Scott Colson's Shop, Inc., et al. v. Harris
| Docket Number: | 2010-WC-00363-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-19-2011 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: REVERSED AND RENDERED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers' compensation - Hearsay - Substantial evidence - Mental/mental claim - Causal connection Judge(s) Concurring: Griffis, P.J., Myers, Barnes and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Lee, C.J., and Carlton, J. Dissenting Author : Irving, P.J. Dissent Joined By : Ishee and Russell, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-23-2009 Appealed from: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: REVERSED DECISION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION THAT FOUND THE CLAIMANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION Case Number: 251-08-077CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Scott Colson's Shop, Inc. and The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company |
ROBERT ELLIOTT BRIGGS III |
|
|
| Appellee: | Parnell Harris | LOUISE HARRELL | ||
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 - Hearsay - Substantial evidence - Mental/mental claim - Causal connection |
| Summary of the Facts: | Parnell Harris filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits against Scott Colson’s Shop, Inc., claiming he became totally and permanently disabled as a result of being mistreated while he was employed at SCSI. The administrative judge who initially heard Harris’s claim awarded Harris full compensation benefits. SCSI appealed to the full Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission which reversed the AJ’s decision. Harris appealed to circuit court which reversed the Commission’s decision and awarded full compensation benefits. SCSI appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Hearsay This contention of error concerns whether the Commission improperly considered hearsay evidence in the form of an affidavit by Jimmy Hudson, who was Harris’s co-worker at SCSI. Prior to the hearing before the Commission, Hudson was diagnosed with terminal cancer and subsequently had passed away. Under the Commission’s procedural rules, the rules of evidence are relaxed during the Commission’s proceedings. Therefore, the Commission was entitled to use and consider Hudson’s affidavit during its deliberations. Thus, the circuit court erred when it found that the Commission erred in considering Hudson’s affidavit. Issue 2: Commission’s decision SCSI’s second and third issues both address whether the Commission correctly denied Harris’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits. It is necessary to distinguish two distinctly separate but often confused concepts: causation of Harris’s schizophrenia and the aggravation or exacerbation of a pre-existing mental condition. The record contains absolutely no evidence that Harris had been diagnosed with a mental illness at any time prior to or during his employment at SCSI. Harris presented no testimony whatsoever that, prior to his walking out on the job in June 1999, he had been diagnosed with or received treatment for a mental condition. In other words, prior to his being hired in December 1998, there is no evidence that Harris had a history of mental illness. Accordingly, there is no evidence that Harris had a pre-existing condition that was aggravated or exacerbated by his employment at SCSI. In fact, after Harris quit working for SCSI in June 1999, he successfully applied for unemployment benefits. As noted by the Commission, in so doing, Harris “stated in his application that he was capable of full-time employment. In fact, when specifically asked[,] ‘Is there any reason you cannot accept fulltime work,’ the Claimant responded by checking ‘no.’” Four months later, Dr. Mark Ladner first diagnosed Harris with depression and possible post-traumatic-stress disorder. Seventeen months after Harris had walked out at SCSI, Dr. Mario Pineda then diagnosed Harris with schizophrenia. Harris claimed that a racially hostile environment at SCSI caused him to develop paranoid schizophrenia. It is necessary to note that it was highly disputed that there was actually a racially hostile environment at SCSI. The circuit court may have opted to weigh certain evidence differently than the Commission, but objectively weighing the evidence was not a proper component of the circuit court’s review as an appellate court. The fact of the matter was that the Commission’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. Neither party disputes that Harris’s claim is what has been described as a “mental/mental” claim. In general, where the claim is based upon a mental or nervous disease, it is viewed with the normal suspicion attending claimed disabilities which have no physical cause traceable to objective findings, and the burden of proof, which rests upon the claimant, is greater than in ordinary cases. Because Harris raised a “mental/mental” claim for worker’s compensation benefits, he was required to demonstrate clear and convincing evidence of a causal link between his later diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia and the earlier events that happened at SCSI. There was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s conclusion that Harris had failed to present clear and convincing evidence that his paranoid schizophrenia was causally connected to his six-month employment at SCSI. None of Harris’s three treating psychiatrists mentioned a causal connection between Harris’s mental illness and Harris’s employment at SCSI. Dr. Hiatt explicitly stated that there was no causal connection between Harris’s later development of mental illness and Harris’s employment at SCSI. Nor was there any testimony that an incident at work exacerbated or aggravated any preexisting mental illness Harris might have had. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
