Blackwell v. Howard Indus., Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2010-WC-01516-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-WC-01516-COA ; 2010-CT-01516-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-24-2012 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers' compensation - Dismissal with prejudice - Notice of deficiency - M.R.A.P. 2(a)(2) - M.R.A.P. 28(a) Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-27-2010 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: APPEAL DISMISSED Case Number: 2009-91-CV10 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Cardie Blackwell |
RAY T. PRICE |
|
|
| Appellee: | Howard Industries, Inc. | DOUGLAS S. BOONE PARKER FORD LEGGETT | ||
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 - Dismissal with prejudice - Notice of deficiency - M.R.A.P. 2(a)(2) - M.R.A.P. 28(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Cardie Blackwell was an employee of Howard Industries Inc. when he sustained a work-related injury to his left elbow. Blackwell was paid $268.59 per week in temporary total disability benefits, and Howard Industries also paid for Blackwell’s recommended surgical procedure. However, a disagreement over his treatment arose; so Blackwell filed a petition to controvert with the Mississippi Workers Compensation Commission. Howard Industries responded with a motion to terminate benefits, and between 2003 and 2007, several motions were filed with the Commission by both parties contesting the extent of Blackwell’s injury and payment of Blackwell’s medical treatment. The parties stipulated that Blackwell had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on August 5, 2005. The dispute, therefore, was whether Blackwell was permanently and totally disabled as a result of “complex regional pain syndrome.” The administrative judge found that Blackwell’s injury was “limited to the left upper extremity” and that he was not entitled to any “permanent disability benefits as he failed to participate in reasonable/necessary medical treatment[,]” which has “impacted the current condition of his left upper extremity.” Blackwell appealed to the full Commission which affirmed. Blackwell appealed to circuit court on October 9, 2009. Several months elapsed, yet Blackwell never filed a brief with the circuit court. Instead, he filed a motion requesting oral argument on April 13, 2010. Howard Industries responded with a motion to dismiss. On May 18, 2010, the circuit court issued an order instructing the circuit clerk to serve Blackwell with a notice of deficiency, requesting that a brief be filed within fourteen days upon receipt of notification. Blackwell filed a brief on June 3, 2010; however, although his brief contained a thorough discussion of the legal issues, it did not conform to all of the requirements of M.R.A.P. 28(a). Howard Industries filed a second motion to dismiss. The circuit court entered an order of dismissal with prejudice. Blackwell appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Blackwell claims the Workers’ Compensation system is based on statutory construction, and he was under no obligation to file a brief with the circuit court on appeal. However, the rules of appellate procedure are applicable to appeals to the circuit court. Blackwell also argues that he should have been afforded a second notice of deficiency regarding the procedural issues with his brief, and consequently, the circuit court erred in dismissing his complaint with prejudice. Blackwell failed to file a brief to accompany his appeal to the circuit court. It was only after he received a notice of deficiency pursuant to M.R.A.P. 2(a)(2), that he provided a brief to the court. However, although Blackwell’s brief stated the facts of the case and presented a substantive legal argument, it did not conform to M.R.A.P. 28(a), as it failed to include a certificate of interested persons, a statement of the issues, and a statement of the case. An appellee’s motion to dismiss cannot be substituted for an official notice of deficiencies from the court clerk. Even where a party has moved to dismiss, the plain language of the rule requires a notice from the clerk of the deficiency and a fourteen day opportunity to cure the deficiency. As the deficiencies in the brief prompted Howard Industries to file a second motion to dismiss, the circuit court should have given Blackwell notice that his brief did not conform to the rules and an opportunity to correct such errors. Thus, the case is remanded with instructions that the circuit clerk provide appropriate notice and that Blackwell be given fourteen days to correct those procedural deficiencies. The circuit court may consider lesser sanctions against Blackwell’s counsel. Although Blackwell’s attorney had notice of the hearing on the second motion to dismiss, he failed to appear. Counsel’s disregard for appellate procedural rules, not to mention the circuit court’s and opposing counsel’s time, is disrespectful and inexcusable. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
