children, and to protect our society, we must protect and uphold the laws that society has made.

God bless the United States, the State of Tennessee, and our courts.