Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Patrick


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-WC-00539-COA
Linked Case(s): 2007-WC-00539-COA ; 2007-CT-00539-SCT
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-01-2008
Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J.
Holding: THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TATE COUNTY IS AFFIRMED ON DIRECT APPEAL AND ON CROSS-APPEAL
Additional Case Information: Topic: Workers’ compensation - Permanent and total disability - Medical services - Section 71-3-15(1)
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, 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: 02-28-2007
Appealed from: TATE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Ann H. Lamar
Disposition: AFFIRMED ORDER FINDING PATRICK TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED AND REVERSED THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION’S FINDING THAT TREATMENT PROVIDED BY DR. JERRY ENGELBERG AND DR. HARRY FRIEDMAN WERE WITHIN THE MANDATES OF MISSISSIPPI CODE ANNOTATED SECTION 71-3-15(1)(REV.2000)
Case Number: CV2006-102LT
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: WAL-MART STORES, INC. AND NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA




 ROXANNE PENTON CASE, MICHELLE B. MIMS



  
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief
    		•
    Appellee: TERESA G. PATRICK LAWRENCE J. HAKIM  
    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 - Permanent and total disability - Medical services - Section 71-3-15(1)
    Summary of the Facts: Teresa Patrick suffered a compensable injury to her back while working as a stocker at Wal-Mart. The Commission determined that Patrick was permanently and totally disabled as a result of her work-related back injury with permanent medical impairment ratings ranging from ten to sixteen percent. As a result, the Commission ordered Wal-Mart to pay permanent, total disability benefits of $187.10 beginning July 28, 1997, and continuing for a period of 450 weeks and to pay all reasonable and necessary medical services as her injury may require. Wal-Mart appealed to circuit court. The circuit court found that certain medical expenses were not the responsibility of the employer and carrier. Both Wal-Mart and Patrick appeal.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Permanent and total disability There is a dispute as to whether the Commission, and later the circuit court, properly determined that Patrick was permanently and totally disabled based in part on expert evidence. The Commission, as fact-finder, is entitled to weigh the competing testimonies and render its decision accordingly, provided that the acceptance of the testimony over that of the other did not result in a decision which was clearly erroneous. Wal-Mart argues that Patrick’s subsequent return to the work force at the same or higher rate of pay further demonstrated her ability to work after the injury. Wal-Mart argues that the Commission erred in failing to give more weight to the testimony of the work-injury physician rather than Patrick’s family physician and the medical expert. The record supports Patrick’s contention that she made efforts to obtain alternate employment, and her continuing back pain prevented her from obtaining successful long term employment. Issue 2: Medical services Wal-Mart argues that two subsequent back surgeries Patrick underwent were not causally related to the initial work-related injury. The circuit court determined that Patrick presented no evidence to the Commission showing that she had asked her employer or the Commission for approval or assistance before proceeding with the additional surgeries. Referrals to additional neurosurgeons did require prior approval from either her employer or the Commission, according to section 71-3-15(1). As Patrick failed to demonstrate any evidence that she was denied approval or sought assistance from the Commission, the circuit court did not err in finding that Wal-Mart was not responsible for the additional medical expenses.


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