Anthony v. Town of Marion, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2011-WC-00172-COA Linked Case(s): 2011-CT-00172-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-19-2012 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers' compensation - Substantial evidence - Admission against interest - Failure to report - Weight of evidence - Medical evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-07-2011 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: HON. LESTER F. WILLIAMSON JR. Disposition: AFFIRMED THE COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS Case Number: 09-CV-139(W) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Gail M. Anthony |
CARRIE JOHNSON |
|
|
| Appellee: | The Town of Marion, Mississippi, and The Mississippi Municipal Workers' Compensation Group | BETTY B. ARINDER CAMILLE HENICK EVANS |
|
|
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 - Substantial evidence - Admission against interest - Failure to report - Weight of evidence - Medical evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Gail Anthony worked as a police officer for the Town of Marion from 1997 until she was discharged in early 2007. Anthony applied for disability-based retirement benefits from the Mississippi Public Employees Retirement Systems and subsequently was awarded duty-related disability benefits. However, Anthony was denied workers’ compensation benefits. Anthony appealed the AJ’s decision to the Commission, which affirmed the AJ’s decision. Anthony appealed the Commission’s decision to circuit court which affirmed the Commission’s denial of benefits. Anthony appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Substantial evidence Anthony argues that the substantial evidence does not support the Commission’s denial of her claim of a compensable work-related injury. She points out that the Commission failed to consider that Anthony was approved by PERS for duty-related benefits for the injury. Anthony asserts that proof that she was approved for these benefits by PERS is persuasive evidence that her injury occurred during the course and scope of employment with the Town of Marion. There is no merit to this argument. PERS does not supplant the authority of the Commission in determining whether a claimant has proven a compensable work-related injury. Anthony also argues that the Commission’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because the record reveals that the Town of Marion admitted to a third party that Anthony sustained a work-related injury that caused disability. In the absence of opposing evidence or in the light of the surrounding circumstances or other evidence in the case, an admission against interest may be sufficient to establish the fact admitted. Here, there was not an absence of opposing evidence. Chief Langston testified that no conversation occurred where Anthony provided notice of her claimed injury to himself and Rasco; thus this evidence rebutted the alleged admission. Issue 2: Failure to report Anthony argues that the Commission erred in basing its denial of benefits on Anthony’s failure to report the injury to the Town of Marion immediately after its occurrence, instead waiting three months before reporting. However, the record shows that the decision of the Commission was not based solely upon Anthony’s failure to report her injuries for three months. Rather, it was based on the totality of the circumstances. The Commission also considered that Anthony reported her injuries after she was diagnosed with a herniated disc, and that the medical evidence was equivocal and insufficient to sustain her claim of a work-related injury. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Anthony argues that the Commission did not properly weigh the evidence, and that the Commission erroneously concluded that the medical evidence was insufficient to prove a compensable work-related injury. The causal connection between the claimant's injury and disability must be proven with competent medical proof and based upon a reasonable degree of medical probability. Viewed in its entirety, Dr. Malloy’s testimony fails to support Anthony’s allegation that her injury resulted from a work-related incident. Therefore, there is no error in the Commission’s determination that the medical evidence was equivocal and insufficient to sustain Anthony’s claim of a compensable work-related injury. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
