Parchman v. Amwood Prods., Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2006-WC-00075-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-WC-00075-COA ; 2006-CT-00075-SCT ; 2006-CT-00075-SCT ; 2006-CT-00075-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-30-2007 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Statute of limitations - Section 71-3-35 - Section 71-3-3(b) - Latent injury Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): CHANDLER AND BARNES, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment; Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-15-2005 Appealed from: MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Sharion R. Aycock Disposition: AFFIRMED DECISION OF THE COMMISSION DISMISSING PARCHMAN’S PETITION TO CONTROVERT. Case Number: CV05-362(A)M |
|
| Note: | This opinion was reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court on June 12, 2008. The Supreme Court opinion may be found at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO48102.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JAMES WALTER PARCHMAN |
JIM WAIDE,
RON L. WOODRUFF |
||
| Appellee: | AMWOOD PRODUCTS, INC. AND MISSISSIPPI MANUFACTURERS’ ASSOCIATION WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST | JOHN S. HILL |
|
|
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 - Section 71-3-35 - Section 71-3-3(b) - Latent injury |
| Summary of the Facts: | After receiving two burns while working at Amwood Products, James Parchman was eventually fired when he had to undergo skin grafts to treat the wound. Parchman filed a petition to controvert with the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission. Amwood filed a motion to dismiss in response to the petition, contending that Parchman’s claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitation. The adminstrative judge granted the motion to dismiss. Parchman appealed to the full Commission which affirmed. Parchman then appealed to the circuit court which also affirmed the dismissal. Parchman appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Parchman argues that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until he became aware that the injury was disabling, meaning that it impacted his wage-earning ability, as defined by section 71-3-3(j). However, section 71-3-35 clearly states that an application for benefits must be filed with the Commission within two years from the date of the injury or it is barred by the statute of limitations. Section 71-3-3(b) defines an injury as accidental injury or accidental death arising out of and in the course of employment without regard to fault which results from an untoward event or events. Accordingly, the statute of limitations began to run in March 2000, when Parchman received the burn to his ankle. Therefore, barring some equitable theory, the two-year statute of limitations was not tolled and expired in March 2002. Parchman was aware that benefits were available but made no effort to obtain benefits until he filed his petition to controvert in July 2003. Parchman also argues that the statute of limitations should be “erased” because Amwood continued to pay Parchman his full salary despite his extended absences from work, an arrangement that Parchman contends was payment made in lieu of workers’ compensation. Whether the parties intended Parchman’s salary to serve as payment in lieu of workers’ compensation is an issue of fact. There was no evidence at all that Parchman was using paid sick leave or vacation days during his extended absences as the basis for his receiving his salary. Accordingly, the agency’s finding is supported by substantial evidence. Parchman also argues that because he was paid his full salary until he was fired in September 2002, despite his extended absences from work, he did not have a compensable injury until that date and the statute of limitations did not begin to run until he was fired. This point of error is simply an argument that Parchman’s injury was a latent injury. A latent injury is defined as an injury that a reasonably prudent person would not be aware of at the moment it was sustained. Parchman knew at the time of the accident that he had sustained an injury arising out of the course and scope of his employment; therefore, his injury by definition, cannot be a latent injury. Because Parchman began seeking medical treatment that was compensable under the workers’ compensation program within a few weeks of his injury, the statute of limitations began to run, at the latest, on the date that Parchman first sought compensable medical treatment – a date sometime in April 2000. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
