Metalloy Corp. v. Gathings
| Docket Number: | 2006-WC-01627-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-WC-01627-COA ; 2006-CT-01627-SCT ; 2006-CT-01627-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-04-2007 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Causal connection - Layman testimony Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS AND ISHEE, Dissenting Author : CARLTON, J. Dissent Joined By : BARNES, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-11-2006 Appealed from: LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: AFFIRMED DECISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION. Case Number: CV06-096(G)L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | METALLOY CORPORATION
MISSISSIPPI MUNICIPAL WORKERS’
COMPENSATION GROUP |
DAVID B. MCLAURIN
MICHAEL ANTHONY WILLIAMS |
||
| Appellee: | JAMES GATHINGS | JEFFERY M. NAVARRO |
|
|
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 connection - Layman testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Gathings injured his left eye while working for Metalloy Corporation. Following his injury and eventual loss of sight in his left eye, Gathings filed his petition to controvert. He was initially denied benefits after a hearing in front of the administrative law judge. However, upon appeal to the Full Commission this decision was reversed. The circuit court affirmed. Metalloy appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Metalloy argues that the Commission’s decision that a causal connection between the work-related accident and Gathings’ loss of sight was not supported by substantial evidence. While Dr. Yoser could not state with any reasonable degree of medical certainty what exactly caused Gathings’ vision to fail, he testified that the trauma Gathings experienced from the incident at work and the resultant iritis could have caused Gathings’ loss of vision in his left eye. While a statement such as it “could have caused” the injury typically only amounts to an expression of possibility insufficient to show causation, Dr. Yoser also stated that he knew of no other cause in Gathings’ medical history that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty would have led to the diminution of Gathings’ sight other than the trauma experienced as a result of the work-related accident. Based upon Dr. Yoser’s testimony, the decision of the Commission is supported by substantial evidence. Metalloy also argues that the Commission erroneously relied upon Gathings’ own layman testimony that he lost his sight in his left eye as a result of the accident. While this testimony would not be sufficient to prove a causal connection between the accident and Gathings’ loss of sight, as noted above, this was not the only testimony the Commission relied on in reaching its decision. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
