Oral Arguments Redux

 The Bureau’s Communications Coordinator, Anna K. Houser, captured a few of photographic highlights from last week’s oral arguments at Belmont University College of Law in Nashville. Excellent work, Ms. Houser.

Judge Timothy Conner of the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board asks a question, while Judges Marshall Davidson (presiding) and David Hensley listened intently to the advocates’ arguments.
Attorney Art Grisham, Chattanooga, argued the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed his client’s case with prejudice without a full hearing on the merits in Lightfoot v. Xerox Business Services.
Attorney Fred Baker, Cookeville, who represents Xerox Business Services, argued dismissal was proper in Lightfoot because the trial court gave several warnings the case might be dismissed with prejudice if Ms. Lightfoot didn’t take action to move her case forward.
In Cotton v. HUMACare, et al., Nashville attorney Byron Lindberg, who respresents HUMACare, Inc., argued although the trial court concluded HUMACare was a co-employer, dismissal was nonetheless appropriate because his client’s wage contribution was zero dollars.
Nashville Attorney Isaac Conner, who represents Ms. Cotton, focused the bulk of his arguments on whether the trial court’s dismissal of her case against HUMACare, the co-employer, exceeded the scope of a previous decision to bifurcate the trial.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s