Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Prince
| Docket Number: | 2009-WC-01175-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-02-2010 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers' compensation - Interlocutory order Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-01-2009 Appealed from: Clarke County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Bailey Disposition: MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL GRANTED Case Number: 2009-49-B |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Burlington Industries, Inc., and Reliance National Indemnity Company |
SANDRA TAYLOR DOTY |
|
|
| Appellee: | Melinda Prince | HENRY P. PATE III, C. RAY SCALES JR. | ||
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 - Interlocutory order |
| Summary of the Facts: | Melinda Prince suffered an on-the-job injury while employed by Burlington Industries, Incorporated. The administrative judge found that Prince had suffered a compensable, work-related injury and ordered Burlington to provide any total disability benefits, as well as all medical services and supplies required by the nature of her injury and in the process of recovery. Burlington appealed, and the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was an interlocutory appeal, since the AJ’s order failed to dispose of all issues pending before the judge. Burlington and Prince entered into a joint stipulation, in which Burlington agreed that if the issue of compensability was upheld on appeal, Burlington would concede that Prince was permanently and totally disabled and pay Prince’s claim. The full Commission reinstated Burlington’s appeal, and it affirmed the AJ’s order. Burlington appealed to circuit court which dismissed the appeal on the ground that both the order of the AJ and the Commission’s decision were interlocutory. Burlington appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Burlington argues that the circuit court relied on the incorrect decision from the full Commission in dismissing Burlington’s appeal. Burlington submits that the circuit court’s order dismissing the appeal cites the full Commission’s July 11, 2007, decision, which the circuit court finds as interlocutory in nature. Burlington argues that it is not appealing the July 11, 2007, full Commission decision; instead, Burlington submits that it is appealing the full Commission decision entered on February 10, 2009. Burlington argues that the decision issued on February 10, 2009, is not interlocutory, as evidenced by the fact that the full Commission granted the motion to reinstate the appeal brought by Burlington. However, the record shows that the circuit court’s order dismissing Burlington’s appeal states that Burlington “filed its Notice of Appeal to the Clarke County Circuit Court from the Full Workers’ Compensation Commission Order rendered on February 10, 2009.” Thus, the Commission was aware that Burlington was appealing the February 10, 2009, full Commission decision. Burlington argues that since the full Commission reinstated Burlington’s appeal, this shows that the full Commission agreed that the May 30, 2007 order addressing compensability, combined with the joint stipulation entered into between the parties, created a situation where no additional issues remained to be decided by the AJ; therefore, it was appealable. Burlington argues that if the parties in the present case had returned to the AJ, the “award” rendered would have pertained to the amount of compensation Prince would have been owed based upon her disability. The parties signed a joint stipulation, conceding Prince’s benefits. Burlington argues that this joint stipulation left no further issues to be decided by the AJ. A final award is a final decision to grant or deny a specific amount of compensation. A determination solely on the issue of liability, without deciding the amount of compensation, is not a final award. Here, the February 10, 2009 decision issued by the full Commission merely affirmed the AJ’s May 30, 2007, order, which specifically stated that it was not a final order. Burlington further argues that had the full Commission determined that the joint stipulation was not a valid and binding document between the parties, the motion to reinstate the appeal would not have been granted. While the parties may stipulate as to facts, they cannot, by stipulation, change the law. Mississippi law requires a final order from a court before the parties can appeal. The parties’ stipulation in the present case, when coupled with the AJ’s May 30, 2007, order, does not constitute a final award or order from which an appeal may be taken. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
