Garcia v. Super Sagless Corp.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-WC-02163-COA
Linked Case(s): 2006-WC-02163-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 11-13-2007
Opinion Author: CARLTON, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Workers’ compensation - Statute of limitations - Section 71-3-53 - Estoppel
Judge(s) Concurring Separately: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Ishee and Roberts, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Barnes, J.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-30-2006
Appealed from: LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Sharion R. Aycock
Disposition: AFFIRMED WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION’S DISMISSAL OF MOTION TO REINSTATE CLAIM
Case Number: Cv05-159(A)L

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: JUSTINO C. GARCIA




JOHN P. FOX TINA MARIE DUGARD SCOTT



 

Appellee: SUPER SAGLESS CORPORATION DENNIS W. VOGE GINGER MOORE ROBEY  

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 - Statute of limitations - Section 71-3-53 - Estoppel

Summary of the Facts: While at work, Justino Garcia injured his back. After receiving some workers’ compensation benefits, Garcia filed a petition to controvert. His employer, Super Sagless Corporation, Leggett and Platt, and its insurance carrier, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, admitted in their answer that Garcia was injured during the course of his employment with Super Sagless. They disputed, however, the extent of his injuries, his average weekly wage, the reasonableness and necessity of the medical treatment he received, and suggested that he may have had a pre-existing injury or disease that contributed to his work injury. The administrative law judge ordered that Garcia’s claim be dismissed for his failure to file a completed pre-hearing statement. Garcia filed a motion to reinstate his claim on the docket and included a completed pre-hearing statement. The employer and carrier responded, claiming that Garcia’s claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations that began to run upon their filing of a Form B-31 notice of final payment. However, no Form B-31 was ever filed in this case. The administrative law judge entered an order denying Garcia’s motion as being barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The full workers’ compensation commission affirmed the administrative law judge’s rulings. Garcia appealed to circuit court which affirmed the Commission’s decision. Garcia appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Garcia argues that the Commission and the administrative law judge erred by not considering the employer’s failure to file a Form B-31 notice of final payment when refusing to reinstate his claim on the docket. Had the administrative law judge and the Commission relied on the filing of a Form B-31 in determining whether Garcia’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations, then the employer’s failure to file the form would be of consequence. However, the one-year limitations period began to run when the administrative law judge’s order of dismissal became final. Section 71-3-53 is clear that a claim may be reviewed within one year of the filing of a Form B-31, or within one year after the rejection of the claim. The administrative law judge dismissed Garcia’s claim on November 4, 2003. That order became final on November 24, 2003. Accordingly, Garcia had until November 24, 2004, to file his motion to reinstate his claim on the docket, which he did not file until April 8, 2005. Garcia also argues that the employer and carrier should be estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense because of their behavior after the claim was initially dismissed. Garcia did not raise the issue of estoppel in his petition for review of the decision of the administrative law judge, nor did he raise it in his notice of appeal to the circuit court. Therefore, it is not properly before the appellate court.


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