Prentice v. Schindler Elevator Co.
| Docket Number: | 2007-WC-00815-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-WC-00815-COA ; 2007-CT-00815-SCT ; 2007-CT-00815-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-24-2008 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - First notice of injury - Section 71-3-67(1) - Defense of statute of limitations 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: 01-16-2007 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: CIRCUIT COURT REVERSED DECISION OF COMMISSION TO DENY THE MOTION TO DISMISS Case Number: 251-06-406 |
|
| Note: | This judgment was later affirmed by the Supreme Court on 6/5/2009. See the SCT opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/HDList/..%5COpinions%5CCO56003.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | TIMMY PRENTICE |
PRENTISS M. GRANT |
||
| Appellee: | SCHINDLER ELEVATOR COMPANY AND ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY | BENJAMIN U. BOWDEN | ||
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 - First notice of injury - Section 71-3-67(1) - Defense of statute of limitations |
| Summary of the Facts: | Timmy Prentice was injured while working for Schindler Elevator Company. Initially, Schindler paid some of Prentice’s medical bills under workers’ compensation. Prentice eventually noticed that his medical bills were not being paid. When his bills remained unpaid, he filed a petition to controvert with the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission. The employer and the insurer filed a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. The Commission denied Schindler’s motion. On appeal, the circuit court reversed the Commission’s decision and dismissed Prentice’s claim finding that the statute of limitations had run. Prentice appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Prentice argues that Schindler is barred from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense because it did not file a first notice of injury, which is required under sections 71-3-67 and 71-3-11. Section 71-3-67(1) requires that Schindler know that Prentice missed at least five days of work because of an accident covered under workers’ compensation before Schindler is required to file a Form B-3. The Commission has interpreted “five days” to mean five consecutive or non-consecutive days. The administrative law judge found that Prentice missed at least five days because he missed four days waiting to see Dr. Smith, and he missed at least one more full day of work to see Dr. Smith, Dr. Estess, or getting his MRI. The Commission’s order is supported by substantial evidence that Prentice missed at least five days of work without pay and that Schindler knew these absences were attributable to Prentice’s injury. Therefore, Schindler was required to file a notice of injury report, Form B-3. Schindler argues that filing this form is not a prerequisite for the statute of limitations to run. The supreme court has held that an employer and its insurance carrier are estopped from denying that the two-year statute of limitations is tolled where they failed to comply with the notice requirement of the act. Similarly, Schindler is estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
