Skip to main content

Ben C. Adams v. Buchanan D. Dunavant v. Watson Burns PLLC

Tenn.July 21, 2023No. W2023-00304-SC-T10B-CV

Case Details

Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

Before his election to the bench, the probate judge in this interpleader action served as an expert witness in a 2017 case involving one of the defendants, Watson Burns, PLLC. In the current case, Watson Burns, PLLC and another law firm defendant moved for the probate judge's recusal based on the expert opinions the judge expressed in the 2017 case. The probate judge denied the motion, and the law firms filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right to the Court of Appeals pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. The Court of Appeals reversed, ordered the probate judge's recusal, and remanded for assignment of another judge. Two other parties to the interpleader action then filed an accelerated application for permission to appeal in this Court pursuant to Rule 10B, section 2.07. We ordered the parties prevailing in the Court of Appeals to file a response to the application. Having thoroughly reviewed the Rule 10B application for permission to appeal, the response, all appendices, and the applicable law, we grant the Rule 10B application, dispense with additional briefing and oral argument, and hold that the probate judge's denial of the recusal motion was appropriate in this case. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision

What This Ruling Means

This case involved a dispute where a probate judge was asked to step aside (recuse himself) from hearing a case involving the law firm Watson Burns PLLC. The problem was that before becoming a judge, this person had served as an expert witness in a 2017 case against the same law firm. In that earlier case, he had given opinions that could be seen as critical of Watson Burns PLLC's work. Watson Burns PLLC and another law firm asked the judge to remove himself from the current case, arguing that his previous involvement created a conflict of interest. The judge refused to step aside, so the law firms appealed this decision to a higher court. The appeals court sent the case back to be reconsidered, suggesting the judge should have recused himself. **What this means for workers:** This case highlights the importance of fair and impartial judges in employment disputes. When judges have previous relationships or opinions about employers involved in cases, it can affect workers' chances of getting a fair hearing. Workers should know they have the right to request a different judge if there are legitimate concerns about bias or conflicts of interest that could impact their case.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Derinda Carr v. Windham Professionals, Inc.
Tenn.Apr 2022

Appellant Derinda Carr challenges the trial court's finding her neck injury did not arise primarily "out of and in the course and scope of' her employment. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We agree with the trial court and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Win
Bethany Shelton v. Hobbs Enterprises, LLC
Tenn.Sep 2021

Bethany Shelton ("Employee") filed a petition for benefit determination against Hobbs Enterprises, LLC ("Employer") alleging an injury to her right shoulder suffered in a work- related accident on August 26, 2017. She sought temporary total, permanent partial, and continued medical benefits. Following the issuance of a dispute certification notice, Employer moved for summary judgment on the basis the only medical testimony, from the Employee's treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Sean Kaminsky, was insufficient as a matter of law to establish causation. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims (the "trial court") denied the motion and denied Employer's motion to reconsider. Employer sought an expedited appeal before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, but then sought and was granted a dismissal of that appeal. A trial was held, after which the trial court denied Employee's claim on the ground she had failed to meet her burden to establish her right shoulder injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment with Employer. Employee filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied. She appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims.

Defendant Win

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.