Mold Pro, Inc. v. Alford
| Docket Number: | 2010-WC-00238-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-01-2011 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers' compensation - Reopening time for appeal - M.R.C.P. 77(d) - M.R.A.P. 4(h) Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Carlton, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-29-2010 Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: WILLIAM E. CHAPMAN III Disposition: MOTION TO REOPEN TIME FOR APPEAL DENIED AND APPEAL OF COMMISSION’S DECISION DISMISSED Case Number: 2009-0069-JR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Mold Pro, Inc. |
JESSIE L. EVANS |
||
| Appellee: | Peggy A. Alford | MICHAEL WAYNE DARBY 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 - Reopening time for appeal - M.R.C.P. 77(d) - M.R.A.P. 4(h) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Peggy Alford applied for workers’ compensation benefits following a back injury she sustained during her employment at Mold Pro, Inc. Mold Pro denied that the injury had occurred, and a hearing was held before the administrative judge. The administrative judge found that Alford met her burden of proof that she was injured during the course and scope of her employment, and Alford was awarded workers’ compensation benefits. The Mississippi Worker’s Compensation Commission upheld the administrative judge’s award. Neither Mold Pro nor its attorney received notice of the May 5, 2009, order from the circuit clerk. The record shows that the order was mailed to the Commission and Alford’s attorney but not Mold Pro. Mold Pro filed a motion to reopen the time for appeal which the court denied. Mold Pro appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | M.R.C.P. 77(d) requires the clerk to provide each party with notice of the judgment entered by the court. However, the lack of notice from the clerk does not affect the time for appeal. Mold Pro argues that the circuit court should have granted an out-of-time appeal because Mold Pro did not receive notice of the order. Mold Pro correctly asserts that M.R.A.P. 4(h) allows the circuit court to reopen the time for appeal in instances when, as here, a party who is entitled to notice of a judgment did not receive that notice within twenty-one days of the entry of the judgment. But what Mold Pro fails to recognize is that the motion to reopen the time for appeal must be filed within seven days of the party’s receipt of notice of entry of the judgment. Mold Pro admitted in its motion to reopen the time for appeal that its attorney learned of the Court’s decision on June 19, 2009. Under Rule 4(h), Mold Pro had seven days from June 19, 2009, to file its motion to reopen the time for appeal, yet Mold Pro’s motion was not filed until July 17, 2009 – almost a month later. Accordingly, the circuit court’s order denying Mold Pro’s motion to reopen the time for appeal is affirmed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
