Felter v. Floorserv, Inc., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2010-WC-01793-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-WC-01793-COA ; 2010-CT-01793-SCT ; 2010-CT-01793-SCT ; 2010-CT-01793-SCT ; 2012-CT-01793-SCT CONSOLIDATED WITH NO. 2010-CT-00307-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-19-2012 Opinion Author: Irving, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers' compensation - Timeliness of appeal - Section 71-3-47 - Substantial evidence - Loss of wage-earning capacity - Jury trial Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Ishee, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes and Roberts, JJ., Concur in Part and in the Result Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-28-2011 Appealed from: Adams County Circuit Court Judge: Lillie Blackmon Sanders Disposition: AFFIRMED COMMISSION’S DECISION DISMISSING APPEAL Case Number: 09-KV-0082-S |
|
| Note: | On May 16, 2013, the Supreme Court found that the notice of appeal was timely filed and reversed the Court of Appeals and circuit court. The SCT opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO84317.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Erika L. Felter |
PRO SE |
|
|
| Appellee: | Floorserv, Inc., The Employers' Fire Insurance Company, and One Beacon Insurance | CHADWICK L. SHOOK LOUIE F. RUFFIN | ||
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 - Timeliness of appeal - Section 71-3-47 - Substantial evidence - Loss of wage-earning capacity - Jury trial |
| Summary of the Facts: | Erica Felter filed a petition to controvert with the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission alleging that she had sustained injuries to her neck, upper and lower back, head, right and left knees, left hip, and left arm and hand as a result of a car accident that occurred while she was working as a territory manager for FloorServ Inc. An administrative judge found that Felter had suffered a work-related injury on March 27, 2006, and had reached maximum medical improvement from that injury on August 30, 2006. Additionally, the AJ found that Felter’s medical treatment was reasonable and necessary through August 30, 2006. However, because she did not seek employment after her MMI date, the AJ determined that Felter had failed to demonstrate a loss of wage-earning capacity and was not entitled to additional indemnity or medical benefits from FloorServ. Felter appealed the AJ’s decision to the full Commission, which dismissed her appeal as untimely. Felter appealed the Commission’s decision to circuit court which affirmed. Felter appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Timeliness of appeal Felter argues that the Commission erred in dismissing her appeal as untimely. Specifically, Felter contends that because the AJ gave her thirty days from February 19, 2009, to either hire an attorney or proceed pro se, her appeal was timely because it was filed within those thirty days. Section 71-3-47 states that an AJ’s decision to grant or deny a compensation award shall be final unless a request or petition for review by the full Commission is filed within twenty days. According to section 71-3-47, Felter had twenty days from January 9, 2009, to appeal the AJ’s decision to the Commission. Therefore, Felter’s deadline to file her appeal was January 29, 2009. Felter filed her appeal on March 4, 2009–thirty-four days after the statutory deadline. Felter does not contend that her petition should be considered constructively filed based on some prejudice suffered as a result of the Commission’s internal procedures. Accordingly, the Commission did not err in dismissing Felter’s appeal as untimely. Issue 2: Substantial evidence Felter argues that the AJ erred by concluding that she had reached MMI, that she had failed to demonstrate a loss of wage-earning capacity, and that she was not entitled to additional indemnity or medical benefits from FloorServ. The AJ’s conclusion was based on her review of the testimony of the physicians who examined Felter. While Felter’s doctors had differing opinions regarding when Felter reached MMI, there is no evidence that Felter has yet to reach MMI as she contends. There is also no evidence that Felter’s continuing back pain is connected to her work-related injury. Felter also presented no evidence to demonstrate a loss of wage-earning capacity. In fact, she admitted during the hearing before the AJ that she had not looked for alternative employment since leaving her position at FloorServ. Issue 3: Jury trial Felter argues that she should have been granted a jury trial when she appealed her case to the circuit court. However, jury trials are not required in standard workers’ compensation cases. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
