Levi Strauss & Co., et al. v. Studaway


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-WC-01212-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 05-30-2006
Opinion Author: ISHEE, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Workers’ compensation - Loss of wage-earning capacity - Occupational loss
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, AND ROBERTS, JJ.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-27-2005
Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: William E. Chapman, III
Disposition: CIRCUIT COURT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWARDING STUDAWAY PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY.
Case Number: 2005-33JC

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: LEVI STRAUSS & CO. AND OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY




P. SHARKEY BURKE, MARSHA G. LAY



 

Appellee: STANIECE STUDAWAY MICHAEL M. WILLIAMS  

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 - Loss of wage-earning capacity - Occupational loss

Summary of the Facts: Staniece Studaway was injured while handling cartons for her employer, Levi Strauss & Company. The Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission determined that Studaway sustained a 50 percent industrial loss of use in her right arm, and awarded her permanent partial disability benefits. The circuit court affirmed. Levi and Old Republic Insurance Company appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Loss of wage-earning capacity Levi argues that because Studaway’s wages increased post-injury and she did not seek employment outside of Levi, the Commission’s determination that she suffered a loss of wage-earning capacity was arbitrary and capricious. Where a permanent partial disability renders a worker unable to continue in the position held at the time of the injury, such inability creates a rebuttable presumption of total occupational loss of the member, subject to other proof of the claimant’s ability to earn the same wages which the claimant was receiving at the time of injury. The presumption of total occupational loss can be rebutted by showing that the claimant is able to earn the same wages after the injury that she did before, or by other relevant evidence of wage-earning capacity, such as the claimant’s age, education and training, or the continuance of pain. For Studaway to receive benefits, it is not necessary for her to prove that she actually looked for employment outside of Levi. When a claimant seeks benefits based on an enhanced occupational effect of an injury to a schedule member, a variety of evidence is relevant to whether in fact the claimant is unable to perform the substantial acts of the employment. The Commission properly considered a variety of evidence in determining that Studaway suffered a loss of wage-earning capacity and a fifty-percent industrial loss of use to her right upper extremity. Issue 2: Occupational loss Levi argues that if the presumption of total occupational loss is rebutted, the claimant is not entitled to benefits for occupational loss of use of a scheduled member beyond the medical impairment rating, or functional loss. However, rebutting the presumption of total occupational loss does not necessarily preclude an award of benefits for occupational loss in excess of functional loss.


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