Binswanger Mirror and Travelers Ins. Co. v. Wright
| Docket Number: | 2005-WC-01915-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-WC-01915-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-05-2006 Opinion Author: LEE, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Intervening causes - Wage earning capacity - Admission of deposition Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, 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: 09-19-2005 Appealed from: Grenada County Circuit Court Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: AFFIRMED THE COMMISSION’S DECISION TO GRANT BENEFITS TO THE EMPLOYEE Case Number: 2005-194-CV-L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | BINSWANGER MIRROR AND TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY |
SIMPSON GRAY EDMONDSON,
FRANKLIN WILLIAMS |
||
| Appellee: | WILLIAM E. WRIGHT | ALAN D. LANCASTER |
|
|
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 - Intervening causes - Wage earning capacity - Admission of deposition |
| Summary of the Facts: | William Wright worked at Binswanger Mirror Co. He was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Four days after his job with Binswanger was terminated, Wright filed for, and was granted, disability benefits with the Social Security Administration. Wright filed a petition to controvert with the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission. The administrative law judge found that Wright suffered from work-related CTS and awarded benefits commensurate with a permanent, total disability. The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s findings, and the circuit court affirmed the Commission. Binswanger appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Binswanger argues that the Commission erred in finding that CTS was the cause of Wright’s disability, as Wright’s health problems stem from intervening and superceding causes. Binswanger points to evidence of a stroke and Wright’s history of diabetes and testimony that the diabetes could have exacerbated the CTS. Where there is evidence of a medically cognizable, identifiable, symptomatic condition which antedated the injury and the employee experienced some absence of normal wage earning capacity, then apportionment must be ordered. The testimony presented does not support a conclusion that Binswanger is entitled to apportionment, as Wright suffered from diabetes and glaucoma for years prior to his termination from Binswanger, yet continued to fulfill his work obligations to his employer. As there was a divergence in opinions regarding the theory that Wright’s disability stemmed from a stroke, there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s decision to affirm the findings of the ALJ. Binswanger also argues that Wright failed to present evidence regarding his wage earning capacity and that he failed to present evidence that he sought employment following his termination from the company. However, these assertions are sufficiently contradicted by the record, as a vocational consultant testified that Wright’s CTS, his eighth-grade education, his lack of experience in other fields and the dismal job market limited his ability to compete with others in the current labor market. Binswanger also argues that the ALJ erred in relying on testimony presented by the vocational consultant. Parties must place objections on the record to preserve arguments for appeal. As no such objection was raised, this argument is without merit. Binswanger also argues that the ALJ erred in admitting Wright’s deposition into evidence, as Wright was available to testify at the hearing. There is no reversible error in the admission of Wright’s deposition, as Binswanger had the opportunity to address the deposition in Wright’s cross-examination. Additionally, the deposition reveals nothing that was not covered during Wright’s testimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
