Guy v. BC Rogers Processors, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2007-WC-01784-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-WC-01784-SCT ; 2007-WC-01784-COA ; 2007-CT-01784-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-16-2008 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Medical testimony - Burden of proof Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Ishee, Roberts, and Carlton, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): BARNES, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-09-2007 Appealed from: SCOTT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION TO DENY COMPENSATION Case Number: 2007-044-SC-G |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | MARY GUY |
DAVID N. GILLIS |
||
| Appellee: | B.C. ROGERS PROCESSORS, INC. AND MISSISSIPPI WORKERS’ COMPENSATION SELF-INSURER GUARANTY ASSOCIATION | VIRGINIA S. GAUTIER |
|
|
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 - Medical testimony - Burden of proof |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mary Guy was an employee of B.C. Rogers Processor, Inc., for approximately forty years. After reporting to a hospital on a Sunday, Guy informed her supervisor that she had suffered a stroke and would not be returning to work. She continued to file her medical bills under the employer’s insurance plan until the employer filed for bankruptcy. Guy then filed her claim for workers’ compensation after the employer’s medical insurance was cancelled due to the bankruptcy proceedings. As a result of the employer’s insolvency, the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Self-Insurer Guaranty Association assumed the defense of Guy’s workers’ compensation claim. The administrative law judge found that the medical evidence was conflicting as to whether Guy actually had a stroke and, if so, whether the stroke was work related. The administrative law judge held that Guy failed to meet her burden of proving a work-related injury. The Commission adopted this holding, and it was affirmed by the circuit court. Guy appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | It is clear from the Commission’s order that the Commission chose to rely on the medical testimony provided by a neurologist over the medical opinion of Guy’s general practitioner. Guy argues that the opinion of the specialist should only be given greater weight than the opinion of the general practitioner when both physicians are equally informed of the relevant facts. Guy had the burden to prove both that an injury occurred and that the injury was causally connected to her employment. She did so in the form of the testimony of her general practitioner. He clearly stated that Guy suffered a stroke that was brought on by the many stresses of her employment. Then, the burden of proof shifted to Guaranty Association to rebut such proof. Guaranty Association’s rebuttal was the testimony of the neurologist. The Commission’s ultimate decision must be based on substantial evidence which requires more than mere conjecture or possibility. Here, the neurologist’s testimony is not supported by the necessary substantial evidence required to uphold the Commission’s decision. He could not affirmatively state that Guy did not suffer a stroke. He testified that it was possible she had a stroke; however, the evidence was insufficient for him to know for certain. Thus, his testimony did not affirmatively contradict the evidence presented by Guy that she did in fact have a stroke. His conclusion that Guy’s possible stroke was not work related is also unsupported by substantial evidence. It is clear from the record that he did not have sufficient facts on which to base this opinion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
