Imperial Palace Casino, et al. v. Wilson
| Docket Number: | 2006-WC-00056-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-WC-00056-COA ; 2006-CT-00056-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-12-2006 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Causal relationship - Seeking reemployment - Vocational expert Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-07-2005 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Jerry O. Terry, Sr. Disposition: DECISION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AFFIRMED. Case Number: A-2402-2005-4 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | IMPERIAL PALACE CASINO AND GREAT
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY |
MERI ELIZABETH BARR, JOHN S. GONZALEZ |
||
| Appellee: | JOHNIE E. WILSON, JR. | JAMES KENNETH WETZEL |
|
|
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 relationship - Seeking reemployment - Vocational expert |
| Summary of the Facts: | Johnie Wilson, Jr. filed a worker’s compensation claim filed against Imperial Palace Casino. An administrative judge determined that Wilson’s claim was compensable. Imperial Palace and Wilson both appealed that ruling to the Workers’ Compensation Commission which found that Wilson’s claim was compensable, and, as urged by Wilson, ordered Imperial Palace to pay full disability benefits to Wilson, rather than the partial benefits ordered by the administrative judge. Imperial Palace appealed the Commission’s decision to circuit court which affirmed. Imperial Palace appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Causal relationship Imperial Palace argues that the court erred in affirming the Commission’s determination that there was a causal relationship between Wilson’s work and his injury, because Wilson did not tell his physician that his injury had been caused at work. While it is true that Wilson denied being injured at work during his first meeting with his physician, the physician further explained in his deposition that he and Wilson both thought that Wilson’s work likely caused his injury. He also testified that the fact that Wilson put on his intake form that he probably injured himself at work was significant. In order for Wilson’s claim to be compensable, his injury need only be connected to his employment. An employee’s work does not need to be the sole source of the injury. Because Wilson’s injury need not have been caused solely by his work at Imperial Palace, this issue is without merit. Wilson could attribute no other cause to his sudden pain, other than his work at Imperial Palace. By contrast, Imperial Palace presented no evidence that Wilson’s injury was not caused by his work at Imperial Palace, or that the work did not contribute to Wilson’s injury. Issue 2: Seeking reemployment Imperial Palace argues that the letter sent by Wilson’s attorney requesting that Imperial Palace notify Wilson of any job it had for him was insufficient to satisfy a presumption of total loss of wage earning capacity. While Wilson did not physically report to Imperial Palace, his attorney sent a letter to Imperial Palace on his behalf explicitly requesting that Imperial Palace notify Wilson if it had a job for him. Imperial Palace’s failure to respond in any way to this letter was a failure to reemploy Wilson. No authority is cited by Imperial Palace to indicate that contact by mail, rather than in person, is insufficient to constitute an attempt to return to work. Imperial Palace also argues that the Commission erred in finding that Wilson’s job search was reasonable and was made in good faith, because Wilson was officially released to return to work on May 19, 2003 but did not pursue any employment throughout May, June, July, or August of 2003. Since Wilson made an attempt to return to work, and Imperial Palace refused to hire him, Wilson has met the presumption of total disability, and the burden properly shifted to Imperial Palace to show that Wilson has suffered no reduction in earning capacity. The documentation presented clearly indicates that Wilson began his job search in earnest in September of 2003. The list provided by Wilson in mid-January of 2004 enumerated six attempts to locate employment between September 3, 2003, and October 6, 2003. In addition, twelve undated attempts to locate employment with specific companies were listed. Wilson also testified that he made additional contacts other than those listed on the document given to Imperial Palace prior to the hearing. Therefore, substantial evidence exists to support the Commission’s finding. Issue 3: Vocational expert Imperial Palace argues that the Commission erred in not requiring Wilson to work with Imperial Palace’s vocational expert. Because the Mississippi Supreme Court has not yet addressed this question, the Commission cannot be clearly erroneous for failing to terminate Wilson’s benefits. Furthermore, Imperial Palace’s expert was retained less than a month before the scheduled hearing in the matter. Under such circumstances, the Commission was not clearly erroneous for finding that Wilson’s job search was diligent, despite his refusal to work with the expert. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
