Goodman Firm Blawg

AWW for Multiple Jobs?

The MS Court of Appeals recently addressed the issue of calculating the average weekly wage (AWW) for a worker injured on the job and who also works an additional part-time position for the same employer. This claim involved an employee of a school who worked full time as an administrator and part time as a dorm supervisor on an "as needed" basis. The MWCC ruled that AWW may only be calculated using the wages from the job the worker is engaged at the time of injury.The Court of Appeals reversed the MWCC and held that all income from the same employer must be considered when calculating the AWW. This can be quite substantial in certain whole body claims.

Latest Decision On Heart Attack Apportionment

Here is a MS Court of Appeals opinion discussing heart attack apportionment in workers' compensation cases. The Court does a good job covering the somewhat confusing history of this area of comp practice. In the end, the opinion stands for the fact that an appellate Court will not overturn the MWCC if its decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Medical Proof in Workers' Compensation

Even though Mississippi Workers' compensation is supposed to be a liberal system viewed in a light most favorable to the injured worker, there must still be proof linking a claimed injury to the employment. As noted in this Court of Appeals decision, simply going to the doctor after a day of work will not suffice. There must be a showing of an injury caused (or aggravated, accelerated, etc.) by the worker's employment.

Conflicting Medical Proof in Workers' Compensation

Just because one doctor says you are 100% disabled, does not necessarily make it so. Especially when another doctor only assigns a 7% disability rating. As noted in this MS Court of Appeals decision, unless the administrative judge commits manifest error, her decision will not be reversed on appeal. The important aspect of this case is the Court's refusal to address arguments of "treating physician v. independent physician opinion," or "doctor x saw claimant 10 times, while doctor y only saw claimant 3 times."

Is A Co-Worker Assault Covered By Workers' Compensation?

As with much of the law...it depends. If the assault is purely personal and just occurs at the place of employment, then no coverage is allowed. However, if the employment creates the assault (argument over work space, tools, etc.), then coverage is allowed.

The MS Court of Appeals recently (and correctly) addressed this issue. In the facts of the claim, two workers exchanged words over $10.00 loaned from one worker to the other. Later in the evening, one of the workers struck the other worker on the head with a 2x4 piece of lumber. At the hearing, the parties stipulated that the argument and assault arose entirely over the $10.00 loan. As such, the argument was purely personal and had nothing to do with the workers' employment- no coverage was allowed under MS Workers' Comp laws.

Workers' Compensation and Co-Worker Assaults

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals recently granted an interlocutory appeal on the issue of Mississippi's Workers' Compensation Statute coverage for co-worker assaults. The case of Tanks v. Lockheed Martin, arise out of the Lockheed martin plant shooting in Meridan, MS. A co-worker shot and killed several workers based upon their race. The Plaintiff's filed suit in Federal Court alleging State and Federal law claims. The Mississippi District Court held that the shooting did not "arise out of employment" and Workers' Compensation did not act as a bar to the State law claims. The 5th Circuit reversed and held that the shooting did take place because of the gunman's relationship with minority workers at the plant.

The dissent raises an interesting (and correct) point: the 5th Circuit basically guessed how the Miss. Supreme Court would rule on the issue; why didn't the 5th Circuit just send the issue to the Miss. Supreme Court for its ruling on this issue of state law?

Workers' Compensation Two Year Statute

The Mississippi Court of Appeals recently published this opinion authored by Judge Kenny Griffis. At issue was the application of the two-year statute of limitations in worker's compensation claims. The injured employee was not paid indemnity benefits within the two year period. The employer did file a Form B-52 Employer's Notice of Controversion, within the two year period. This is one of the few strict areas of Mississippi compensation law- benefits or a request for benefits must occur within two years of the accident. The Court held that the employer's notice of controversion was not a "request for benefits" and did not toll the statute.

Surveillance of a Mississippi Workers' Comp Claimant

The MS Court of Appeals upheld the denial of permanent benefits to a worker's compensation claimant, for reasons stated in this decision. Claimant was alleging a serious back injury was was videotaped performing the following activities:

• 1. Pushing a grocery cart
• 2. Unloading bags of dog food
• 3. Driving; and
• 4. Operating a riding lawn mower

The Administrative Judge and the Miss. Workers' Compensation Commission both denied permanent benefits. The Circuit Court and Court of Appeals affirmed those lower decisions since they were supported by proper proof.

Workers' Comp Occupational Illness

The MS Court of Appeals recently upheld a decision of the MS Workers' Compensation Commission, denying benefits in an occupational illness claim. The underlying facts are that a worker did suffer from an illness involving his immune system. The worker alleged the illness was caused by years of exposure to chemicals at work. The administrative judge agreed and awarded benefits. On appeal the Full Panel of the MWCC disagreed,reversed the ALJ and denied benefits. It was found the Claimant did not have credible medical proof to show the required work causation for his injury.

Mississippi Workers' Compensation Claim Requires Medical Proof of Disability

This MS Court of Appeals Opinion upholds the denial of benefits in a workers' compensation claim based upon the lack of medical proof of disability. The opinion does a good job of stating the standard of review in a comp claim as well as outlining the medical proof (or lack thereof) in the claim.