Michael Dinovo, Jr. v. Kenneth Binkley, 706 S.W.3d 334

Michael DiNovo, Jr. brought a tort suit against Southern Energy Company alleging injuries from an explosion while working at their biodiesel facility.
DiNovo had previously settled a workers’ compensation claim with Southern, which ordinarily would be his exclusive remedy for work-related injuries.
DiNovo asserted he was actually an independent contractor at the time and accused Southern of fraudulently misclassifying him as an employee.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Southern, finding DiNovo could not bring a tort suit after conceding employee status in his earlier case.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals declined to address the merits, citing DiNovo's failure to include record citations in the argument section of his brief (though they were present elsewhere).
The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed whether the appellate court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to consider the appeal due to this briefing deficiency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to repeat record citations in the argument section waives appellate issues	Citations present elsewhere in the brief suffice for review; technical error should not bar merits review	Rules require citations in the argument section; absence justifies waiver	Court of Appeals should have addressed merits; technical deficiency did not warrant waiver
Whether the appellate process was impeded by the citation deficiency	No impediment; defendant understood arguments and no prejudice occurred	Argument waived for failure to strictly comply with rules	Technicality did not impede review or prejudice parties; waiver was improper
Appellate court’s discretion to excuse technical rule deficiencies	Discretion should be used to favor resolution on merits absent prejudice	Stringent application of briefing rules is justified	Discretion must be reasonably exercised to advance justice; rules are not ends in themselves
Remedy for insufficient citations	Consider arguments on the merits, or at least provide an opportunity to cure defect	Complete waiver and dismissal proper per precedent	Remand for consideration on the merits; opportunity to correct should have been given

Trezevant v. Trezevant, 696 S.W.3d 527 (Tenn. 2024) (emphasizing the policy of resolving appeals on their merits, not technicalities)
Johnson v. Hardin, 926 S.W.2d 236 (Tenn. 1996) (appellate rules should facilitate, not hinder, the pursuit of justice)
Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (waiver for briefing deficiencies applies when errors impede review or prejudice opponents)