Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., et al. v. Stuart
| Docket Number: | 2002-WC-00204-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00204-SCT ; 2002-WC-00204-COA ; 2002-CT-00204-SCT ; 2002-CT-00204-SCT ; 2002-CT-00204-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-01-2003 Opinion Author: King, P.J. Holding: REVERSED AND COMMISSION'S ORDER |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Causal connection Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Griffis, JJ. Dissenting Author : Chandler, J. Dissent Joined By : Bridges, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-22-2002 Appealed from: Rankin County Circuit Court Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: REVERSED WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF BENEFITS AND REINSTATED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS Case Number: 2001-242 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., A Division of Johnson & Johnson, and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company |
JOSEPH T. WILKINS III |
||
| Appellee: | Edward A. Stuart | ARTHUR F. JERNIGAN JR. LANCE L. STEVENS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Workers’ compensation - Causal connection |
| Summary of the Facts: | Edward Stuart claimed to have suffered injuries to his back while working as a pharmaceutical sales representative for Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. He filed a petition to controvert, and the administrative law judge awarded Stuart permanent total disability benefits for 450 weeks. Janssen appealed to the Workers' Compensation Commission which reversed and dismissed Stuart's claim. Stuart appealed to circuit court which reversed and reinstated the order of the administrative law judge. Janssen appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Janssen argues that the court erred in substituting its opinion for that of the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission and that the court applied an erroneous standard of review. In workers' compensation cases, the claimant has the burden to show an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment and a causal connection between the injury and the claimed disability. Proof of causal connection must rise above mere possibility. Stuart testified that he began experiencing mild tenderness in his middle back when he and several other Janssen employees were on their way to the airport in a van and a drunk driver hit the van. However, he returned to work and continued to work over the next few months. When the pain became unbearable, he went to the emergency room where he indicated that he had been experiencing back pain for a week. There was a conflict in the doctors' testimony concerning the differing fact patterns presented pertaining to the time period when Stuart began experiencing pain, and their opinions were stated in terms of possibility. In addition, Stuart’s behavior for the 60 days immediately following the accident was not consistent with the behavior and pain response of an individual who had suffered the type of injury Stuart claimed, and Stuart did not mention the accident and injury to his immediate supervisor. This is sufficient evidence for the Commission to find that Stuart's injuries were not the result of a work related accident. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
