Kitchens v. Jerry Vowell Logging
| Docket Number: | 2003-WC-01464-COA | |
| Oral Argument: | 01-15-2004 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Date: 05-25-2004 Opinion Author: SOUTHWICK, P.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Commissioner’s assistance to administrative judge - Supplementation of record - Permanent loss of wage earning capacity Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., BRIDGES, P.J., THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-06-2003 Appealed from: Attala County Circuit Court Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: AFFIRMED COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | VERNON LAMAR KITCHENS |
YANCY B. BURNS |
||
| Appellee: | JERRY VOWELL LOGGING AND MISSISSIPPI LOGGERS SELF-INSURED FUND, INC. | STEVEN D. SLADE |
|
|
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 - Commissioner’s assistance to administrative judge - Supplementation of record - Permanent loss of wage earning capacity |
| Summary of the Facts: | While employed by Jerry Vowell Logging as a truck driver, Vernon Kitchens injured his back. The employer admitted the injury and its compensability but did not accept that its effects were permanent. The administrative law judge found that Kitchens had suffered no loss of wage earning capacity as a result of his injury. That decision was affirmed by a 2-0 vote of the Commission. The circuit court affirmed, and Kitchens appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Commissioner’s assistance to administrative judge A report prepared by the Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review (PEER) indicated that a commissioner had assisted an administrative judge who was having workload problems on six of her cases. One of the identified cases was the present one. The PEER Committee gave its opinion about the validity of that assistance, a legal opinion that is not binding on the judiciary. The Court of Appeals determined that the record should be supplemented because of the possibility that the administrative judge's role in making the initial decision in the case may not have been what the record indicated. Although the Commission simply presented a legal objection to the request for supplementation, Commissioner Lydia Quarles, whose role in certain cases has been questioned, presented her explanation of events in a concurring opinion to the Commission order. With regard to the Commission’s objection to the request for supplementation, the Court may not seek to have explained the thought processes behind a judgment, since a judgment must speak for itself even in the agency context. Inquiry may be had, though, as to relevant matters of fact as long as the factual matters do not probe into the mental processes employed in formulating the decision. Because of the issues that validly can arise in appellate review of an order that is more, or less, than just the findings and conclusions of the person whose role it was to reach that decision, the limited supplementation that was ordered was appropriate. Commissioner Quarles indicated that she prepared factual summaries for the administrative judge in order to relieve that judge's backlog. The problem facing the Commission when the assistance was provided to the administrative judge in this case was one of timely processing of claims. The individual entitled to make a decision that will become final if not appealed, but whose decision will have no legal weight at all once the Commission acts on an appeal, had assistance from one of those who usually reviews the decision. There is nothing in Commissioner Quarles' description of events to indicate that she took charge of the administrative judge's decisionmaking. The form of assistance may be unusual, but it still was just assistance. Even if the judge's thought process was somehow affected, that is beyond the reach of proper inquiry. There would have been a more destabilizing set of facts if the commissioner had participated in the appellate review of the decision. Because the administrative judge issued the actual decision and on agency appeal the assisting commissioner did not participate, there is no procedural invalidity to the Commission's resolution of this case. Issue 2: Permanent loss of wage earning capacity The administrative judge in the opinion adopted by the Commission found that the claimant may return to driving a truck and since the testimony elicited at hearing by Mr. Vowell reflects that he is willing to rehire claimant with accommodations and at the same rate of pay, the claimant failed to prove a loss of wage-earning capacity. However, if Kitchens has a permanent, employment-caused disability, the fact that his former employer is willing to rehire him with adjusted job requirements at the same pay does not sustain the finding of no loss of wage-earning capacity. If the claimant has been rehired at wages at least as high as before the injury, there is a rebuttable presumption that there is no loss of wage-earning capacity. The similar wage is rebutted as proof of no disability if it is being paid at least in part for charitable purposes. What must be compared for workers' compensation benefits purposes are the actual wages before the injury and the earning capacity after the injury. Here, the proof does not show that Kitchens was in reasonably good health before the injury and suffered from physical limitations only after the job-related injury. However, it could be that the degenerative disc problem was in fact the cause of the newly recognized work limitations. Instead, the workplace injury might have been the source. It also could be that the injury and the disease worked in combination. It cannot be determined from the Commission's adoption of the administrative judge's findings, whether Kitchens' limitations were found to arise from his workplace injury. The case is remanded so these additional issues will be considered in the fact-findings and legal conclusions. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
