Daniels v. Peco Foods of Miss., Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2007-WC-00634-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-WC-00634-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-22-2008 Opinion Author: LEE, P.J. Holding: Affirmed on direct and cross-appeal |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Standard of review - Disabling mental condition - Work-related injury Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-16-2007 Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: AFFIRMED COMMISSION’S ORDER AWARDING WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR HEAD AND ARM INJURY AND DENYING BENEFITS FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY Case Number: 2006-164(c) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | ANNIE C. DANIELS |
AL CHADICK |
||
| Appellee: | PECO FOODS OF MISSISSIPPI, INC. | STEPHEN J. CARMODY, CHRISTOPHER RAY FONTAN |
|
|
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 - Standard of review - Disabling mental condition - Work-related injury |
| Summary of the Facts: | Annie Daniels filed two separate petitions to controvert against Peco Foods, alleging that she suffered a work-related scalp injury and arm injury and alleging that these injuries resulted in psychological or mental injury. Peco Foods admitted that benefits were owed for the arm injury, but it denied that benefits were owed for the scalp injury and psychological or mental injury. The administrative law judge ruled that Daniels had suffered two physical injuries on the job and that her psychological condition was related to her work injuries. Peco Foods appealed the decision of the ALJ to the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission which agreed with the ALJ’s finding that Daniels suffered two work-related physical injuries. However, the Commission reversed the decision of the ALJ as to the psychological or mental injury. Daniels appealed the Commission’s decision regarding her psychological condition to circuit court which affirmed the decision of the Commission. Daniels appeals, and Peco Foods cross-appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Standard of review Daniels argues that the Commission used an improper standard, “clear and convincing evidence,” in reviewing her psychological condition. She argues that the proper standard for her to establish, by “clear evidence,” was a causal connection between her work-related physical injury and her mental injury. To recover benefits for a mental injury suffered after a physical injury, a claimant must prove that the disabling mental injury was caused, contributed to, or aggravated by a work-related physical injury. If the injury is unaccompanied by physical trauma, the claimant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he or she suffered from a disabling mental injury which was either caused, contributed to or aggravated by some unusual occurrence or untoward event in order to be compensable. A claimant asserting that a mental or nervous disease has resulted from an industrial accident must show the causal connection between the accident and the psychoneurosis by clear evidence. In reviewing Daniels’ claim, the Commission stated, “[i]t is well established that the connection between employment, and an allegedly disabling mental condition, must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.” Since the Commission stated the incorrect burden of proof, the Court reviews this issue de novo. The Commission, sitting as the fact-finder, found convincing the testimony of a doctor who conducted an independent medical evaluation that Daniels’ psychiatric issues pre-existed the December 2001 fall at work. The doctor found that the incident exacerbated her preexisting depression, but she suffered “no permanent psychiatric impairment or restrictions as a result of the 12/12/01 incident.” He further found that Daniels was not psychiatrically disabled and returning to work would do her “real well.” Daniels argues that the Commission erred in finding this doctor’s testimony more credible than that of her regular treating physician. As the finder and trier of fact, it is the Commission’s job to evaluate and weigh the evidence. Thus, substantial evidence existed to support a finding that Daniels failed to prove, by clear evidence, a causal connection between the mental injury and physical injuries she suffered at work. Issue 2: Work-related injury Peco Foods argues that the Commission erred in awarding Daniels compensation for the alleged scalp injury, because Daniels failed to show that the discoid lupus erythematosus, which the experts agreed caused the hair loss and scarring, bore a causal connection to the on-the-job injury. Peco Foods’ medical expert agreed with Daniels’ physician that the most likely cause of Daniels’ hair loss and scarring was discoid lupus. However, the expert testified that discoid lupus is a rheumatic illness and not caused by injury or stress. The Commission found that Daniels’ physician offered a credible, albeit belated, opinion that her hair loss and scalp condition probably was caused by the accident at work and that there is no credible explanation to the contrary. Given that the Commission is the ultimate fact-finder and there is no explanation to the contrary, the Commission’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
