Claims Commission
Claims Commission – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
Moreland v. State, No. E2022-00623-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 15, 2023).
Appeals of Commission judgments are governed by the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-403(a)(1). On appeal, this Court reviews the Commission’s factual findings with a presumption of correctness, and we will not overturn such findings absent evidence that preponderates against them. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Waller v. State, No. M2005-02056-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 2956515, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2006). “A trial court has ‘considerable discretion to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute.’” Ledford ex rel. Rodriguez v. State, No. E2019-00480-COA-R3-CV, 2020 WL 1686377, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2020) (quoting Grissom v. State, No. W2001- 03021-COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL 31895712, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2002)).
Herron v. State, No. W2020-01731-COA-R3-CV, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2022).
Our review of decisions of individual claims commissioners and those of the Claims Commission are governed by the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-403(a)(1). Decisions by the Claims Commission are reviewed pursuant to the standard of review for non-jury cases. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). The factual findings of the Claims Commission are reviewed de novo with a presumption of correctness. The presumption must be honored unless this court finds that the evidence preponderates against those findings. Beare Co. v. State, 814 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Tenn. 1991). Questions of law are reviewed de novo, without a presumption of correctness. Crew One Prods, Inc. v. State, 149 S.W.3d 89, 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
Cavaliere v. State of Tennessee, No. M2021-00038-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2022).
Our review of the Claims Commission’s factual findings is de novo upon the record, with a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Mathews v. State, No. W2005-01042-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 3479318, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2005). “We accord great deference to the Claims Commission’s determinations on matters of witness credibility and will not re-evaluate such determinations absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.” Skipper v. State, No. M2009-00022-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 2365580, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2009). We employ an abuse of discretion standard with respect to the Claims Commission’s evidentiary rulings. In re Demitrus M. T., No. E2009-02349-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 863288, at *14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2011).
Cavaliere v. State of Tennessee, No. M2021-00038-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2022).
The presumption of correctness afforded to the Claims Commission’s factual findings does not extend to its legal conclusions. Bowman v. State, 206 S.W.3d 467, 472 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
