Bynum v. Anderson Tully Lumber Co.
| Docket Number: | 2008-WC-00506-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-25-2008 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Statute of limitations - Tolling of statute - Equitable estoppel 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: 03-05-2008 Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Frank G. Vollor Disposition: AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION THAT APPELLANT’S PETITION TO CONTROVERT WAS FILED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Case Number: 07,0230CI |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | DAVID BYNUM |
JOHN HUNTER STEVENS |
|
|
| Appellee: | ANDERSON TULLY LUMBER COMPANY AND LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY | WILLIAM BIENVILLE SKIPPER | ||
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 - Tolling of statute - Equitable estoppel |
| Summary of the Facts: | David Bynum claimed he was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits as a result of an injury he sustained while working for Anderson Tully Lumber Company. The administrative law judge dismissed Bynum’s claim as untimely. Bynum appealed to the full Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission, which affirmed. The circuit court affirmed. Bynum appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Bynum argues that the Commission erred when it concluded that his claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Bynum argues that Anderson Tully paid him wages in lieu of compensation, which tolled the statute of limitations, and alternatively, that the doctrine of equitable estoppel tolls the statute of limitations. Anderson Tully paid Bynum $200 per week for approximately one year. According to Bynum, he was told those payments were workers’ compensation benefits. According to Anderson Tully, those payments – labeled as “sick pay” – were short-term disability payments. If an employee is paid his regular wage, although he does no work at all, it is a reasonable inference that the allowance is in lieu of compensation. In this case, there is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that Anderson Tully paid Bynum wages in lieu of workers’ compensation benefits. There is no evidence that Anderson Tully thought Bynum had a work-related injury. Bynum originally sought treatment for an unspecified leg injury. Bynum reported that he could not work because of a prior back injury that was not work-related. Anderson Tully had every reason to believe that Bynum returned to the doctor for treatment of his previous back injury. Anderson Tully was required to file a first notice of injury document if it knew that Bynum missed at least five days of work because of a compensable work-related accident. Since Anderson Tully had no reason to think Bynum missed five days of work due to a compensable, work-related injury, it had no duty to file a first notice of injury. Accordingly, Anderson Tully was not estopped from raising the statute of limitations as a defense. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
