Cook v. The Home Depot


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-WC-01551-COA
Linked Case(s): 2009-WC-01551-COA ; 2009-CT-01551-SCT ; 2009-CT-01551-SCT
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-11-2011
Opinion Author: Roberts, J.
Holding: Affirmed.
Additional Case Information: Topic: Workers' compensation - Statute of limitations - Section 71-3-47 - Section 71-3-53
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Myers, P.J., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment; Dismissal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-20-2009
Appealed from: Rankin County Circuit Court
Judge: Samac S. Richardson
Disposition: Affirmed Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission's Dismissal of Claim as Barred by the Statute of Limitations
Case Number: 2009-099-R
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Paul R. Cook




 JOHN HUBERT ANDERSON



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
    		•
    Appellee: The Hope Depot and American Home Insurance Company P. SHARKEY BURKE 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 - Statute of limitations - Section 71-3-47 - Section 71-3-53
    Summary of the Facts: Paul Cook claimed he was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits as a result of a back injury he sustained while moving cast-iron tubs for his employer, The Home Depot. Cook filed a petition to controvert with the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission and received compensation from Home Depot for his injury. He then filed a motion to review the cessation of his benefits alleging further medical treatment was necessary for his injury. An administrative judge dismissed Cook’s claim for failing to file a completed prehearing statement. The dismissal order became final on December 26, 2006, at which point the one-year statute of limitations commenced to run. Throughout 2007, Cook failed to properly file a petition for his claim to be reinstated. In June 2008, Cook petitioned to reinstate the claim. The AJ found that the one-year statute of limitations barred the claim and denied his petition to reinstate his claim. The full Commission affirmed the AJ’s order denying Cook’s petition and the circuit court affirmed the Commission. Cook appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Cook argues that the Commission erred in dismissing his claim because his filing of his notices of depositions, submitting an amended prehearing statement, and allegedly filing a petition to reinstate during the one-year statute-of-limitations period were sufficient to toll the statute of limitations. When a claim is dismissed, section 71-3-47 provides that the dismissal does not become final until twenty days after the order to dismiss is entered. The claimant may request review of his claim’s dismissal during the twenty-day period. After the order becomes final, the Commission has continuing jurisdiction pursuant to section 71-3-53. This gives the claimant one year from the date of the last payment or from the date of the AJ’s final order to seek review of his claim. After the one year period, any further review of the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. For the purposes of Cook’s claim, the AJ dismissed his claim on December 6, 2006. Cook then had twenty days within which to petition for review before the dismissal was final. Cook failed to petition for review; instead, he submitted an amended pretrial statement. This action was not a sufficient alternative to a petition for review, so the AJ’s order became final on December 26, 2006, and the one-year statute-of-limitations period commenced to run. The one-year period ended on December 26, 2007. During this period, Cook did submit several notices of depositions and amended prehearing statements, but he did not petition to have his claim reinstated. Cook’s attorney alleged that he had personally hand delivered a petition to reinstate, a prehearing statement, and a notice of deposition to the Commission on July 21, 2007. However, these documents were not in Cook’s file with the Commission when Cook’s attorney reviewed the file in June 2008. Cook’s attorney could only produce the documents dated July 21, 2007, without a stamp date indicating that they were received by the Commission at that time. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commission’s decision that the statute of limitations was not tolled by Cook’s alleged filing of a petition to reinstate on July, 21, 2007, when no such filing appears in the record with the Commission. Cook further argues that filing several notices of depositions and prehearing statements are sufficient to toll the statute of limitations. However, these documents were insufficient to toll the statute of limitations.


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