Beverly Healthcare v. Hare
| Docket Number: | 2009-WC-00344-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CT-00344-SCT ; 2009-WC-00344-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-29-2010 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed and remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers' compensation - Injury - Section 71-3-3(b) - Causal connection Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee and Carlton, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Irving and Maxwell, JJ. Dissenting Author : Roberts, J., dissents with separate written opinion Dissent Joined By : Griffis, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-04-2009 Appealed from: TIPPAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND REINSTATED THE ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE AWARDING BENEFITS TO HARE Case Number: T-08-077 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Beverly Healthcare and American Home Assurance Company |
GEORGE E. READ |
|
|
| Appellee: | Irene Hare | GREG E. BEARD | ||
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 - Injury - Section 71-3-3(b) - Causal connection |
| Summary of the Facts: | Irene Hare was injured at her place of employment as a nurse at a nursing home. She was denied workers’ compensation benefits by the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission in a split decision. However on appeal, the circuit court reversed the Commission’s decision and reinstated the decision of the administrative judge awarding Irene Hare temporary total benefits until she reaches maximum medical improvement. The employer and carrier appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The employer and carrier argue that the Commission was correct when it decided that Hare’s April 25, 2005, femoral fracture was not the result of any untoward event, unusual occurrence, accident, or injury incident to her employment. They also argue that there was no medical proof of causation between her work and her fracture. The Commission found that Hare’s injury failed to meet the statutory definition of injury as found in section 71-3-3(b). The Commission relied heavily on the opinion of the employer and carrier’s expert witness, Dr. Vise, who characterized Hare’s injury as a “spontaneous fracture.” In order to establish a prima facie case of disability, a claimant must show by a fair preponderance of the evidence an accidental injury, arising out of and in the course of employment, and a causal connection between the injury and the claimed disability. Injury or death arises out of and in the course of employment even when the employment merely aggravates, accelerates, or contributes to the injury. Thus, a claimant is entitled to benefits if the employment acts upon the claimant's pre-existing condition to produce disability. The evidence is undisputed that Hare’s fractured femur was accidental within the statutory meaning of that term. When Hare reported to work on the day of the injury she was limping; however, she was by no means injured. Hare has walked with a limp the entire seventeen years she had worked for Beverly. Though the limp was more pronounced on the day of the accident and Hare wore an Ace bandage on her leg, there was no testimony that she suffered the injury away from the workplace. The record is clear and without contradiction that Hare was in the process of performing the normal daily activity of working at her long-held job as an LPN when she suffered a severe femur fracture. Her fractured femur was an unexpected result of dispensing medications to her patients. She was doing this job in the usual way when she pivoted to get a water glass and her femur fractured making an unexpected sound like a shotgun blast. Thus, the Commission did not have substantial evidence to support its denial of compensation to Hare. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
