Langford v. Southland Trucking, LLC
| Docket Number: | 2009-WC-00640-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-16-2010 Opinion Author: Myers, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers' compensation - Standard of review - Arbitrary and capricious decision - Credible medical evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-25-2009 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Dale Harkey Disposition: AFFIRMED COMMISSION’S DECISION DENYING BENEFITS Case Number: 2008-00,070(2) |
|
| Note: | Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | RAYMOND D. LANGFORD |
WILLIAM T. REED |
|
|
| Appellee: | SOUTHLAND TRUCKING, LLC AND ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF MISSISSIPPI, INC. | RONALD T. RUSSELL | ||
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 - Standard of review - Arbitrary and capricious decision - Credible medical evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Raymond Langford filed a petition to controvert, alleging that he sustained injury to his heart and lungs after exposure to toxic fumes at his place of employment. The administrative law judge determined that Langford had failed to prove that his lung and heart condition arose out of and in the course and scope of his employment with Southland Trucking Company. The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s finding. The circuit court held that the Commission’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed its ruling. Langford appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Standard of review Langford argues that he was not afforded a full, fair, and impartial review of the evidence and the application of the law on that evidence with regard to his workers’ compensation claim, because the circuit court relied upon case law which failed to consider that, in essence, the ALJ’s opinion was nothing more than Southland’s brief. The portion of the ALJ’s opinion utilizing language from Southland’s brief is limited solely to the issue of causation. However, this was the core issue of the case, and it comprised the crux of the ALJ’s opinion. With the exception of a few words or sentences at various places, the ALJ’s order finding that Langford had failed to prove the occurrence of an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment is substantially verbatim to what is stated in Southland’s trial brief. While not the same as findings independently made by an administrative law judge after impartially and judiciously sifting through the conflicts and nuances of the evidence, they are entitled to deference. Accordingly, there is no error with the circuit court’s refusal to review the Commission’s decision de novo. However, because the ALJ in this matter did not give any instruction at the conclusion of the hearing as to her views on the facts in evidence before incorporating Southland’s trial brief into her final decision and order, it warrants at least a critical look by the appellate court. Issue 2: Arbitrary and capricious decision Langford argues that the ALJ’s credibility determination was arbitrary and capricious, and her evaluation of the medical evidence runs contrary to the record and is not supported by applicable law. A compensable workers compensation injury is an 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, if contributed to or aggravated or accelerated by the employment in a significant manner. As the finder and trier of fact, it ultimately is the responsibility of the Commission to determine the credibility of the witnesses and, when conflicts in credible evidence arise, to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies. With no express indication by either the ALJ or the Commission that Langford was acting outside the course and scope of his employment, it is necessary to presume that Langford was acting in a manner so contemplated by the Act. However, in order to receive benefits under the Act, Langford also was required to demonstrate that the alleged injury he sustained was causally related to his employment. On this issue, the ALJ found that the medical and scientific evidence submitted by Southland’s experts was more credible than that provided by Langford. The record contains sufficient evidence to support the Commission’s decision. A claimant must prove that he or she suffered an occupational disease as a result of his or her employment by credible medical evidence rather than by mere speculation. Further, the record demonstrates that Langford provided inconsistent accounts with regard to the incident itself. Such discrepancies are for the Commission to contend with. Southland, on the other hand, submitted uncontroverted, credible medical and scientific evidence explaining why Langford did not sustain an injurious exposure under the reported circumstances. Therefore, the Commission’s decision to deny Langford’s claim is supported by credible substantial evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
