Stanford v. V.F. Jeanswear, LP, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2010-WC-01284-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-WC-01284-COA ; 2010-CT-01284-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-11-2011 Opinion Author: Irving, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers' compensation - Bias of judge - Substantial evidence - Work-related injury Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-28-2010 Appealed from: Union County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Case Number: 2009-311 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Martha Kay Stanford |
WILLIAM O. RUTLEDGE III, VALARIE B. HANCOCK |
|
|
| Appellee: | V.F. Jeanswear, LP and Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company | M. REED MARTZ | ||
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 - Bias of judge - Substantial evidence - Work-related injury |
| Summary of the Facts: | Martha Stanford filed a petition to controvert with the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission, alleging that she had sustained injuries to her head, neck, back, knees, and extremities when she tripped and fell during the course and scope of her employment with V.F. Jeanswear, LP. A hearing was held before an administrative judge, who denied Stanford’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits. Stanford appealed the AJ’s decision to the Commission, which affirmed. Stanford appealed to circuit court which also affirmed. Stanford appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Bias of judge Stanford argues that the AJ demonstrated bias in favor of V.F. and its insurance carrier by affording greater weight to certain witnesses and evidence. In the context of administrative hearings, there is a presumption that the officers conducting the hearing behave honestly and fairly in the conduct of the hearings and in the decision-making process. Absent some showing of personal or financial interest on the part of the hearing officer or evidence of misconduct on the officer’s part, this presumption is not overcome. Stanford argues that testimony from a V.F. employee was biased and that the AJ erred in accepting her testimony. Allowing the employee to testify does not demonstrate bias on the part of the AJ, especially where the AJ also permitted the testimonies of Stanford’s husband, relatives, and friends. Stanford also argues that the AJ placed undue emphasis on the fact that Stanford went on a cruise two months after her alleged work-related injury. However, this does not indicate bias on the AJ’s part, especially where the video was just one piece of evidence considered by the AJ in rendering her decision. Stanford argues that the AJ unfairly favored the medical records of a doctor who saw Stanford only one time. However, the record completely belies this contention. In her order, the AJ also discussed the medical records of two other doctors who had treated Stanford. Issue 2: Substantial evidence Stanford argues that the Commission’s decision to deny benefits is not supported by substantial evidence and, consequently, is arbitrary and capricious. In making her determination, the AJ considered the fact that Stanford’s medical providers made no mention of a work-related injury in their records until over two years after the alleged injury. Additionally, the AJ noted that while Stanford testified that she had informed three people of her injury, all three witnesses denied that they had ever been told about her fall. Furthermore, the AJ stated that Stanford’s testimony regarding her disability was contradicted by the video from her cruise. Based on the inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence, the Commission did not err in finding that Stanford had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she had sustained a compensable work-related injury. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
