Thadison v. Universal Lighting Technologies, Inc., et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-WC-01563-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-10-2012
Opinion Author: Irving, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Workers' compensation - Failure to prosecute - M.R.A.P.31(b) - M.R.A.P. 2(a)(2) - Failure to correct deficiency - Non-compensable injury
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Fair, J.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-24-2010
Appealed from: Lincoln County Circuit Court
Judge: Michael Taylor
Disposition: AFFIRMED COMMISSION’S ORDER DENYING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS
Case Number: 2010-35-LT

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Anthony Thadison




CARLOS E. MOORE TANGALA L. HOLLIS



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: Universal Lighting Technologies, Inc. and Twin City Fire Insurance Company ANDREW G. MCCULLOUGH AMY L. TOPIK  
    Appellee #2:  

    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 - Failure to prosecute - M.R.A.P.31(b) - M.R.A.P. 2(a)(2) - Failure to correct deficiency - Non-compensable injury

    Summary of the Facts: Anthony Thadison filed a petition to controvert with the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission alleging that he had sustained injuries to his neck while working as a forklift operator for Universal Lighting Technologies, Inc. A hearing was held before an administrative judge, who denied Thadison’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits. Thadison appealed the AJ’s decision to the full Commission, which affirmed the AJ’s decision. Thadison appealed the Commission’s decision to circuit court which affirmed the Commission’s denial of benefits and, upon motion by Universal, dismissed Thadison’s appeal for failing to file a timely appellate brief. Thadison appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Thadison argues that the circuit court erred in granting Universal’s motion to dismiss for want of prosecution. Universal filed its motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute based on Thadison’s failure to file an appellate brief. Thadison asserts that the circuit court erred in granting Universal’s motion because Universal did not renew its motion prior to the circuit court’s ruling on the merits of the case. However, the record completely belies Thadison’s argument. The record shows that counsel for Universal began the August 16, 2010 motion hearing by renewing Universal’s motion to dismiss based on Thadison’s failure to file an appellate brief. Thadison’s counsel was given an opportunity to respond. After the response, the circuit court decided that it would “rule on everything” after hearing oral argument on the merits of the appeal. Neither party objected to the circuit court reserving its ruling. Moreover, when an appellant fails to file a brief within the time limitation set forth in M.R.A.P.31(b), the appeal may be dismissed on motion of appellee. The circuit court clerk notified Thadison ninety-two days after the record was filed that his appellate brief was late. Subsequently, Thadison was given fourteen days, as provided by M.R.A.P. 2(a)(2), to correct the deficiency. Forty-two days after Universal filed its motion to dismiss, Thadison finally filed his brief. Thadison clearly missed the forty-day deadline as set forth by Rule 31(b) and failed to correct the deficiency within the fourteen days provided by the circuit court clerk. Therefore, the circuit court was within its discretion to grant Universal’s motion to dismiss. Thadison also argues that the circuit court erred in affirming the Commission’s decision that Thadison had a non-compensable injury. Thadison’s medical records are devoid of any mention that his spinal condition is related to his job with Universal. Also, Thadison admitted that he never told anyone at Universal about his alleged injury. Additionally, the only medical expert whose testimony was offered in this case opined that there was only a possibility that Thadison’s condition and his job at Universal were connected. It is well established that recovery under the workers’ compensation scheme must rest upon reasonable probabilities, not upon mere possibilities. Thus, this issue is without merit.


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