Union Camp Corp., et al. v. Hall


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-WC-01528-COA
Linked Case(s): 2005-WC-01528-COA ; 2005-CT-01528-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 09-26-2006
Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Workers’ compensation - Statute of limitations - Causation - Permanent total disability - Compensable injury
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-22-2005
Appealed from: Chickasaw County Circuit Court
Judge: Andrew K. Howorth
Disposition: PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS IN FAVOR OF THE CLAIMANT.
Case Number: H2002-113

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: UNION CAMP CORPORATION AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY




SARAH JANE LEWIS, J. KEITH PEARSON



 

Appellee: LINDA J. HALL CHARLIE BAGLAN  

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 - Causation - Permanent total disability - Compensable injury

Summary of the Facts: In 1992, Linda Hall injured her left knee as she operated machinery in Union Camp’s plant. In 1994, Hall filed a petition to controvert with the Workers’ Compensation Commission. In 1999, Hall amended her petition to controvert and claimed that she also suffered a compensable injury to her right knee. In 2000, Hall attempted to amend her petition to controvert again, claiming she developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease due to her employment. The administrative judge found that Hall was entitled to permanent and total disability benefits for her left and right knees but not for the disease. Union Camp appealed to the Full Commission, and Hall cross-appealed. The Full Commission affirmed the administrative judge’s decision regarding both Union Camp’s appeal and Hall’s cross-appeal. The circuit court affirmed both decisions. Union Camp appeals, and Hall cross-appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Statute of limitations Union Camp argues that the Commission erred when it did not find that the statute of limitations barred Hall’s right knee claim. Union Camp did not raise the statute of limitations at the initial hearing. Therefore, this issue is procedurally barred. Issue 2: Causation Union Camp argues that the Commission erred when it found that Hall’s right knee injury was caused by her employment. Union Camp argues that Hall injured her right knee due to an innate defect entirely unrelated to her employment. Proof of causation is sufficient even if it is minimal or reasonably incidental to employment. Employment need not be the sole cause of injury. While two doctors were of the opinion that Hall’s right knee injury was unrelated to her employment at Union Camp, additional evidence from competent physicians indicated that Hall’s right knee injury was connected to her employment at Union Camp. Therefore, the Commission’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious, nor was it based on an error of law or an unsupported finding of fact. Issue 3: Permanent total disability Union Camp argues that Hall is not entitled to benefits for permanent total disability because Hall put forth no proof of loss of wage earning capacity, Hall did not conduct a job search, no evidence supported a finding that Hall sustained total loss of use of her right knee, and Hall could have returned to work at Union Camp. In a scheduled member case, if a claimant presents evidence that he is unable to continue in the position that he held at the time he suffered an injury, that evidence creates a rebuttable presumption that the claimant suffered a total occupational loss of the scheduled member. The degree and permanence of a claimant’s industrial disability is a question of fact to be proven by the evidence and facts as a whole. Hall presented evidence that causes operation of the presumption of total occupational loss of use of her knees. Hall was over fifty years old and her previous forms of employment were well in her past. Hall’s evidence created a presumption of occupational loss of use of both her knees. A job search is not part of a claimant’s burden of proof because loss of use of two major scheduled members automatically gives rise to permanent total disability and 450 weeks of benefits. Therefore, the Commission did not err. Issue 4: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Hall argues that the Commission erred when it did not find that Hall’s COPD claim was a compensable injury. Hall’s COPD was attributed to other causes. She had worked around body shop paint for a number of years and also testified that she smoked for eight to ten years. One of the doctors testified that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Hall’s smoking and her history at the body shop were potential causes of her COPD. Because there is ample evidence that Hall’s COPD claim was not a compensable injury, the Commission’s decision is affirmed.


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