Hurdle & Son v. Holloway
| Docket Number: | 2006-WC-02101-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-04-2008 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Due process - Authority of circuit court Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment; Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-13-2006 Appealed from: MARSHALL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Henry L. Lackey Disposition: After a hearing by an administrative law judge, an appeal to the full Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission), and a subsequent appeal to the Circuit Court of Marshall County, the employer and carrier were ordered to compensate the Wisemans for twenty-four hour care; REVERSED IN PART Case Number: M98-230 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | HURDLE & SON AND MS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY |
J. KEITH PEARSON,
SARAH JANE LEWIS |
|
|
| Appellee: | MICHAEL A. HOLLOWAY | BARRETT JEROME CLISBY, JAMES KIZER JONES | ||
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 - Due process - Authority of circuit court |
| Summary of the Facts: | Due to a work-related accident in February 1996, Michael Holloway was rendered a quadriplegic. Since his discharge from the hospital, Holloway has been cared for by his mother and stepfather, Nettie and James Wiseman, at their home. Holloway has been receiving benefits under the workers’ compensation statute, and the Wisemans have been compensated for their care of Holloway at a rate of seven dollars per hour for sixteen hours each day. Holloway filed a motion requesting that Hurdle & Son and Mississippi Casualty Insurance Company (employer and carrier) be required to pay for a life-care planner and that the Wisemans be compensated for their care of Holloway at a rate of seven dollars per hour for twenty-four hours each day. After a hearing by an administrative law judge, an appeal to the full Workers’ Compensation Commission, and a subsequent appeal to the circuit court, the employer and carrier were ordered to compensate the Wisemans for twenty-four hour care. The employer and carrier appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The employer and carrier argue that their due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated in the initial administrative hearing, in that counsel for employer and carrier were improperly notified of Holloway’s intention to present evidence and examine witnesses during that hearing, compromising their ability to conduct adequate discovery and otherwise properly prepare for the hearing. They also argue that the circuit court improperly re-weighed evidence in violation of its standard of review. At a bare minimum, due process in an administrative hearing requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. In this case, it is clear from the record that Holloway failed to follow the proper procedures for setting an evidentiary hearing before the administrative law judge. Among other things, the Procedural Rules of the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission require that, in order to controvert an issue, a claimant must file a petition to controvert, giving the employer and carrier an opportunity to answer and conduct discovery. Prehearing statements must then be filed with the administrative law judge, and only then can an evidentiary hearing take place. None of these procedures were followed in this case. Counsel for the employer and carrier were never notified, through a petition or otherwise, that Holloway intended to present evidence and examine witnesses at the motion hearing until their appearance before the administrative law judge. The issue concerning the procedural defects of the hearing was rendered moot solely because, after hearing all of the evidence Holloway intended to present, the administrative judge effectively granted a directed verdict to the employer and carrier, a decision which was later affirmed by the full Commission. Under these circumstances, the circuit court did not have the authority to conduct an independent evaluation of the evidence the administrative law judge allowed into the initial hearing and to reach new legal conclusions concerning those facts. The circuit court violated the procedural due process rights of the employer and carrier in doing so. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
