Miss. Emp. Sec. Comm'n. v. Woods


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CC-01701-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 09-26-2006
Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Unemployment benefits - Misconduct - Violation of company policy
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: IRVING, J.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-09-2005
Appealed from: YAZOO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Jannie M. Lewis
Disposition: DECISION OF BOARD OF REVIEW REVERSED.
Case Number: 2005-CI-29

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION




ALBERT B. WHITE



 

Appellee: LINDA J. HALL CHARLIE BAGLAN  

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: Unemployment benefits - Misconduct - Violation of company policy

Summary of the Facts: Benny Woods injured his wrist while working at Hood Packaging Company. Woods was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. He was placed on medical leave and began receiving workers’ compensation benefits based on short term disability. The insurance carrier ceased coverage of Woods because he failed to follow through with his doctor’s recommended treatment. Woods was removed from the company’s payroll at that time. Woods filed a initial claim for unemployment benefits which was denied. Woods appealed, and the MDES appeals referee affirmed the examiner’s decision to disqualify Woods. Woods appealed to the Board of Review which affirmed the decision of the referee. Woods appealed to circuit court which reversed the decision. MESC appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: MESC argues that there was substantial evidence that Woods failed to call the company in violation of its policy and failed to follow his doctor’s recommended treatment. The record indicates that Woods did not contact the company from June 2004 to December 2004, because when he did call he was told that they did not have any light duty work available. His reasons for failing to call notwithstanding, this was a violation of the company’s policy. With regard to treatment, Woods testified that he attended all appointments the insurance company set for him. In addition, the record is devoid of any documentation or other testimony showing that Woods missed even a single appointment. Since the record lacks substantial evidence that Woods failed to attend or complete his therapy appointments, the only issue for consideration is whether his failure to call the company during his leave of absence constituted misconduct. The Mississippi Employment Security Commission Administrative Manual, Part V, Paragraph 1720, states that an employee shall not be found guilty of misconduct for violation of a rule unless the employee knew or should have known of the rule, the rule was lawful and reasonably related to the job environment and job performance, and the rule is fairly and consistently enforced. There is no question that Woods knew of the policy or that the policy was lawful and reasonably related to the work environment and job performance. However, the evidence shows that the company’s policy was not consistently enforced as to Woods. The company failed to enforce this policy until they were informed by their insurance carrier that Woods was no longer covered and payment for Woods’s treatments would be terminated. Therefore, Woods’s violation of the policy cannot be deemed misconduct.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court