Johnson Elec. Auto., Inc. v. Colebrook


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-WC-00448-COA
Linked Case(s): 2007-WC-00448-COA ; 2007-CT-00448-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 05-06-2008
Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Workers’ compensation - Subsequent injury - Medical evidence - Apportionment - Temporary disability benefits - Total body injury
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-07-2007
Appealed from: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Lee J. Howard
Disposition: CIRCUIT COURT AFFIRMED THE FULL COMMISSION’S AWARD OF TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY, PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY FOR 78% LOSS-OF-USE OF THE CLAIMANT’S LEFT ARM, PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY FOR 50% LOSS-OF-USE OF THE CLAIMANT’S RIGHT ARM, MEDICAL EXPENSES, PENALTIES, AND INTEREST.
Case Number: 2006-0063-CV1

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: JOHNSON ELECTRIC AUTOMOTIVE, INC., AND ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY




JOSEPH T. WILKINS, TAMEKA WILDER BUCK



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: BETTY COLEBROOK ROBERT H. FAULKS  

    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 - Subsequent injury - Medical evidence - Apportionment - Temporary disability benefits - Total body injury

    Summary of the Facts: Betty Colebrook sought workers’ compensation benefits from Johnson Electric Automotive. Colebrook filed separate petitions to controvert in December 2000 and January 2001. The administrative law judge found that Colebrook was not entitled to benefits because her injuries stemmed from her earlier compensable injuries. Colebrook appealed to the full Commission which awarded Colebrook temporary total disability benefits, permanent partial disability benefits for 78% loss-of-use of Colebrook’s right arm, permanent partial disability benefits for a 50% loss-of-use of her left arm, medical expenses, penalties, and interest. Johnson Electric appealed to circuit court which affirmed. Johnson Electric appeals, and Colebrook cross-appeals

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Johnson Electric argues that the full Commission erred when it found Colebrook suffered a compensable injury in April 2000, because Colebrook merely aggravated her initial injuries. Johnson Electric argues there is insufficient evidence that Colebrook sustained an injury at work on April 6, 2000 – the injury date listed in Colebrook’s petition to controvert. It is clear from the record that Colebrook was not certain when she sustained her subsequent neck injury. Colebrook testified that her neck began bothering her in April 2000, but she was not certain about the date. It is reasonable to conclude that, although she could not remember the specific date on which she was injured, Colebrook first discovered that she had a new work-related injury during her April 6, 2000, appointment. Based on the doctor’s opinion that Colebrook suffered a new neck injury in or about April 2000, there was not insubstantial or insufficient evidence for the full Commission’s decision that Colebrook sustained a new neck injury. While a neurosurgeon concluded that Colebrook’s pain was from diabetic neuropathy, it is for the full Commission to determine the weight and credibility of testimony. Johnson Electric also argues that no medical evidence supports the full Commission’s decision that Johnson suffered a 100% loss-of-use to her right upper extremity. However, Johnson Electric’s position relies entirely on the concept that the full Commission erred when it applied greater weight to one doctor’s testimony as opposed to other examining physicians. The full Commission was within its rights to find Colebrook’s doctor to be credible. Johnson Electric argues that the full Commission should have applied a greater apportionment to Colebrook’s award, because the settlement with United Technologies accounted for 49.7% of Colebrook’s potential recovery for a total loss-of-use to her right arm. Colebrook’s settlement amount with United Technologies is entirely irrelevant to her previous impairment rating. The amount of the settlement does not determine Colebrook’s impairment rating. On cross-appeal, Colebrook argues that the full Commission erred when it declined to award her temporary disability benefits for the time between July 20, 2000, and August 9, 2000. The record shows that Johnson Electric paid Colebrook short-term disability benefits during that time. Thus, Colebrook was compensated for that time. Colebrook, also argues that the full Commission erred when it apportioned her right extremity award. In cases where there is evidence of a medically cognizable, identifiable, symptomatic condition which antedated the injury and the employee experienced some absence of normal (for him or her) wage-earning capacity, then apportionment must be ordered. Colebrook’s prior injuries prevented her from working in her previous capacity. She was on “light duty” in April 2000 and July 2000. Further, Colebrook did not have a “latent prior condition.” She had prior injuries for which she was compensated. The full Commission could have found those prior injuries were a material contributing factor to her subsequent injuries. Colebrook argues that the full Commission erred when it did not award her benefits for a total-body injury. However, Colebrook never requested such benefits.


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