Baker v. IGA Super Valu Food Store
| Docket Number: | 2007-WC-00305-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-WC-00305-SCT ; 2007-WC-00305-COA ; 2007-CT-00305-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-22-2008 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Statute of limitations - Section 71-3-53 - Section 71-3-35(1) - In lieu of compensation - Possible future disability - Estoppel Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): BARNES, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-13-2007 Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Frank G. Vollor Disposition: AFFIRMED DECISION OF THE COMMISSION FINDING APPELLANT’S PETITION TO CONTROVERT TIME-BARRED Case Number: 06,0156-CI |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | CHARLES P. BAKER |
DAVID M. SESSUMS |
||
| Appellee: | IGA SUPER VALU FOOD STORE AND MISSISSIPPI INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION | ANDREW D. SWEAT, JENNIFER HUGHES SCOTT |
|
|
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 - Section 71-3-53 - Section 71-3-35(1) - In lieu of compensation - Possible future disability - Estoppel |
| Summary of the Facts: | While employed with IGA Super Valu Food Store, Charles Baker injured his back lifting boxes of meat on January 9, 2002. Super Valu and Mississippi Insurance Guaranty Association paid Baker’s work-related medical expenses from the date of the accident until January 9, 2004. On March 25, 2004, Baker filed a petition to controvert with the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission. The administrative law judge ruled that the two-year statute of limitations applied, precluding Baker’s claim for disability benefits and medical treatment after January 9, 2004. Baker petitioned to review the decision. The Commission affirmed the order, and Baker appealed to circuit court which also affirmed the decision. Baker appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Statute of limitations Baker argues that voluntary payment of medical benefits tolled the statute of limitations as to current medical benefits, future medical benefits, and at least as the same relates to the payment of medical benefits. He relies on section 71-3-53 which allows the Commission to review and change compensation up to one year after the last payment of compensation is made. However, a review and change of compensation is not at issue here. The Commission never ordered any form of compensation in Baker’s case. Pursuant to section 71-3-35(1), a claim for workers’ compensation benefits is barred where the claim is filed more than two years after the injury and where the claimant did not receive compensation other than medical treatment within the two-year period. Baker had two years from the date of his injury to file a claim, and he failed to do so. Issue 2: In lieu of compensation Baker argues that part of his wages should be found to be in lieu of compensation because he performed lighter duties at the same or higher pay. Mississippi law allows an employer to receive credit against a workers’ compensation award for wages paid to an employee if the payment of those wages were intended to be made in lieu of workers’ compensation. However, there is seldom any evidence that the employer intended the payment of wages to be in lieu of compensation. Also, credit is not warranted where the salary paid was not in lieu of compensation but money the claimant was entitled to receive based on his past service. Here, the Employer did not intend part of Baker’s wages to be in lieu of compensation. The Employer paid Baker his regular salary because Baker worked to earn his wages after his injury. Issue 3: Possible future disability Baker argues that the two-year statute of limitations has not begun to run because no disability has manifested itself. The two-year statute of limitations can be tolled in instances where a claimant sustains a latent injury or a progressive injury. A latent injury is an injury that a person would not be aware of at the moment it was sustained. A progressive injury occurs when the claimant was aware that he acquired an injury that was work related. Baker’s hypothetical argument of possible future disability and medical treatment is too speculative and lacks any merit. There is no evidence that Baker had a latent or progressive injury. Baker immediately sought medical attention for his back and was prescribed to take 30 milligrams of morphine four times a day within a month of the injury. At this time, a reasonably prudent person should have recognized the seriousness of his injury. Also, medical evaluations revealed that Baker would not benefit from further injections or surgery. Therefore, the statute of limitations began to run on the date that Baker injured his back at Super Valu. Issue 4: Estoppel Baker argues that the Employer was estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense because the Employer voluntarily paid his medical bills without question or controversy, and Baker reasonably relied on such payment. An employer may be estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a bar to a claim for benefits where the evidence shows that the employer intended to mislead the claimant, and the employee reasonably relied on such statements or actions. The employee must present evidence of inequitable behavior by the employer. Baker failed to bring forth any evidence of inequitable behavior by Super Valu or the insurance carrier. Therefore, the Employer properly asserted the statute of limitations as a defense. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
