Manning v. Sunbeam-Oster Household Prod.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-WC-00786-COA
Linked Case(s): 2007-WC-00786-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 04-15-2008
Opinion Author: ISHEE, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Workers’ compensation - Burden of proof - Medical evidence - Compensable treatment
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: BARNES, J. without separate written opinion
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-11-2007
Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert Helfrich
Disposition: The administrative law judge also concluded that an elective surgery performed in February 2002 and all treatment related to her physical problem after that 2002 surgery were non-Compensable, and that all her psychological care was non-compensable. The administrative law judge’s decision was later affirmed by the full Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) and the Circuit Court of Forrest County.
Case Number: C106-0117

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: EVELYN KAY MANNING




LESTER CLARK, NATHAN LESTER CLARK



 

Appellee: SUNBEAM-OSTER HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS AND NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA MATTHEW JASON SUMRALL  

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 - Burden of proof - Medical evidence - Compensable treatment

Summary of the Facts: Evelyn Manning suffered a back injury while working at a manufacturing plant owned and operated by Sunbeam-Oster Household Products. Manning filed a petition to controvert. Initially, all of Manning’s medical treatment, including treatment for her psychological issues, was covered and paid for by the employer’s insurance provider, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA. After a lengthy course of treatment, extending over a period of more than nine years, covering a range of physical and mental problems, and involving more than twenty-three different physicians, Manning’s claim was finally evaluated by an administrative law judge who concluded that Manning had a compensable claim for some of the treatment she received. However, the administrative law judge also concluded that an elective surgery performed in February 2002 and all treatment related to her physical problem after that 2002 surgery were non-compensable, and that all her psychological care was non-compensable. The administrative law judge’s decision was later affirmed by the full Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission and the circuit court. Manning appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Burden of proof Manning argues that the administrative law judge, instead of applying a burden of proof based on preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence, should have applied a burden of proof based on a substantial evidence standard. In a workers’ compensation case, the claimant bears the burden of proving by a fair preponderance of the evidence each element of the claim. Thus, the correct burden of proof for the administrative law judge to apply in this case would have been a burden based on the preponderance of the evidence, and this was in fact the burden applied during the administrative hearing. Issue 2: Medical evidence Manning argues that an administrative law judge, when faced with opinions from two equally competent physicians, should defer to the treating physician. Although the workers’ compensation statute gives the claimant the right to select their primary physician, it never refers to that physician as a “treating” physician. There is no reason why a physician examining a patient in an independent medical examination requested by an employer or a carrier is not “treating” the patient. An administrative law judges are not required to defer to “treating” or patient selected physicians when they are presented with credible countervailing evidence, and Manning’s argument on the issue of the proper weight to be given to the testimony of “treating” or patient-selected physicians is contrary to the prevailing law in this state. Issue 3: Compensable treatment Manning argues that the orders of the administrative law judge and the Commission denying her compensation for the surgery performed in February 2002 and all subsequent treatment for her physical problem were not supported by substantial evidence. The conclusions of the physicians in this case provide more than enough substantial credible evidence that Manning did not require the surgery performed in February 2002 or any further treatment past that point. Manning also argues that the orders of the administrative law judge and the Commission denying her compensation for treatment related to her psychological problems were not supported by substantial evidence. In support of the order denying compensation for Manning’s psychological treatment, the administrative law judge relied on the facts about her abusive childhood revealed during cross examination and to her treating physicians. The testimony of these physicians provided substantial evidence that the psychological problems suffered by Manning were unrelated to her work injury and, therefore, non-compensable.


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