Hardaway Company v. Bradley
| Docket Number: | 2002-CT-01025-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-01025-SCT ; 2002-CT-01025-SCT ; 2002-CT-01025-SCT ; 2002-CT-01025-SCT ; 2002-WC-01025-COA ; 2002-WC-01025-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-18-2004 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: REVERSED AND RENDERED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Necessary medical treatment Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Admin / Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-09-2002 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Tomie Green Disposition: REVERSED THE FINDINGS OF THE FULL COMMISSION Case Number: 251-99-749 |
|
| Note: | Supreme Court is reversing decison of circuit court and court of appeals that affirmed circuit court decision. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | HARDAWAY COMPANY AND ST. PAUL FIRE AND
MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY |
ANDREW D. SWEAT
BRENDA CURRIE JONES |
||
| Appellee: | HARVEY BRADLEY | DANA HELENE EVANS JESSIE L. EVANS |
|
|
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 - Necessary medical treatment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Harvey Bradley filed a workers’ compensation claim after suffering a work-related injury. Bradley and his employer, Hardaway Company, disputed the issue of whether Bradley needed surgery for this injury. An administrative judge found in favor of the employer. This determination was affirmed by the Full Commission. The circuit court reversed the order of the Commission and ruled in favor of granting the surgery to Bradley. Hardaway appealed, and the judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hardaway filed for a writ of certiorari which was granted. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Hardaway argues that the ruling of the Commission was supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence supported the Commission’s order. Only one out of three doctors concluded that Bradley needed surgery. The others concluded that surgery was not necessary. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the circuit court’s reversal of the Commission’s order. Spann v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 700 So. 2d 308 (Miss. 1997), was also a workers’ compensation case that involved different opinions as to whether the claimant should receive surgery. The Court of Appeals’ majority quoted Spann in saying that, “the case law and Act mandate that as long as a particular treatment is deemed necessary and reasonable by a competent treating physician, the employer and carrier are obligated to furnish such treatment.” However, this quote misinterprets Spann. Spann was not given the surgery simply because his treating physician prescribed it, but because the Commission was not presented with any other credible evidence to the contrary. Spann is distinguishable here because there is credible evidence supporting the Commission’s finding that the claimant does not need surgery. The Court of Appeals’ interpretation of Spann would not give the employer a way to controvert medical treatment which is reasonable or necessary. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
