Jeanie Holsclaw v. Ivy Hall Nursing Home, Inc., E2016-02178-COA-T10B-CV

Holsclaw sued Ivy Hall Nursing Home for retaliatory discharge; after multiple delays and judge reassignments, Judge Jean Stanley presided.
Ivy Hall moved under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 35.01 to have Holsclaw examined by a certified rehabilitation counselor (CRC), Edward M. Smith, to assess employability and possible vocational disability.
At the Rule 35 hearing, Judge Stanley, unfamiliar with CRCs, telephoned Dr. Wayne Mulkey (director of the University of Tennessee rehabilitation counseling department) to ask about the CRC program and whether CRCs are qualified to testify as experts; she disclosed that call on the record and granted the examination.
Ivy Hall later moved to recuse Judge Stanley, arguing the judge obtained extrajudicial factual information relevant to contested issues (expert qualifications) that was not subject to adversarial testing; the judge denied recusal.
Ivy Hall filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B; the Court of Appeals reviewed the recusal de novo.
The Court of Appeals held the judge’s out‑of‑court consultation with Dr. Mulkey constituted an independent investigation and acquisition of extrajudicial knowledge about disputed facts (whether CRCs can be expert witnesses), creating an appearance of impropriety and requiring recusal; matter remanded to a different judge.

Issue	Holsclaw's Argument	Ivy Hall's Argument	Held
Whether the judge’s off‑record call created an appearance of impropriety requiring recusal	The call merely sought a court‑appointed expert and did not produce independent knowledge of disputed facts; no impropriety	The judge acquired extrajudicial information about CRC qualifications relevant to contested evidentiary rulings, creating appearance of bias	Judge’s communication constituted independent investigation/extrajudicial knowledge about disputed facts; recusal required
Whether the recusal motion/appeal was sanctionable	(implicit) motion/appeal not improper	Motion and accelerated appeal were proper and timely under Rule 10B	Appeal not sanctionable; recusal appeal successful

Bean v. Bailey, 280 S.W.3d 798 (Tenn. 2009) (right to fair trial before an impartial tribunal is fundamental)
State v. Austin, 87 S.W.3d 447 (Tenn. 2002) (recusal safeguards prevent prejudgment and preserve public confidence)
Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (appearance of impartiality is as important as actual impartiality)
Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 38 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2001) (objective test: whether a reasonable person would question judge’s impartiality)
Alley v. State, 882 S.W.2d 810 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (bias must stem from extrajudicial source to disqualify)
Wilson v. Wilson, 987 S.W.2d 555 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (appearance of impropriety can require recusal without proof of actual prejudice)
Edgar v. K.L., 93 F.3d 256 (7th Cir. 1996) (judge’s out‑of‑court meetings with experts produced extrajudicial knowledge touching the merits; recusal required)
Pullum v. Robinette, 174 S.W.3d 124 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard explained; contrasted with Rule 10B de novo review)