CompFox AI Summary
Defendants filed a petition for rehearing, asserting that the Court's opinion overlooked, misapprehended, and incorrectly stated material facts. Their concern specifically related to an affidavit by Dr. Ronald Cherry, which was inadvertently omitted from the appellate record but later included via stipulation. The Court clarified that its judgment was based on the evidence within the record and applicable Workers' Compensation Statutes, not on the stipulation regarding the affidavit's contents. Consequently, the petition for rehearing was denied.
Ingram v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. is a workers' compensation case decided in Tennessee Supreme Court. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Tennessee Supreme Court.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Defendants filed a petition for rehearing, asserting that the Court's opinion overlooked, misapprehended, and incorrectly stated material facts. Their concern specifically related to an affidavit by Dr. Ronald Cherry, which was inadvertently omitted from the appellate record but later included via stipulation. The Court clarified that its judgment was based on the evidence within the record and applicable Workers' Compensation Statutes, not on the stipulation regarding the affidavit's contents. Consequently, the petition for rehearing was denied.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.