for an employee who was burned to death in a boiler after failing to wait the requisite twenty-four hours for cooling, observed that “[n]ot only does wil[l]ful connote intentional, purposeful violation of orders ... but also an element of perverseness.” In Gart, this Court observed that the “pertinent distinction[ ]” in instances where willful misconduct existed was that the “employee was motivated by self interest,” whereas there was no misconduct when the employee “eommittfed] an error of judgment, in what he regarded as the ... interest of his employer.” Id. at 141-42. A Panel opinion has equated perverseness with being “obstinate or petulant.” Neely v. Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Corp., No. 03S01-9410-CH-00099, 1995 WL 595598, at *4 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel Aug. 21, 1995) (<HOLDING>). The Larson’s treatise has criticized the
holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service holding that the district court  did not abuse its discretion in denying his petition for reinstatement where membership in good standing in the state bar was required before attorney could be admitted to the federal bar and applicant had not been readmitted to state bar holding that the rule does not apply to bar tort claims against service providers holding decision on a motion to restore the case to the active docket is not immediately appealable holding that a rule requiring linemen to give consideration to lines which are energized did not bar recovery for a lineman injured when he hurriedly climbed a pole with a downed line to ascertain the problem and restore service