A circuit court found four children dependent and neglected because they were suffering from abuse or neglect. It also determined that the children’s father committed severe child abuse. Upon review, we conclude that the court’s severe child abuse finding is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. So we reverse that finding and affirm the lower court’s decision as modified.

In this interlocutory recusal appeal, Appellant argues that in addition to the grounds for recusal relied upon in the trial court, the trial judge’s failure to promptly rule on his motion constitutes an additional basis for recusal. Based on Appellant’s failure to comply with Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee, we dismiss this appeal.

This is a premises liability case brought by a sales representative for a product vendor who was injured while in a Tractor Supply store performing his job. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Tractor Supply. On appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court’s decision based upon the conclusion that Tractor Supply was the statutory employer of the sales representative under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-113(a) and was, therefore, shielded by the exclusive remedy provision of the workers’ compensation statutes. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal, concluded that Tractor Supply was not the sales representative’s statutory employer, and remanded the case to this Court to consider the pretermitted issues. We have determined that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Tractor Supply on the issue of whether Tractor Supply owed a duty of care to the sales representative. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employer questions the trial court’s order requiring it to provide certain medical treatment recommended by an authorized physician. The employee reported injuries after she was attacked by a resident while working at the employer’s facility. After accepting the compensability of the incident and authorizing certain medical treatment, the employer declined to authorize a recommended surgical procedure. It supported its decision with a utilization review report recommending non- certification of the procedure. The authorized physician appealed the utilization review to the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation’s Medical Director, who agreed with the employer’s denial. The parties then deposed the authorized physician, who testified that the work incident was more than fifty percent the cause of the employee’s need for surgery. The physician also described how the non-operative treatment he previously prescribed had failed before he recommended surgery. In a decision on the record, the trial court ordered the employer to provide the surgical treatment ordered by the authorized treating physician. In its order, the court emphasized that treatment recommended by an authorized treating physician is presumed medically necessary and that an employer has the burden to rebut that presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court concluded that the employer failed to do so, and the employer has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and remand the case.

TBA’s Legislative Updates podcast is new this week with attorneys and TBA lobbyists Berkley Schwarz with Pier Strategies and Brad Lampley of Adams & Reese. This week they discussed SB1958/HB1971, a sovereign immunity bill; SB1731/HB1791, an interlocutory appeals bill; and SB609/HB590, which covers parental contact rights. Tune in to the podcast on the TBA website or through this link.

On Feb. 20, the Tennessee Supreme Court reinstated Rutherford County lawyer Dalen L.P. Farmer to the active practice of law. Farmer was temporarily suspended on Jan. 22 for failing to respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility concerning a misconduct complaint. Farmer filed a petition for dissolution of the suspension on Feb. 12, showing he had responded to the complaint. The board found the petition to be satisfactory.

Belmont University College of Law alumna Sarah Ingalls was admitted to the bar of the U.S Supreme Court last November, a rare early-career milestone achieved just six years after earning her law degree. Ingalls, now an associate at Thompson Burton in Nashville, worked on a case that reached the nation’s highest court, which agrees to review fewer than 1% of the roughly 8,000 petitions it receives each term. A former journalist who enrolled at Belmont Law in 2017, Ingalls gained experience through moot court and judicial clerkships before joining the firm after graduation, where she focuses on complex commercial and appellate litigation. She traveled to Washington, D.C. to observe veteran Supreme Court advocate Lisa Blatt present oral arguments in the case and was admitted to the Supreme Court bar under Blatt’s mentorship, allowing her to argue before the court in the future. Belmont University has more on Ingalls’ story.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Tennessee is asking a federal appeals court to revive a lawsuit filed on behalf of Blount Pride, alleging the group’s First Amendment rights were violated after the Blount County District Attorney’s Office warned organizers they could face prosecution over certain acts at the group’s 2023 festival. According to WBIR, District Attorney Ryan Desmond said his office would prosecute organizers if “adult cabaret” performances occurred, citing Tennessee’s Adult Entertainment Act, which prohibits performances on public property or where minors can view them if they are deemed harmful to minors. The ACLU sued Desmond and Maryville Police Chief Tony Crisp in federal court, and U.S. District Judge J. Ronnie Greer issued a temporary order blocking enforcement of the law before later dismissing the case. On Feb. 19, the ACLU announced it had filed an appeal with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that Desmond and Crisp violated Blount Pride’s free speech rights by threatening enforcement tied to a drag performance advertised for the event.

A federal court on Feb. 12 dismissed a desegregation case that has held Dyersburg City Schools accountable to federal monitoring for nearly 60 years. The United States sued the West Tennessee district in 1966, alleging it violated the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by maintaining a dual school system of separate schools for white students staffed by white personnel and a 12-grade school for Black students staffed by Black personnel, the Tennessee Lookout reports. After the district reneged in 1967 on a plan to integrate students into previously white-only schools, the court approved a new plan and oversaw its implementation. In an order dismissing the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman wrote that the district had “complied in good faith with the desegregation decree since it was entered.” The dismissal followed a joint motion filed in February by the U.S. government and the Dyersburg City Board of Education asking the court to declare the district no longer intentionally segregates students by race.

Attorneys in the civil lawsuit stemming from the fatal beating of Tyre Nichols were in court this week, arguing a motion to split up the trial for the parties involved in the case. According to the Commercial Appeal, the motion involves whether to split the trial into two proceedings, one against the city of Memphis and another against the five former Memphis police officers who were criminally charged, along with two officers who were not charged. Lawyers for Nichols’ mother, RowVaughn Wells, said that if the motion to split up is granted, they would dismiss claims against Memphis Police Chief Cerelyn “C.J.” Davis, whose involvement has been on hold while the city appeals her qualified immunity status, a move that would allow plaintiffs to depose her. The judge overseeing the case did not rule on bifurcating the case, but agreed to leave the current trial date of Nov. 9 in place.