Barber Seafood, Inc., et al. v. Smith
| Docket Number: | 2003-CT-01343-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-WC-01343-COA ; 2003-CT-01343-SCT ; 2003-CT-01343-SCT ; 2003-WC-01343-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-04-2005 Opinion Author: DICKINSON, J. Holding: Affirmed in part; Reversed and Rendered in part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Issue before the Commission Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Admin / Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-12-2003 Appealed from: PEARL RIVER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: R. I. Prichard, III Disposition: Pearl River County Circuit Court affirmed the Commission in all respects except its alleged "finding that Smith reached MMI for her L5-S1 back injury on the date she refused surgery." The circuit court held that the Commission was "REVERSED AND REMANDED as to their finding that Smith reached MMI for her L5-S1 back injury on the date she refused surgery." Case Number: CVV2002-0536 |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. See the original COA opinion at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO19456.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | BARBER SEAFOOD, INC. d/b/a UNCLE
CHESTER’S FISH HOUSE AND MISSISSIPPI
RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION WORKMEN’S
COMPENSATION TRUST |
JOHN S. GONZALEZ
SHANE CURTIS WHITFIELD |
||
| Appellee: | SANDRA LOUISE SMITH | WILLIAM H. JONES |
|
|
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 - Issue before the Commission |
| Summary of the Facts: | While working as head cook at Barber Seafood, Inc., Sandra Smith was injured when she slipped on water and grease. Smith filed a petition to controvert, claiming additional temporary and total disability benefits. The administrative law judge held that Smith sustained work related injuries to her right wrist and that she reached maximum medical improvement on September 17, 1999; denied Smith’s claim with respect to her claim of injury to the disc between the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebra; held that the injury to the disc at L5-S1 was related to the accident at Barber Seafood and that Smith reached maximum medical improvement on June 28, 2000; and held that Smith suffered no loss of wage earning capacity and as such was not entitled to any permanent disability benefits. Smith appealed to the Full Commission which reversed the administrative law judge’s finding that Smith suffered no loss of wage earning capacity but affirmed all other findings. The employer and carrier were ordered to pay Smith $50 per week for 450 weeks. Smith appealed and Barber Seafood cross-appealed to circuit court, which affirmed the Commission in all respects except its alleged finding that Smith reached MMI for her L5-S1 back injury on the date she refused surgery. Barber Seafood appealed and Smith cross-appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s decision. All parties petitioned for a writ of certiorari which the Supreme Court granted. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The issue of whether, as to the injury to the disc between her fifth lumbar and first sacral vertebra, Smith reached MMI on June 28, 2000, as determined by the administrative law judge and affirmed by the full Commission is dispositive. This case appears to have gotten off track when the circuit court entertained as one of the issues before it, “Whether the Commission plainly erred in concluding Smith reached MMI on the date she declined surgery.” This statement of issue presupposes that the Commission based the finding of MMI on Smith’s refusal of surgery. The record does not support any such presupposition. The issue before the circuit court should have been whether the Commission abused its discretion in finding that surgical intervention has not been shown to be medically reasonable and necessary. The parties stipulated that Smith sustained a work related injury. Therefore, absent a demand by Smith for medical treatment or compensation for her injury at L4-5, the issue of whether the L4-5 injury (as opposed to the injury at L5-S1) is causally related her accident at work was not before the administrative law judge. Furthermore, because of her refusal of surgery, Smith was not on fair notice that the judge was going to differentiate problems at the L4-5 level from problems associated with L5-S1. The issue of whether the L4-5 injury is related to Smith’s work-related accident will ripen for adjudication only if and when Smith decides to undergo back surgery. If such a time occurs, Smith must present her claim for the payment of medical treatment and expenses pursuant to the applicable law and rules. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
