Parchman v. Amwood Prods., Inc.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CT-00075-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2006-WC-00075-COA ; 2006-WC-00075-COA ; 2006-CT-00075-SCT ; 2006-CT-00075-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-12-2008
Opinion Author: GRAVES, J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Workers’ compensation - Statute of limitations - Payment of salary in lieu of benefits
Judge(s) Concurring: WALLER AND DIAZ, P.JJ., DICKINSON, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ.
Dissenting Author : EASLEY, J., without separate written opinion.
Dissenting Author : CARLSON, J., with separate written opinion.
Dissent Joined By : SMITH, C.J.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
Writ of Certiorari: yes
Appealed from Court of Appeals

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 reverses and remands the previous opinion by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals opinion may be found at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO39114.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 - Payment of salary in lieu of benefits

Summary of the Facts: While working for Amwood Products in March of 2000, James Parchman was assisting another Amwood employee with a welding job when a piece of hot slag fell into his right boot, leaving two small burns on either side of Parchman’s ankle. While Parchman was off from work undergoing skin grafts, Amwood notified him that they would no longer be able to pay his salary. Further, Greer, the president of Amwood, suggested that Parchman apply for temporary disability benefits. Parchman believed that he would be able to return to work at Amwood after the completion of his treatments. However, Greer confirmed with Parchman that he was fired. In July of 2003, Parchman filed his petition to controvert with the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission. Asserting that Parchman’s claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations, Amwood filed a motion to dismiss. The administrative law judge granted the motion to dismiss, finding Parchman’s claim to be barred by the two-year statute of limitations. Parchman appealed the administrative law judge’s decision to the full commission, which affirmed the dismissal. The circuit court also affirmed the dismissal. Parchman appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the circuit court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Unless there exists an agreement that the wage is a gratuity in addition to workmen’s compensation, when a claimant is paid his usual salary and does no work for a given period or does so little work that he really does not earn his wage the continued payment of the claimant’s salary will be considered as having been in lieu of compensation. If the employee is paid his regular wage, although he does no work at all, it is a reasonable inference that the allowance is in lieu of compensation. The administrative law judge found that, even in light of the fact that Parchman missed time from work beginning shortly after he sustained the injury, that he continued to perform the essential functions associated with his position, such that Amwood’s continued payment of Parchman’s salary did not constitute payment of his salary in lieu of workers’ compensation benefits. The record shows that Amwood continued to pay Parchman’s full salary although he missed three weeks of work in February 2002, another five weeks of work in April-May 2002, and nearly three months in the summer of 2002. This is clear evidence that Parchman did not continue to “earn” his full wages. It is an erroneous conclusion that Parchman was still performing the essential functions of his job and therefore continued to “earn” his full salary when he was absent from work for three weeks in February, five weeks in April-May 2002, and for the period of time that he missed in the summer of 2002 before his termination. Therefore, Amwood’s continued payment of Parchman’s salary until September of 2002 constituted payments made in lieu of workers’ compensation benefits, and that these payments, in the place of workers’ compensation benefits, tolled the two-year statute of limitations. Accordingly, Parchman’s petition to controvert, filed in July 2003, was not barred by the statute of limitations.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court