Broadway v. Int'l Paper, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2007-WC-00104-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-20-2008 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: ): Workers’ compensation - Jurisdiction - Section 71-3-53 - Change in condition - Burden of proof Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, 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: 12-21-2006 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Krebs Disposition: AFFIRMED DECISION OF COMMISSION DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN Case Number: CV 2004-00130(1) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | MILES BROADWAY |
ROGER K. DOOLITTLE |
||
| Appellee: | INTERNATIONAL PAPER, INC. | WILLIAM A. PATTERSON |
|
|
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 - Jurisdiction - Section 71-3-53 - Change in condition - Burden of proof |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 1992, the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision to award Miles Broadway compensation for a back injury he sustained while employed with International Paper, Inc. The ALJ awarded Broadway reasonable and necessary medical expenses, but the ALJ did not find that Broadway sustained a loss of wage-earning capacity. Since then, Broadway has continued to receive medical benefits in the form of payments for monthly prescriptions. IP has never filed a form B-31 in this case. Broadway continued to work for IP, in another position, until he was laid off when the plant in Moss Point, Mississippi closed. There was no appeal from the Commission’s order. After the IP plant closed, Broadway filed a motion to reopen the record. At the hearing before the ALJ, neither Broadway nor IP presented any evidence. The ALJ found that the motion was “not well taken” and did not make any specific findings of fact or conclusions of law. On appeal to the Commission, again neither Broadway nor IP presented any evidence. The Commission’s order did not state any specific findings of fact or conclusions of law. Broadway appealed, and the circuit court affirmed. Broadway appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jurisdiction Broadway argues that the Commission erred because it dismissed his motion even though the statute of limitations had not expired. The applicable statute of limitations, where a claimant seeks to reopen the record in a previously adjudicated case, is found in section 71-3-53. Broadway claims this statute permits his motion because he continued to receive compensation in the form of his filled prescriptions and because IP failed to file a form B-31. Form B-31 (Report of Payment and Settlement Receipt) gives notice to the employee, as required by due process of law, that the employer considers its obligation at an end and that his/her rights to benefits may be lost if the matter remains dormant for the next year. In other words, the statute begins running with its proper filing. Thus, even though fifteen years have passed since the Commission adjudicated Broadway’s initial determination of benefits, the statute of limitations had not begun to run against Broadway, under section 71-3-53, because IP admitted that it never filed a form B-31. Even if IP had filed a form B-31, Broadway would still be permitted to reopen his case because the one year period is tolled only by Broadway obtaining or IP furnishing medical benefits prior to the one year period in section 71-3-53, and IP had continuously furnished Broadway’s prescription drugs. Issue 2: Change in condition Broadway argues that the Commission erred because it interpreted a “change in condition” under section 71-3-53 as restricted to a physical or mental change. The Mississippi Supreme Court has previously interpreted “a change in conditions” in section 71-3-53 to include a change in the claimant’s ability to get or to hold employment or to maintain prior economic levels even though the physical condition may remain unchanged. Thus, Broadway is correct in that the Commission may not dismiss a motion to reopen a case because a claimant alleges an economic change in condition instead of a mental or physical change in condition. Issue 3: Burden of proof When claimants are attempting to reopen their cases because of an economic change in condition they must establish that they had been refused employment because of their disability. Broadway admits in his brief that no evidence or argument was presented to either the ALJ or the Commission. There is no evidence in the record that Broadway had been refused employment because of his disability. Because Broadway did not support his motion to reopen with any evidence that he experienced an economic change in condition, the Commission’s decision to deny Broadway’s motion is affirmed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
