Stewart v. Singing River Hosp. Sys., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2004-WC-00707-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-CT-00707-SCT2004-WC-00707-COA |
|
| Oral Argument: | 01-26-2005 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-09-2005 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Unsupported opinion - Medical evidence - Pain Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ., IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): ISHEE, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-31-2003 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Krebs Disposition: AFFIRMED COMMISSION FINDING OF NO PERMANENT DISABILITY Case Number: 2002-00251 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JANIE STEWART |
DOUGLAS BAGWELL, THOMAS LYNN CARPENTER |
||
| Appellee: | SINGING RIVER HOSPITAL SYSTEM AND SEDGWICK OF MS, INC. | MICHAEL J. MCELHANEY, GINA BARDWELL TOMPKINS |
|
|
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 - Unsupported opinion - Medical evidence - Pain |
| Summary of the Facts: | Janie Stewart was injured while employed by Kare-in Home Health. The administrative law judge found that Stewart had suffered a compensable injury, was entitled to continuing reasonable and necessary medical services relating to the injury, and was permanently and totally disabled as a result of the accident. The Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed the opinion of the administrative law judge, and the circuit court affirmed the Commission’s decision. Stewart appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Unsupported opinion Stewart argues that the Commission improperly relied on the opinion of a vocation rehabilitationist hired by the employer/carrier which incorrectly stated that Stewart’s doctor found that Stewart could work at a sedentary level. The rehabilitationist’s assessment of Stewart was based on a single meeting with her and on the doctor’s deposition. In fact, when the rehabilitationist submitted a number of job descriptions for sedentary work for Stewart to the doctor, he disapproved of all the job descriptions as unsuitable for Stewart. Recoveries must rest upon reasonable probabilities and not upon mere possibilities. For the Commission to rely on the overly optimistic interpretation by the rehabilitationist of the doctor’s deposition was clearly erroneous, particularly in light of his inability to find a single job description that met with the doctor’s approval. Issue 2: Medical evidence The Commission found that Stewart had been seen by two well respected physicians practicing on the Mississippi Gulf Coast area and neither one opined that she was unable to work. Expert testimony based on an inadequate or incomplete examination does not carry as much weight and has little or no probative value compared to the opinion of an expert who made a thorough and adequate examination. Here, both the doctors relied on by the Commission noted that Stewart’s treating physician would be in the best position to evaluate her condition. Therefore, the Commission incorrectly relied on the opinions of the two Gulf Coast physicians. Issue 3: Pain Stewart faults the Commission’s opinion for failing to note that Stewart still experiences pain and has been in pain for some period of time. The Commission’s primary holding was that Stewart was under a duty to seek employment despite the fact that her treating physician had stated that she was totally disabled and had taken her off work. In order for Stewart to seek employment she would have had to go directly against medical advice. The hospital’s statement at the hearing that there was a job available which met the medical restrictions is directly in conflict with the testimony of Stewart’s doctor that he had contacted the hospital about alternative employment and that the hospital had not been cooperative or offered any such employment. The Commission should have taken into consideration Stewart’s continuing pain. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
