Court Rulings

The defendant, Kathleen A. Cassin, M.D., appealed from a Superior Court order granting a motion for a new trial in favor of the plaintiff, Pamela Joplin. This medical malpractice action arose out of the death of Patricia A. Kinney, who lost her battle with ovarian cancer in 2014. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial justice erred in granting the plaintiff's motion for a new trial because reasonable minds could come to different conclusions about proximate causation when considering the evidence in this case. Further, the defendant argued that the trial justice improperly eliminated proximate cause as a separate and distinct element of negligence. The Supreme Court held that reasonable minds, in considering the evidence presented in this case, could come to different conclusions on the question of whether the plaintiff had met her burden of establishing that the defendant's breach was the cause of Mrs. Kinney's death. Further, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial justice erred by replacing the jury's determination with her own. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court's order and remanded the case with instructions to reinstate the jury's verdict and enter judgment in accordance with that verdict.

Employee filed a workers' compensation claim against Employer alleging mental injury resulting from traumatic work-related experiences that occurred years earlier. Employer denied the claim and moved for summary judgment citing the statute of limitations. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims denied the motion. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated the order and remanded for the court to consider whether it had subject matter jurisdiction based on Employee's alleged date of injury. After a second hearing, the court again denied summary judgment, concluding the date of Employee's mental injury should be determined by the "discovery rule" and the "last day worked" rule. The Appeals Board reversed and remanded for entry of an order of dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Employee appealed. 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 Appeals Board and adopt its opinion as set forth in the attached Appendix.

The plaintiffs, a solar development company and its principal, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their appeal from the final decision of the defendant Freedom of Information Com- mission. The plaintiffs requested certain records from the defendant Department of Energy and Environmental Protection relating to its request for proposals issued to solicit offers from developers for large- scale clean energy contracts. The RFP indicated that each bidder was to submit a public version of its proposal, with any confidential business information redacted, as well as an unredacted version of the proposal that identified all confidential and proprietary information. The RFP informed bidders that the department would disclose certain information in its final determination but that it would take reasonable steps to protect confidential information. The department retained independent consultants to evaluate the costs and benefits of the proposals submitted using a market simulation model. The result of the analysis was an answer key that compiled the data submitted by the bidders, including confidential, proprietary information. The department denied the plain- tiffs' request for the release of the answer key, stating that it was a trade secret exempt from disclosure requirements pursuant to the applicable provision (§ 1-210 (b) (5)) of the Freedom of Information Act (§ 1-200 et seq.). The plaintiffs appealed from the department's denial to the commission, which, following a hearing, denied the appeal. The plaintiffs then appealed to the trial court, which affirmed the decision of the commission, and the plaintiffs appealed to this court. Held: 1. The trial court properly determined that the commission's conclusion that the answer key met the trade secret criteria set forth in § 1-210 (b) (5) (A) (i) was supported by substantial evidence: the department engaged in trade by coordinating the RFP and using the answer key to analyze the proposal