Radford v. CCA-Delta Corr. Facility
| Docket Number: | 2007-WC-02270-COA | |
| Oral Argument: | 01-21-2009 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-31-2009 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Work-related injury - Medical opinion Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ., Non Participating Judge(s): Maxwell, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-12-2007 Appealed from: LEFLORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: W. Ashley Hines Disposition: AFFIRMED THE COMMISSION’S DECISION Case Number: 2006-0010 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | CONNIE RADFORD |
CHARLIE BAGLAN,
LAWRENCE J. HAKIM |
|
|
| Appellee: | CCA-DELTA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AND ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO. OF ILLINOIS | F. HALL BAILEY | ||
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 - Work-related injury - Medical opinion |
| Summary of the Facts: | Connie Radford worked for CCA-Delta Correctional Facility. She filed a petition to controvert with the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission alleging that she suffered a mental injury from work. The administrative law judge awarded Radford temporary total disability benefits. DCF appealed to the Commission, and the Commission reversed the order of the administrative law judge finding that her decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Radford appealed the Commission’s decision to the circuit court which affirmed. Radford appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Work related injury
Radford argues that based on Mississippi case law, the Commission should have affirmed the administrative law judge’s order and found her claim to be a compensable mental injury. To recover benefits for a mental injury, Radford had the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she suffered from a disabling mental injury which was either caused, contributed to, or aggravated by some unusual occurrence or untoward event in her employment with DCF. While there was testimony supporting Radford’s allegations that a co-worker had yelled at Radford and perhaps even been rude to her, the Commission, as factfinder, found that Radford had not established by clear and convincing evidence that the co-worker subjected Radford to “a series of untoward and extraordinary employment related events.” The Commission’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. Issue 2: Medical opinion Radford argues that the Commission committed prejudicial error when it erroneously gave controlling weight to the medical opinion of the Employer/Carrier’s expert, who only saw her one time and only at the request of the Employer/Carrier. The expert, after reviewing all of Radford’s medical records and meeting with her personally in order to make an independent medical evaluation on behalf of DCF, found that Radford suffered from dysthymia and histrionic personality traits that dated back to her traumatic childhood. Another physician, who also testified on behalf of DCF, based her expert opinion on the records of the two physicians who had treated Radford and the hearing testimony in front of the administrative law judge. The physician opined that Radford suffered from a borderline personality disorder that was not caused by her employment with DCF, but related back to her childhood. It was for the Commission to weigh the credibility of the expert testimony, and it found the testimony of these two physicians more credible than that of Radford’s physician. The Commissions’ decision was supported by substantial evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
