Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts (2024)

State of Tennessee v. Richard Russell Brandt
M2001-02129-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Charles Lee

The Appellant, Richard Russell Brandt, was convicted by a Bedford County jury of voluntary manslaughter and received a fifteen-year sentence, as a persistent offender. On appeal, Brandt raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, and (2) whether his sentence was proper. After review, we find that Brandt's issues are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the Bedford County Circuit Court is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Keith Leranso Wells
M2002-00356-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge James K. Clayton, Jr.

The Defendant, Keith Leranso Wells, was indicted on four counts of especially aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated assault. The Defendant pled guilty to two counts of especially aggravated robbery; the remaining counts were held in abeyance pending resolution of the charges against the Defendant's co-defendants. The Defendant agreed that his sentencing would be delayed until those charges were resolved. Subsequent to entry of the judgments of conviction against the Defendant, but prior to his sentencing, the Defendant requested to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court denied the Defendant's request and this appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Bobby L. Marshall
W2001-03106-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris B. Craft

Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Bobby L. Marshall, of sexual battery, a Class E felony. The defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to sixteen months in the workhouse and fined two thousand dollars. The defendant appeals his conviction, claiming that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on consent. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Donald R. Mobbley
W2002-00202-CCA-MR3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph B. Dailey

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Donald R. Mobbley, of burglary, a Class D felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to two years in the workhouse. The defendant appeals, claiming that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on theft of property as a lesser included offense. We hold that the evidence is sufficient and that theft is not a lesser included offense of burglary. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Kevin Island
W2002-00092-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bernie Weinman

The Defendant, Kevin Island, was convicted by a jury of especially aggravated kidnapping, a class A felony, and aggravated robbery, a class B felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II offender to concurrent sentences of twenty-five years and twelve years, respectively, to be served in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain his convictions. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Jason Hamilton
M2001-00348-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier

The defendant, Jason Hamilton, was convicted of first degree felony murder, second degree murder, and attempted aggravated robbery. The victim was named Thomas Spivey. The trial court merged the two murder convictions and sentenced the defendant to serve life in prison for the merged conviction. For his attempted aggravated robbery conviction, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve a four-year sentence concurrently with his life sentence. The defendant now appeals those convictions, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his self-incriminating statement and that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Clarence W. Carter
M2000-02230-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier

On March 29, 2000, a Davidson County jury convicted the defendant on one count of conspiracy to sell three hundred grams or more of a substance containing cocaine and one count of possession with intent to deliver twenty-six grams or more of a substance containing cocaine. For the conspiracy conviction the trial court sentenced him to thirty-six years as a multiple offender, and for the possession charge the defendant received a sixteen-year sentence also as a multiple offender. In addition, the trial court fined the defendant one hundred thousand dollars on each count. The court then determined that the possession conviction should run consecutively to the conspiracy conviction resulting in an effective sentence of fifty-two years. After unsuccessfully pursuing a motion for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial motion, the defendant brings this appeal raising a variety of issues. More specifically, the defendant alleges 1) that the trial court erred by not granting him a judgment of acquittal on the amended possession count; 2) that the charge of "possession of over 26 grams of cocaine fatally varied with the conviction of possession of over 26 grams of c[o]caine with intent to sell"; 3) that the conspiracy count is void for failing "to allege an overt act in pursuit of the conspiracy"; 4) that the evidence is insufficient to support both convictions; 5) that the trial court erred in failing to provide the lesser-included instruction regarding conspiracy to sell or deliver under three hundred grams of cocaine; 6) that the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant as a multiple offender; and 7) that the trial court excessively sentenced the defendant as a result of improperly ordering that the sentences arising from this case are to be served consecutively. After considering each of these, we find that none of them merit relief and, therefore, affirm the defendant's convictions.

Frederick J. Robinson v. State of Tennessee
M2001-02018-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cheryl A. Blackburn

In 1999, petitioner pled guilty to three counts of first degree pre-meditated murder and received three concurrent life sentences without possibility of parole. Petitioner now appeals from the denial of his post-conviction relief petition, contending that his plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily and that he had been denied the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief.

State of Tennessee v. Allen Lee Dotson, Sr.
M2001-01970-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas A. Greer, Jr.
The defendant challenges the sufficiency of evidence, the trial court's failure to declare a mistrial, and the "knowing" jury instruction as it relates to his second degree murder conviction. We hold no reversible error occurred at trial and affirm the judgment from the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. James F. Massengale
E2000-00774-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Phyllis H. Miller

The defendant, James F. Massengale, who had been charged with eight counts of theft of property valued at greater than $10,000, three counts of theft of property valued at more than $1,000, three counts of attempted theft of property with a value greater than $10,000, and one count of burglary of an automobile, was convicted of five counts of theft over $10,000, one count of attempted theft over $10,000, and one count of burglary of a vehicle. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eighteen years, with ten years to be served in the Department of Correction and eight years to be served on probation. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentences. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Christopher Lee Cooper
E2001-02847-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

The Defendant, Christopher Lee Cooper, pled guilty to theft over $500, a class E felony. The length and manner of service of the sentence were to be determined by the trial court. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to two years in the Department of Correction as a Range I standard offender. The Defendant now appeals as of right the length and manner of service of his sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Willie Tome Ensley v. Howard Carlton, Warden and State of Tennessee
E2002-00878-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Cupp

In 1986, a Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner of first degree murder and aggravated rape. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of life plus twenty-seven and a half years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. This Court affirmed the Petitioner's convictions and sentences on direct appeal, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal. The Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in 2000, alleging that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because: (1) count one of the indictment, charging the Petitioner with felony murder, contains no reference to the applicable statute; (2) count two of the indictment, charging him with aggravated rape, fails to state an offense because it omits the required allegation of the appropriate mens rea for aggravated rape; and (3) count one of the indictment is not signed by the district attorney general. The trial court denied the Petitioner's request for habeas corpus relief, finding that the sufficiency of an indictment cannot be properly challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding and finding that the Petitioner failed to establish that the indictment was insufficient. After review, we conclude that the Petitioner has failed to establish a claim for habeas corpus relief, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Daniel M. Johnson v. Schlegel Tennessee, Inc. A/K/A/ Btr
E2001-01570-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Byers, Sr.J.
Trial Court Judge: Frank V. Williams, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann._ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The defendant appeals the trial judge's decision that the plaintiff has a permanent disability to the mental faculties which was caused by exposure to chemicals in the workplace. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court is Affirmed BYERS, SR.J., in which ANDERSON, J., and THAYER, SP.J., joined. F. R. Evans, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellants, Schlegel Tennessee, Inc. a/k/a BTR Sealing Systems, North America Operations d/b/a BTR, Inc. and Cigna Property & Casualty. Rex A. Dale, Lenoir City, Tennessee, for the appellee, Daniel M. Johnson. MEMORANDUM OPINION Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial courts in workers' compensation cases. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). Facts The plaintiff was thirty years of age at the time of this trial. He had a twelfth grade education with no college, but was trained vocationally in the Army as a heavy weld mechanic. He began working for the defendants in May, 1991, as a mold operator producing automotive seals. In 1997 he began working as a coater operator, the position he held at the time of the chemical exposures alleged in this cause of action. The plaintiff's duties as coater operator required him to mix and pour toxic chemical coatings, prime, coat, and bake parts for automotive seals. During this process, the various chemicals that he mixed were fed into a reciprocating disk that spun the chemicals at high speed into an aerosol to coat the automotive seals which moved through the coater on a production line. The plaintiff alleges that fumes from this process were supposed to be vented out by an exhaust fan that did not work. When he told his supervisor that the fan did not work, the supervisor told him that it had not worked in quite a while. As a result, the plaintiff alleges, over spray from the spinning reciprocating disk landed outside the area of the coating operation and all around the floor in the area where he worked. The plaintiff alleges that on March 1, 1998, he started having allergic reactions to the chemicals to which he was being exposed at work. The effects of these reactions included rashes, chemical burns on his face, welts all over his body, discolored skin, and loss of motivation. He reported these problems to his supervisor and went to the emergency room for treatment of the symptoms. Over approximately the next eighteen months, as the plaintiff continued working, the symptoms appeared repeatedly and he continued to be treated for them. During this time the defendants paid some temporary total disability benefits when the plaintiff needed treatment and was unable to work. In addition to his physical symptoms, the plaintiff alleges that mental symptoms began to appear from his exposure to the chemicals at work. Several witnesses testified at trial that the plaintiff was emotionally upset, had lost weight, and was nervous and depressed following his exposure to the chemicals. Witnesses also described the plaintiff as panicky, anxious, and paranoid. The plaintiff testified that he now has memory and motivation problems as well as trouble sleeping due to anxiety. The plaintiff saw several different psychiatrists and psychologists for diagnosis and treatment of his mental problems that he alleges were caused by his chemical exposure in the workplace. The reports of these physicians led to the trial court's finding that the plaintiff suffers a psychological problem that was triggered byan initial allergic or toxic reaction that led to subsequent psychological events which resulted in a major depressive episode. -2-

Olivia Connor v. Chester County Sportswear Co
W2001-02114-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe H. Walker III, Sp.J.
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employer appeals the award of disability benefits to an employee who felt her knee pop when she stood and twisted to flush the commode while using the restroom at work. We reverse. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Trial Court Reversed. JOE H. WALKER III, SP.J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and JOE C. LOSER, SP.J., joined. William F. Kendall III, Jackson, TN, for the Appellant, Chester County Sportswear. Michael A. Jaynes, Jackson, TN, for the Appellee, Olivia Connor. MEMORANDUM OPINION The review of the findings of the trial court is de novo with a presumption of the correctness of the decision unless a preponderance of the evidence is contrary to those findings. Spencer v. Towson Moving & Storage, Inc., 922 S.W.2d 58 (Tenn. 1996). The relevant facts are not in dispute. Claimant was forty-two years old and employed with Defendant as a seamstress. She is about five feet five inches tall and weighed approximately 26 pounds. Claimant awoke on the morning of the accident, got out of bed, and felt a little catch in her left knee. She went to work and after about an hour took a restroom break. The restroom had stalls that are described as basic stalls, no different from other stalls. The commode was a standard commode with a handle on the side, described as no different from a commode at home or anywhere else. Claimant described what happened after using the commode: "As I started to get up, I had to turn to pull my pants up, and when I did, my knee twisted...." When asked, "But where you were twisting was to flush the commode. Correct?," she answered "Yes, sir." Claimant testified that the twisting injury caused her to feel as if everything was torn in her left knee. Dr. Nord determined she suffered a torn medial meniscus in her left knee. He described her injury as caused by standing up and twisting at the same time. He tried conservative treatment, which did not help. An arthroscopy was performed to try to take care of the torn cartilage. She had an excessive amount of chondromalacia and arthritis, and the treatment was not successful. She ultimately required total left knee replacement. Her right knee began to have pain as a result of more pressure put on that knee. Following left knee surgery, Claimant's right knee continued to deteriorate and ultimately required total right knee replacement. The employer treated the injury as non-compensable under the Workers' Compensation statute. The trial court awarded benefits. As pertinent to the issue on appeal, the trial court found: "Personal comfort activities, such as seeking toilet facilities, are generally regarded as compensable. Even though the Plaintiff's use of the bathroom was not necessarily beneficial to the employer, it was a part of her employment because of its being necessary for healthy job performance. The use of the bathroom was sanctioned by and provided for the benefit of the employees, and therefore, the cause is compensable as arising out of the course and scope of her employment." I. T.C.A. _ 5-6-12(a)(5) states the injury, in order to be compensable, must be one "arising out of" and "in the course of" employment. It does not state the employee must be doing something beneficial for his or her employer. Thus, the question focuses on whether the activity bears a reasonable relationship to the employment. The phrases "arising out of" and "in the course of employment" are not synonymous. Woods v. Harry B. Woods Plumbing Co., 967 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tenn. 1998). Both elements must be satisfied to impose liability on the employer. Thornton v. RCA Serv. Co., 188 Tenn. 644, 221 S.W.2d 954, 955 (1949). "In the Course of Employment" "In the course of" refers to the time, place and circ*mstances of the injury by accident. Loy v. North Bros. Co., 787 S.W.2d 916 (Tenn. 199). Activities termed as "personal comfort activities" are generally regarded as necessities in the workplace. These include such incidental acts as seeking toilet facilities. This activity is generally found to be sufficiently related to employment to be in the course of employment. In Carter v. Volunteer Apparel, Inc. (holding an employee had a compensable claim when injured in a break area prior to the commencement of normal working hours), the Court,

Donald Sisk v. Nexair, Llc
W2001-03077-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe H. Walker III, Sp.J.
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6- 225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employer appeals the award of permanent disability benefits to an employee. Because the existence and extent of a worker's permanent disability are questions of fact, the trial court is within its discretion to accept evidence presented by one medical expert over that of another expert. We affirm.

Norman Matthews v. State of Tennessee
W2001-02895-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bernie Weinman

The appellant, Norman Matthews, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In March 2000, Matthews pled guilty to burglary of a building and received an eight-year sentence. On appeal, Matthews argues that: (1) it was error for the post-conviction court to allow trial counsel to remain in the courtroom during the evidentiary hearing, despite invocation of "the rule" providing for sequestration of witnesses, and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court.

State of Tennessee v. Wesley Pickett
W2001-02458-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph B. Dailey

The appellant, Wesley Pickett, appeals the verdict of a Shelby County jury finding him guilty of theft of a motor vehicle valued between one thousand and ten thousand dollars and two counts of vandalism causing damage over five hundred dollars. On appeal, Pickett raises the single issue of whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions. After review, we find the evidence sufficient. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. James Dale Walker
E2002-00263-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

The Defendant, James Dale Walker, pled guilty to aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class C felony, and sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class E felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Defendant received concurrent sentences of six years and two years, respectively, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied alternative sentencing and ordered the Defendant to serve his effective sentence of six years in the Department of Correction. It is from this order that the Defendant now appeals as of right. We reverse the trial court's order that the Defendant serve his sentences in total confinement and remand to the trial court for consideration of some form of alternative sentence.

John Carbino v. Portland Utility Const. Co., Llc,
M2001-01840-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Carol Mccoy, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer and its insurer question (1) the trial court's finding that the employee's aortic dissection was an injury by accident arising out of his employment and (2) the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on 85 percent to the body as a whole for the combined effects of that injury and a subsequent compensable back injury. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (21 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and JAMES L. WEATHERFORD, SR. J., joined. Bridgett A. Wohlpart, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the appellants, Portland Utility Construction Company, LLC, and Travelers Property Casualty Corporation Lucius P. Hawes, Jr., Hopkinsville, Kentucky, for the appellee, John Carbino MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee or claimant, John Carbino, initiated this civil action on September 17, 1999 to recover workers' compensation benefits for two separate allegedly work related injuries. The first injury is alleged to have occurred on January 26, 1998, the second on June 23, 1999. On July 3, 21, after an earlier trial on the merits, the trial court awarded, among other things, permanent partial disability benefits on the basis of 85 percent to the body as a whole. The employer, Portland Utility Construction Company, and its insurance carrier, Travelers, have appealed. For injuries occurring on or after July 1, 1985, appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2) (21 Supp.). The reviewing court is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

Arlie Bingham vs. John Doles
W2002-00104-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Ron E. Harmon
This appeal arises from a boundary line dispute. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant, an adjacent land owner, alleging that a proposed addition to the defendant's home would encroach onto the plaintiff's property. The trial court ruled that defendant had gained title to the disputed property under the doctrines of adverse possession and title by acquiescence. The plaintiff appealed challenging the court's ruling on adverse possession. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

State v. Michael Pate
M2001-00076-COA-R7-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace
This case originated in the Juvenile Court of Dickson County, Tennessee and was appealed to the circuit court pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-159(a). Michael Pate appeals the action of the circuit court adopting the juvenile court action with slight modifications. We affirm the action of the trial court.

Judy Rodriguez v. Metro Gov't. of Nashville
M2001-02500-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
Municipal employee filed a petition for review of civil service commission order terminating her employment. The chancery court affirmed the order of the commission, finding that the record contained substantial and material evidence to support the termination. The employee has appealed. We affirm.

Henry Kerr v. Earl Lemoine
M2001-00986-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
Appellant judgment creditor appeals from the action of the trial court in post-judgment proceedings allowing installment payments of the underlying judgment. The record before the Court is inadequate for appellate review, and acting within our discretion, we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Michael A. Maddox v. State of Tennessee
M2002-00282-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Charles Lee

The Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of five counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class C felony, and two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sixteen-year term. This Court affirmed the Petitioner's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. The Petitioner now appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, arguing that his counsel at trial was ineffective. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Anna Lamb v. State
M1998-00910-COA-R12-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
This appeal stems from a mother's allegations that her mentally impaired daughter was sexually abused while in the custody of the Alvin C. York Agricultural Institute. The mother filed a claim on her daughter's behalf with the Division of Claims seeking $300,000 in damages. The claim was transferred to the Tennessee Claims Commission where, following a hearing, a Commissioner dismissed the claim because the mother had failed to establish that her daughter had been sexually abused while she was in the State's custody. The mother asserts on this appeal that the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner's findings. We affirm the Commissioner's dismissal of the claim.