Smith v. Masonite Corp.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-WC-00549-COA
Linked Case(s): 2009-WC-00549-COA ; 2009-CT-00549-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 04-06-2010
Opinion Author: Roberts, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Workers' compensation - Loss of use - Disability - Section 71-3-3(i) - Reasonable effort to obtain employment - Lack of medical impairment - Temporary disability benefits
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee 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: 03-05-2009
Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court
Judge: Billy Joe Landrum
Disposition: PERMANENT PARTIAL IMPAIRMENT TO EACH OF CLAIMANT’S LOWER EXTREMITIES AND PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY BENEFITS OF $341.11 PER WEEK BEGINNING THE WEEK OF JANUARY 2, 2007, AND CONTINUING FOR 52.5 WEEKS THEREAFTER
Case Number: 2008-935-CV7

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: Norman Ray Smith




CRAIG N. ORR, RYAN JEFFREY MITCHELL



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief
  • Appellant #2 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Masonite Corporation and Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance BRETT WOODS ROBINSON  
    Appellee #2:  

    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 - Loss of use - Disability - Section 71-3-3(i) - Reasonable effort to obtain employment - Lack of medical impairment - Temporary disability benefits

    Summary of the Facts: Norman Smith filed a claim for worker’s compensation benefits based on alleged bilateral knee injuries sustained during his employment as an instrument technician for Masonite Corporation. The administrative law judge found that Smith sustained a 15% loss of use to each of his knees. The full Commission affirmed the ALJ’s decision. Smith appealed to circuit court which affirmed the Commission’s decision. Smith appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Loss of use Smith argues that the ALJ erred when she declined to find that, because he could not return to his previous employment as an instrument technician, Smith was entitled to a 100% loss of use of each of his legs. Pursuant to section 71-3-3(i), disability means incapacity because of injury to earn the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of injury in the same or other employment, which incapacity and the extent thereof must be supported by medical findings. If the injury prevents the employee from resuming his former trade, work or employment, this alone is not the test of disability to earn wages or the test of the degree of such disability, but the definition relates to loss of capacity in the same or other employment, and the meaning is that the employee, after his period of temporary total incapacity, must seek employment in another or different trade to earn his wages. The following factors may be relevant in determining whether a claimant made a reasonable effort to obtain employment in the same or another occupation: the economic and industrial aspects of the local community; the jobs available in the community and surrounding area; the claimant's general educational background, including work skills; and the particular nature of the disability for which compensation is sought. Every physician who treated Smith released Smith to return to work, albeit with restrictions to avoid activities similar to his previous employment at Masonite which involved frequent climbing of ladders. Masonite even offered Smith a position, but Smith refused to return to work at Masonite. Smith testified that he did not return to Masonite based on his concern that he would further injure his knees, but there was no evidence that Masonite intended to place Smith back in that same position. There was no evidence that Masonite refused to accommodate Smith’s injuries. Smith worked after he left his employment at Masonite. His knee pain did not stop him from working in those positions. Thus, there is no merit to Smith’s claim that the ALJ erred when she declined to find that Smith suffered a total occupational loss of use of his legs. Issue 2: Lack of medical impairment The ALJ found that Smith had a 15% permanent partial impairment to each lower extremity. According to Smith, the ALJ should have found that Smith had a 37% medical impairment rating to each lower extremity as determined by Dr. Melancon. Smith’s argument is based on the principle that an employee who suffers an injury to a scheduled member resulting in permanent partial disability is entitled to the greater amount of compensation determined under two alternate theories of computation. The first theory of computation involves determining the functional disability of the member and then determining the appropriate level of compensation by multiplying the percentage of disability times the maximum number of weeks for the scheduled member and then multiplying that figure by sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the employee’s average weekly wage. This is the method the ALJ used in this case. The second theory of computation involves determining the employee’s industrial disability. An employee’s industrial disability is based not only on the medical evidence, but also upon the evidence demonstrating how the employee’s limited functioning member affects the employee’s ability to perform the duties normally associated with his job. To show industrial disability, the claimant bears the burden of proving medical impairment and a loss of wage-earning capacity as a result of the medical impairment. Here, there was evidence that there were positions available in which Smith could work despite the defined physical limitations imposed by the loss of some function in his knees. Thus, there is no merit to this issue. Issue 3: Temporary disability benefits Smith argues the ALJ erred when she found that all temporary disability benefits had been paid. However, Smith refused to return to work when Masonite offered him a position in April 2005. Smith began to work for Federal Express in May 2005. Until February 13, 2006, no physician instructed Smith to avoid returning to work. Accordingly, there is no merit to this issue.


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