Murfreesboro VA Hospital Colonoscopy Case

Attorneys Derek Artrip and Tim Smith were interviewed by Nashville News Channel 4 WSMV yesterday regarding their client who tested positive for Hepatitis C after having a colonoscopy at the Alvin C. York, VA Hospital in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

The story ran on the 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock news. To view the story click on this link http://www.wsmv.com/video/19024070/index.html .

Smith & Artrip, P.C., welcomes the opportunity to meet with veterans who were infected with a virus from an improperly performed procedure at the VA. You can contact our attorneys at (615) 410-3827 or visit our website at http://www.smithartriplaw.com/ .

Murfreesboro VA Hospital Colonoscopy Cases

Smith & Artrip, P.C. is encouraging Veterans who received notifications from the VA regarding potential infection from improperly performed colonoscopies to have blood testing performed. It is important for the veteran's health and the health of their loved ones to determine if they have been infected with a viral infection related to these procedures.

Smith & Artrip, P.C. currently represents an individual who we believe was infected with the Hepatitis C virus as a direct result of a colonoscopy performed at the VA Hospital in Murfreesboro. If you or a loved one has been notified by the VA regarding this matter, we encourage you to seek professional medical advice. If you have contracted any viral infection(s) that may be linked to a procedure performed at the VA Hospital in Murfreesboro, we would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss your situation. You may contact us anytime at (615) 410-3827 or via our website at http://www.smithartriplaw.com/ .

You can see the Fox 17 News story regarding our client's case and an interview with one of our attorneys, Derek Artrip, at http://www.fox17.com/newsroom/top_stories/wztv_vid_5464.shtml .

Permanent Alimony. 26 Year Marriage.

Permanent Alimony. 26 Year Marriage. Brenda Kay Shooster v. Raymond Shooster, Tennessee Court of Appeals at Knoxville, Filed March 6, 2009. Wife was 53 years old at the time of trial; husband was 47 years old. Wife did not offer any testimony that her medical condition interfered with her ability to work; wife had considerable health problems that could significantly impact her productivity. The parties had been married for 26 years, with wife's major contribution to the marriage being as homemaker, wife and mother. The wife was unable to achieve an earning capacity that would permit her to have a standard of living after the divorce comparable to the post-divorce standard of living for husband. The Court of Appeals upheld trial court judgment that wife is not capable of economic rehabilitation to support a reasonable standard of living. At the time of trial, husband’s annual income was $65,000. Husband ordered to pay $1,500 a month in permanent alimony, pay wife's health insurance premiums and maintain a life insurance policy on himself for benefit of wife.

$60,000 Mistake in Marital Dissolution Agreement

Alleged $60,000 Mistake in Marital Dissolution Agreement. Rule 60 Motion Denied. Beth Ann Mason v. Thaddeaus Scott Mason, Tennessee Court of Appeals at Nashville, Filed March 3, 2009. The parties successfully mediated all issues in this divorce case. The parties entered a Marital Dissolution Agreement, an addendum to the MDA, and a Permanent Parenting Plan, all of which were presented to the trial court and incorporated into a Final Decree of Divorce. Husband filed a Rule 60 Motion to Alter or Amend claiming an error in the Marital Dissolution Agreement. As a result of this mistake, husband would receive approximately $60,000 less than he was supposed to. The Rutherford County Chancery Court denied husband’s Rule 60 Motion finding that the MDA was a binding contract and if there were some latent ambiguity in the MDA, husband could bring a separate contract action. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying husband's Rule 60 Motion. Wife's requests for attorney's fees at the trial level and on appeal were denied.

Common-law retaliatory discharge. Gary M. Gossett v. Tractor Supply Company, Inc., Tennessee Court of Appeals at Nashville, Filed March 2, 2009. The Davidson County Chancery Court awarded summary judgment to the defendant employer where the plaintiff alleged he was discharged for refusing to participate in defendant’s allegedly illegal data reporting practices. The trial court awarded summary judgment to the defendant based upon Collins v. AmSouth Bank, 241 SW.3d 879 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2007), holding that reporting of the alleged illegal activity is a necessary element of the cause of action. To the extent that Collins required reporting of the illegal activity, the Court in Gossett disagreed. A common-law cause of action for retaliatory discharge may be maintained where an employer's termination of an at-will employee's employment is substantially motivated by the employee's refusal to participate in an illegal activity or one which violates a clear and well-defined public policy of this State. Collins v. AmSouth Bank is overbroad in so far as it is contrary to the holding in Gossett.

14th Judicial Distrtict Circuit Court Judge Opening

So far three attorneys have have submitted applications to fill a vacant Judgeship in the 14th Circuit. The Honorable John W. Rollins passed away in January, leaving an open seat on the bench in Coffee County Tennessee. The current applicants for this seat include Charles Northcott, James Conley, and Mark Williams. The last day for applications to be submitted is February 26, 2009, and the Judicial Selection Commission will begin interviewing the candidates on March 24, 2009.

New Website!!!

We will be posting our new website tomorrow. Please go to http://www.smithartriplaw.com/ to see our new site and learn more about our services.