Nicholson v. Int'l Paper Co.
| Docket Number: | 2009-WC-00943-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-WC-00943-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-10-2010 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers' compensation - Statute of limitations - Section 71-3-67 - Estoppel - Section 71-3-35(1) Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Maxwell, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-05-2009 Appealed from: PEARL RIVER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: R. I. Prichard, III Disposition: DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED Case Number: 2008-0451P |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | GARY C. NICHOLSON |
BRYANT DONLEVY GUY |
||
| Appellee: | INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, INC., A SELF INSURER | RICHARD MACK EDMONSON JR., COURTNEY ANNE TITUS |
|
|
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 - Section 71-3-67 - Estoppel - Section 71-3-35(1) |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 1998, Gary Nicholson developed eczema on his hands and feet that was later attributed to his work environment. Nicholson allegedly realized that his eczema was work related in 2004. Thereafter, Nicholson filed a petition to controvert. Pursuant to the two-year statute of limitations, the administrative judge dismissed Nicholson’s claim as time-barred. Nicholson appealed the dismissal to the Commission and then to circuit court without success. Nicholson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Nicholson argues that his claim was not time-barred, because International Paper is estopped from asserting statute of limitations as a defense and because the statute of limitations was tolled in his case. Nicholson argues that International Paper is estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense because it failed to comply with notice requirements pursuant to section 71-3-67. Section 71-3-67 requires the employer, if self-insured, to file an injury report with the Commission within ten days in the event of death following an injury, an injury which causes loss of time in excess of five days, or an injury that resulted or is likely to result in a permanent disability or serious disfigurement. Employers have been found to be estopped from raising the defense of statute of limitations when they did not report the injury to the Commission where the injury sustained was fatal, where the employer made misrepresentations to the claimant regarding its coverage, which the claimant relied upon, and where the employer paid compensation to the claimant. In this case, Nicholson’s eczema was not a fatal injury; there is no evidence of any misrepresentations or misconduct on behalf of International Paper; and International Paper did not pay Nicholson any compensation. Thus, the alleged failure to report, alone, does not estop International Paper from raising its defense of statute of limitations. The statute of limitations found in section 71-3-35(1) is tolled in the event that the claimant’s reasonably diligent efforts to obtain treatment yield no medical confirmation of compensable injury. Then, the statute of limitations begins to run at the time the claimant knows or should have known the nature of his injury. In this case, Nicholson’s eczema developed in 1998. The record shows that the doctors had determined that Nicholson’s condition was work related as early as 2000. Nicholson’s testimony shows that he had knowledge that his eczema could have been work related back in 1998. Although Nicholson claimed that he did not ask doctors what caused his condition, the Commission found that Nicholson knew or should have known that his eczema was related to his contact with chemicals at work. He had two years from that time to file a petition to controvert, and his failure to do so barred his claim for workers’ compensation benefits. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
