Merit Distrib. v. Hudson
| Docket Number: | 2003-WC-02426-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-28-2004 Opinion Author: Bridges, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Subsequent employment - Work-related injury Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Irving, Myers, Chandler, Griffis and Barnes, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Ishee, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-02-2003 Appealed from: UNION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Henry L. Lackey Disposition: AFFIRMED THE DECISION TO GRANT PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS. Case Number: U-2002-313 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | MERIT DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC. AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA |
HAROLD RAY ROGERS
JOHN H. FREELAND |
||
| Appellee: | SUSAN A. HUDSON | WILLIAM O. RUTLEDGE |
|
|
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 - Subsequent employment - Work-related injury |
| Summary of the Facts: | Susan Hudson was injured while making a delivery for her employer, Merit Distribution Services. She filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, and the administrative law judge found Hudson to be permanently and totally disabled. The Full Commission adopted the administrative law judge’s findings and affirmed. Merit appealed to circuit court which affirmed. Merit appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Employment Merit argues that Hudson made no real effort to find a job within her physical limitations. The factors to consider in deciding whether the claimant has made an attempt to find employment are economic and industrial aspects of the local community, the jobs available in the community, and the claimant's general educational background including work skills and the particular nature of the disability for which compensation is sought. Hudson testified that she applied for a trucking position at five companies. Merit claimed that it could not find listings in the phone book for some of the companies with which Hudson applied and that some of the companies claimed Hudson did not apply for a position with them. Although the evidence conflicted, there was evidence that suggested Hudson attempted to find subsequent employment. Issue 2: Work-related injury Merit argues that there are inconsistencies in Hudson’s work-related injury claim. The lay witnesses who testified on Hudson’s behalf had inconsistencies in their stories regarding the specifics of Hudson’s injury. In addition, Hudson’s personnel file was inconsistent with other evidence that Hudson presented. Despite the conflicting evidence, the administrative judge concluded that Hudson did sustain a work-related injury. As the finder of fact, the Commission agreed with the administrative judge that the evidence Hudson presented was more convincing. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
