Hinds County Bd. of Supervisors, et al. v. Johnson
| Docket Number: | 2006-WC-01297-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-WC-01297-COA ; 2006-CT-01297-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-04-2007 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Work related injury - Temporary aggravation of pre-existing condition - Apportionment - Medical treatment - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Carlton, JJ. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-05-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Bobby DeLaughter Disposition: CLAIMANT FOUND PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED. Case Number: 252-05-29 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Hinds County Board of Supervisors and Mississippi Municipal Workers' Compensation Group |
ROBERT J. ARNOLD
MARY FRANCES STALLINGS-ENGLAND |
||
| Appellee: | Jay Johnson | STEVEN HISER FUNDERBURG |
|
|
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 - Work related injury - Temporary aggravation of pre-existing condition - Apportionment - Medical treatment - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) |
| Summary of the Facts: | While employed as a guard at the Hinds County Detention Center, Jay Johnson lost consciousness due to a condition known as “sudden death syndrome.” Johnson brought a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, and an administrative law judge found that Johnson suffered a compensable injury during his employment and was entitled to permanent total disability benefits and that apportionment was inappropriate. The Full Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed, as did the circuit court. Hinds County appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The County argues that the administrative judge erred in finding that Johnson’s syncope episode was work related, because the administrative judge incorrectly found that Dr. Lott was not Johnson’s primary treating physician, and Johnson was not involved in any particularly stressful situation at the time of his syncope episode. While Dr. Lott did not merely examine Johnson in preparation of Johnson’s workers’ compensation claim but implanted Johnson’s combined pacemaker and defibrillator well in advance of Johnson’s petition to controvert, the administrative judge’s findings cannot be said to be arbitrary and capricious. Dr. Ellis treated Johnson upon his admission at CMMC and determined the cause of Johnson’s syncope episode. It was within the administrative judge’s discretion to determine that Dr. Ellis was Johnson’s primary treating physician. Even if neither Dr. Ellis nor Dr. Lott could be said to be Johnson’s primary treating physician, it is within the administrative judge’s discretion to apply greater weight and worth to the testimony of one fully qualified physician over another. The County’s claim that Johnson was not involved in any particularly stressful activity or situation at the time of his episode is a gross mischaracterization of Johnson’s version of events. The County argues that the administrative judge erred because neither Dr. Ellis nor Dr. Lott stated that the episode was anything more than a temporary aggravation of Johnson’s pre-existing hypertension and heart disease. However, it is also true that neither Dr. Ellis nor Dr. Lott testified that Johnson’s episode was a temporary aggravation of Johnson’s pre-existing hypertension and heart disease. The County argues that apportionment was appropriate. In cases where there is evidence of a medically cognizable, identifiable, symptomatic condition which antedated the injury, and the employee experienced some absence of normal (for him or her) wage earning capacity, then apportionment must be ordered. Not all preexisting conditions generate a duty to apportion, only those which have produced in the claimant a preexisting occupational disability. Dr. Ellis testified that Johnson’s heart problems were due to his enlarged heart, and Johnson’s enlarged heart could have been attributed to several factors, including genetics, obesity, and stress – including job stress. There was no proof that Johnson’s pre-existing high blood pressure or his enlarged heart caused him any loss of wage earning capacity prior to the incident in question. Until that time, he was able to perform the functions of his employment without limitation. Under these circumstances, apportionment of Johnson’s benefits is inappropriate. The County’s argument that not all the medical treatment was compensable is procedurally barred under M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6), because the County failed to cite any authority. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
