Mississippi Workers Compensation Claims – Appeals – Evidence

April 7th, 2011

Mississippi Workers Compensation Claims Accident or Injury Lawyer – Appeals

Section 71-3-47
Proceedings for Adjudicating Mississippi Workers Compensation Claims

Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, the details of practice and procedure in the settlement and adjudication of claims shall be determined by rules of the commission, the text of which shall be published and be readily available to interested parties.

The commission shall have full power and authority to determine all questions relating to the payment of claims for compensation. The commission shall make or cause to be made such investigation as it deems necessary and, upon application of either party or upon its own initiative, shall order a hearing, shall make or deny an award, and shall file the same in its office.

Informal conferences and hearings in contested cases may be conducted by a duly designated representative of the commission. Upon the conclusion of any such hearing, the commission’s representative shall make or deny an award, and file the decision in the office of the commission. Immediately after such filing, a notice of decision shall be sent to all interested parties. This decision shall be final unless within twenty (20) days a request or petition for review by the full commission is filed.

CREDIT(S)

Laws 1948, Ch. 354, § 18; Laws 1950, Ch. 412, § 9; Laws 1982, Ch. 473, § 24; Laws 1990, Ch. 405, § 25, eff. July 1, 1990.

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

Derivation:
Code 1942, § 6998-24.

LIBRARY REFERENCES

Workers’ Compensation 1085, 1163 to 1187.
C.J.S. Workmen’s Compensation §§ 383, 414 to 423, 425 to 426.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Encyclopedias

Encyclopedia of Mississippi Law § 74:5, Duties.

Encyclopedia of Mississippi Law § 76:53, Medical Evidence of Connection Between Impairment and Work.

Encyclopedia of Mississippi Law § 76:108, Independent Medical Evaluation.

Encyclopedia of Mississippi Law § 76:112, Generally; Workers’ Compensation Commission.

Encyclopedia of Mississippi Law § 76:119, Ex Parte Communication With Medical Providers.

Encyclopedia of Mississippi Law § 76:127, Consolidation of Claims.

Encyclopedia of Mississippi Law § 76:128, Assignment of Case to Administrative Judge; Finality of Judge’s Decision.

Encyclopedia of Mississippi Law § 76:139, Order of Administrative Judge.

Encyclopedia of Mississippi Law § 76:145, Commission Review of Administrative Judge’s Decision.

Encyclopedia of Mississippi Law § 76:151, Generally; Penalties on Disability Benefits.

Encyclopedia of Mississippi Law § 76:175, Substantial Evidence Standard.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Supremacy clause, additional workers’ compensation awards at federally-owned, privately-operated facilities, see Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 1988, 108 S.Ct. 1704, 486 U.S. 174, 100 L.Ed.2d 158.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Admissibility of evidence 8
Burden of proof 20
Conflicting evidence, review by courts 19
Construction and application 1
Findings 12
Hearing 7
Investigations 6
Jurisdiction 2
Lay testimony, weight and sufficiency of evidence 10
Medical testimony, weight and sufficiency of evidence 11
Order 13
Pleadings 2.5
Powers and duties of commissioner or representative 5
Pre-hearing statements 6.5
Presumptions 21

Questions of law or fact 4
Record 22
Reopening 14
Res judicata and estoppel 15
Review by commission 16
Review by courts 17-19
Review by courts – In general 17
Review by courts – Conflicting evidence 19
Review by courts – Substantial evidence 18
Scope and extent of authority 3
Standard of review 19.5
Stipulations 7.5
Substantial evidence, review by courts 18
Weight and sufficiency of evidence 9-11
Weight and sufficiency of evidence – In general 9
Weight and sufficiency of evidence – Lay testimony 10
Weight and sufficiency of evidence – Medical testimony 11

1. Construction and application

Workers’ Compensation Commission is the agency empowered to apply the statutory scheme created for workplace injuries, and within broad limits their view on the evidence is binding; the Commission is the trier and finder of facts in a compensation claim. Owens v. Washington Furniture Co., 2000, 780 So.2d 643, rehearing denied. Workers’ Compensation 1939.3

Doubtful cases must be resolved in favor of compensation so as to fulfill beneficent purposes of workers’ compensation statute. Marshall Durbin Companies v. Warren (Miss. 1994) 633 So.2d 1006. Workers’ Compensation 51

In workers’ compensation case where there is question of sufficiency of the evidence, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the claimant. Berry v. Universal Mfg. Co. (Miss. 1992) 597 So.2d 623. Workers’ Compensation 1338

Doubtful cases should be resolved in favor of compensation so as to fulfill the purposes of the workers’ compensation statute. Miller Transporters, Inc. v. Guthrie (Miss. 1989) 554 So.2d 917. Workers’ Compensation 52

2. Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction was vested in Workmen’s Compensation Commission upon claimant’s filing of her original two motions to controvert and jurisdiction remained vested in Commission throughout hearings conducted by administrative judge and through time when he issued his order, and where both parties, after petitioning for review by full Commission, filed joint motion to remand case back to AJ, timely filing of petition for review subsequent to first order issued by AJ was sufficient for purposes of retaining jurisdiction in Commission and new petition for review was not required subsequent to issuance of order based upon additional hearings. Day-Brite Lighting Div., Emerson Elec. Co. v. Cummings (Miss. 1982) 419 So.2d 211. Workers’ Compensation 1805

Full and complete jurisdiction to hear and determine claims for benefits under the workmen’s compensation law has been vested in the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. Everitt v. Lovitt (Miss. 1966) 192 So.2d 422. Workers’ Compensation 1184

2.5. Pleadings

Workers’ compensation claimant properly was allowed to amend his petition to controvert to include post-traumatic stress disorder almost three years after initial petition was filed, given that amendment of pleadings in workers’ compensation matters should be liberally allowed so that truth may be ascertained. Greenwood Utilities v. Williams, 2001, 801 So.2d 783. Workers’ Compensation 1325

Amendment of pleadings in workers’ compensation matters should be liberally allowed so that truth may be ascertained. Greenwood Utilities v. Williams, 2001, 801 So.2d 783. Workers’ Compensation 1325

3. Scope and extent of authority

Workers’ Compensation Commission is administrative agency, not court, and it has broad discretionary authority to establish procedures for administration of compensation claims, and it has like authority to relax and import flexibility to those procedures where, in its judgment, such is necessary to implement and effect its charge under workers’ compensation law. Greenwood Utilities v. Williams, 2001, 801 So.2d 783. Workers’ Compensation 1165

Workers’ Compensation Commission did not exceed its authority in deciding which of two companies employed claimant at the time of his injury, since resolution of that issue was necessary question that Commission had to answer before making statutorily authorized determination of who would be liable for payment of claim. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Holliman, 2000, 765 So.2d 564, rehearing denied, certiorari denied. Workers’ Compensation 1752

Workers’ Compensation Commission did not exceed its authority in addressing issue of whether two corporations were alter egos of one another, where workers’ compensation insurance policy of first corporation would have been effectively cancelled if second corporation was covered through policy of its own and was alter ego of first corporation; resolution of alter ego issue was necessary question that Commission had to answer before making statutorily authorized determination of who would be liable for payment of injured worker’s claim. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Holliman, 2000, 765 So.2d 564, rehearing denied, certiorari denied. Workers’ Compensation 1752

Workers’ compensation commission is charged with determining where the preponderance of the evidence regarding compensability lies and must make that decision from the entire body of credible evidence presented to it. Goodwood Lumber Co., Inc. v. Entrikin, 1999, 753 So.2d 470. Workers’ Compensation 1691

Workmen’s Compensation Commission’s powers are considered to be “broad and extensive” and are to be used for the purpose of “finding the facts and properly protecting the rights of all parties.” Code 1972, § 71-3-15. Roberts v. Junior Food Mart (Miss. 1975) 308 So.2d 232. Workers’ Compensation 1090

The Workmen’s Compensation Commission did not have the authority or jurisdiction to order reformation of an insurance policy so as to cover an injured employee of an independent contractor of the named insured. Herrin v. Alan Wetzel Lumber Co. (Miss. 1962) 244 Miss. 673, 145 So.2d 690. Workers’ Compensation 1070

4. Questions of law or fact

Workmen’s Compensation Commission is trier of fact. Valley Dry Goods Co. v. Odom (Miss. 1962) 244 Miss. 125, 141 So.2d 254; Fair Stores v. Bryant (Miss. 1960) 238 Miss. 434, 118 So.2d 295.

Generally, decision of administrative agency is accorded deference, but when agency has misapprehended controlling legal principle no deference is due. Kemper Nat. Ins. Co. v. Coleman, 2002, 812 So.2d 1119, rehearing denied. Administrative Law And Procedure 751; Administrative Law And Procedure 796

If there is conflict between expert scientific testimony and fact testimony in workers’ compensation proceeding, trier of fact must ascertain relative weight of each, although proof of fact weighs more heavily than contrary opinions thereto. Marshall Durbin Companies v. Warren (Miss. 1994) 633 So.2d 1006. Workers’ Compensation 1418

Workers’ Compensation Commission is the trier of facts as well as the judge of the credibility of the witnesses. Miller Transporters, Inc. v. Guthrie (Miss. 1989) 554 So.2d 917. Administrative Law And Procedure 784.1; Administrative Law And Procedure 787; Workers’ Compensation 1939.1; Workers’ Compensation 1939.6

Weight to be given each of various factors pertaining to employee-contractor question in workmen’s compensation case is ordinarily for trier of facts. White Top and Safeway Cab Co. v. Wright (Miss. 1965) 251 Miss. 830, 171 So.2d 510. Workers’ Compensation 1710

Commission rather than attorney-referee is trier of fact, and commission’s finding will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. Moon’s Dependents v. Erwin Mills, Inc. (Miss. 1962) 244 Miss. 573, 145 So.2d 465. Workers’ Compensation 1939.10

Compensation commission is the trier of facts and its order will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence. Shepard v. Paramount Theatre (Miss. 1962) 144 So.2d 502. Workers’ Compensation 1939.4(4)

In proceeding on claim for workmen’s compensation benefits, conflicts in the testimony were for the triers of fact to resolve. Allen v. Westinghouse Elec. Co. (Miss. 1960) 118 So.2d 869. Workers’ Compensation 1704

The Industrial Commission is the trier of the facts under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Code 1942, § 6998-01 et seq. Mississippi Products, Inc. v. Skipworth (Miss. 1960) 238 Miss. 312, 118 So.2d 345. Workers’ Compensation 1704

When there is conflict in medical evidence, its evaluation, with reference to existence, nature and etiology of injury or disease, is matter for commission. Cole v. Superior Coach Corp. (Miss. 1958) 234 Miss. 287, 106 So.2d 71. Workers’ Compensation 1716

In workmen’s compensation proceeding, conflicting medical testimony makes an issue of fact to be decided by attorney-referee and Workmen’s Compensation Commission. Code 1942, § 6998.01 et seq. Harper Foundry & Mach. Co. v. Harper (Miss. 1958) 232 Miss. 873, 100 So.2d 779. Workers’ Compensation 1704

In compensation proceeding, the Compensation Commission is the trier of facts and not the attorney-referee. Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. v. Dickerson (Miss. 1957) 230 Miss. 110, 92 So.2d 354. Workers’ Compensation 1820

Under Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission is the trier of facts and not the attorney-referee in a compensation proceeding. Code 1942, §§ 6998-24, 6998-43, 6998-47. Malley v. Over the Top, Inc. (Miss. 1956) 229 Miss. 347, 90 So.2d 678. Workers’ Compensation 1820

In workmen’s compensation proceedings, the determination as to the credibility of the witnesses is for the commission. Laws 1948, c. 354, § 1 et seq., as amended. Barry v. Sanders Co. (Miss. 1951) 211 Miss. 656, 52 So.2d 493. Workers’ Compensation 1939.6

5. Powers and duties of commissioner or representative

Workers’ Compensation Commission members assistance to ALJ in resolving backlog of decisions did not procedurally invalidate Commission’s determination that claimant had not suffered permanent wage loss capacity, even though determination was affirmance of ALJ’s determination; Commission was charged with overseeing work of ALJ, Commission was not required to defer to ALJ’s findings of fact, commissioner who assisted ALJ did not participate in Commission’s determination, and commissioner claimed she did not participate in decision-making process, but merely supplied evidentiary synopsis of case to ALJ. Kitchens v. Jerry Vowell Logging, 2004, 874 So.2d 456. Workers’ Compensation 1821

Workmen’s compensation commissioner had right to discuss matter of disability and rights of claimant with claimant, who had telephoned commission after doctor had made final medical report indicating 50% disability of arm which claimant had felt to be more than 50% disabled, and to advise claimant of his rights. Armstrong Tire & Rubber Co. v. Franks (Miss. 1962) 242 Miss. 792, 137 So.2d 141. Workers’ Compensation 1090

The workmen’s compensation commission is the fact-finding agency, and the attorney-referee is its arm or facility. Komp Equipment Co. v. Clinton (Miss. 1959) 236 Miss. 560, 112 So.2d 541. Workers’ Compensation 1731

6. Investigations

Workmen’s Compensation Commission has full power and authority to determine all questions relating to claims for compensation, including authority to make necessary investigations, and to order medical examinations. Everitt v. Lovitt (Miss. 1966) 192 So.2d 422. Workers’ Compensation 1184; Workers’ Compensation 1307

6.5. Pre-hearing statements

Workers’ compensation claimant’s failure to identify witness in any pre-hearing memoranda violated Workers’ Compensation Commission’s procedural rule requiring each party to submit pre-hearing statement setting forth name of each lay witness. Greenwood Utilities v. Williams, 2001, 801 So.2d 783. Workers’ Compensation 1696

7. Hearing

Trial court could hold hearing on the merits of workers’ compensation claimant’s case, even though claimant was proceeding on expedited hearing on refused medical treatment and temporary benefits, where claimant did not file an objection to Workers’ Compensation Commission’s order, which stated that the case would be placed on the active docket and that hearing on the merits would later be conducted, claimant received an official notice of hearing that stated hearing was on the merits, and the record did not show that claimant objected to hearing being on the merits, nor was there evidence that she requested rescheduling of such hearing. Twine v. City of Gulfport, 2002, 833 So.2d 596. Workers’ Compensation 1691

Trial court could hold hearing on the merits of workers’ compensation claimant’s case, even though claimant was proceeding on expedited hearing on refused medical treatment and temporary benefits, where claimant did not file an objection to Workers’ Compensation Commission’s order, which stated that the case would be placed on the active docket and that hearing on the merits would later be conducted, claimant received an official notice of hearing that stated hearing was on the merits, and the record did not show that claimant objected to hearing being on the merits, nor was there evidence that she requested rescheduling of such hearing. Twine v. City of Gulfport, 2002, 833 So.2d 596. Workers’ Compensation 1691

Generally it is improper for Workmen’s Compensation Commission to decide compensation case on employer’s motion to dismiss claim without hearing all facts. Scott Builders, Inc. v. Layton’s Dependent (Miss. 1962) 244 Miss. 641, 145 So.2d 165. Workers’ Compensation 1174

Workmen’s Compensation Commission should sustain employer’s motion to dismiss compensation claim without hearing all facts only where denial is based on matters which are jurisdictional or in abatement or where, taking as true everything that claimant’s evidence tends to show, claimant clearly fails to establish that he is entitled to compensation. Scott Builders, Inc. v. Layton’s Dependent (Miss. 1962) 244 Miss. 641, 145 So.2d 165. Workers’ Compensation 1174

Compensation commission has full control of the matter of ordering compensation for temporary disability to continue so long as the disability in fact continues, subject to rights of the parties to have such additional hearings and proceedings as the commission finds reasonably necessary to properly administer Workmen’s Compensation Act so that its purposes shall be fulfilled, but to arbitrarily require a hearing every two weeks to determine whether temporary disability continues would be unreasonable. Code 1942, § 6998- 09(b). Komp Equipment Co. v. Clinton (Miss. 1959) 236 Miss. 560, 112 So.2d 541. Workers’ Compensation 1769

7.5. Stipulations

Stipulations made by employer that workers’ compensation claimant suffered work-related injuries were extraneous to the fact that claimant failed to show any decline in wage earning capacity as would entitle her to disability benefits, and thus trial court did not have to abide by those stipulations in its determination of claimant’s entitlement to benefits. Twine v. City of Gulfport, 2002, 833 So.2d 596. Workers’ Compensation 1172

8. Admissibility of evidence

Doctor’s deposition, which was taken after the hearing before the administrative judge, properly was considered by both the administrative judge and Workers’ Compensation Commission since all parties were present for the deposition, rules of the Commission specifically permitted additional evidence to be taken after the initial hearing and for the Commission itself to take evidence, and decision of the administrative judge was issued over eight months after the deposition was taken. Barber Seafood, Inc. v. Smith, 2004, 906 So.2d 1, rehearing denied, certiorari granted 893 So.2d 1061, affirmed in part, reversed in part 911 So.2d 454. Workers’ Compensation 1686

Workers’ compensation claimant was not entitled to submit additional evidence in Workers’ Compensation Commission hearing, given that motion to submit such evidence was filed a year and a half after the hearing and merely listed the documents without detailing the need for the documents and reason why they were not introduced previously. Twine v. City of Gulfport, 2002, 833 So.2d 596.

Workers’ compensation claimant was not entitled to submit additional evidence in Workers’ Compensation Commission hearing, given that motion to submit such evidence was filed a year and a half after the hearing and merely listed the documents without detailing the need for the documents and reason why they were not introduced previously. Twine v. City of Gulfport, 2002, 833 So.2d 596.

Witness was properly allowed to testify at administrative hearing as to whether claimant was suffering loss of wage earning capacity, despite fact that witness was not listed in any pre-hearing memoranda in violation of Workers’ Compensation Commission’s rules; employer did not allege specifically in what manner it was prejudiced, and while employer might have been surprised by fact that this witness appeared at administrative hearing, employer should not have been surprised that evidence would be presented concerning claimant’s loss of wage earning capacity. Greenwood Utilities v. Williams, 2001, 801 So.2d 783. Workers’ Compensation 1696

Affidavit by psychologist regarding psychological injury to claimant due to work-related accident was not relevant in workers’ compensation proceeding, as record was only left open following initial hearing to allow parties additional time to obtain information from doctor who evaluated claimant for social security benefits. Posey v. United Methodist Senior Services, 2000, 773 So.2d 976. Workers’ Compensation 1396

Rebuttal witness properly testified in workers’ compensation proceeding that she heard supervisor use racial slur, where witness was restricted to specifically rebut supervisor’s testimony during case-in-chief the she would “give her life if anyone ever said that she used racially derogatory language.” Mid-Delta Home Health, Inc. v. Robertson, 1999, 749 So.2d 379. Workers’ Compensation 1686

Refusing to allow employer to admit as new evidence in workers’ compensation proceeding time sheet of rebuttal witness, who testified that supervisor used racial slur, was not an abuse of discretion; although time sheets revealed that witness may not have been at location where supervisor allegedly made racial slur at exact time to which she testified, decision to award benefits was based upon testimony of many employees and not just on that of witness. Mid-Delta Home Health, Inc. v. Robertson, 1999, 749 So.2d 379. Workers’ Compensation 1703

Objection concerning expert’s use of unsworn medical reports, which were not admitted into evidence in workers’ compensation hearing, as basis for his opinion could not be sustained where testimony had direct bearing on case. Sonford Products Corp. v. Freels (Miss. 1986) 495 So.2d 468. Workers’ Compensation 1397

Workers’ Compensation Commission did not abuse its discretion in allowing claimant to reopen his case due to second deposition by medical expert, though deposition was not in question and answer, sworn, evidentiary form, in that it supported proposition that mistake of fact had been made on issue of work connectedness of claimant’s disability. Delta Drilling Co. v. Cannette (Miss. 1986) 489 So.2d 1378. Administrative Law And Procedure 482; Workers’ Compensation 1782

Industrial Commission, upon review of decision of attorney-referee, did not abuse its discretion in declining to receive medical doctor’s deposition in which he stated that he was more of an expert on cancer than another doctor, who, like deponent, had testified in detail before attorney-referee. Code 1942, §§ 6998-24, 6998-47. Dixie Pine Products Co. v. Bryant’s Dependents (Miss. 1956) 228 Miss. 595, 89 So.2d 589. Workers’ Compensation 1818

9. Weight and sufficiency of evidence–In general

Substantial evidence supported the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s decision that claimant did not need surgery; only one out of three doctors concluded that claimant needed surgery, the other doctors concluded that surgery was not necessary, rehab center evaluated claimant and concluded that claimant did not give his maximum effort and that he magnified his symptoms, and claimant’s true functional maximums could not be determined secondary to stopping tasks due to complaint of pain with few, if any, changes in physical signs present to warrant stopping the tasks. Hardaway Co. v. Bradley (Miss. 2004) 887 So.2d 793. Workers’ Compensation 998

Stipulations made by employer that workers’ compensation claimant suffered work-related injuries were extraneous to the fact that claimant failed to show any decline in wage earning capacity as would entitle her to disability benefits, and thus trial court did not have to abide by those stipulations in its determination of claimant’s entitlement to benefits. Twine v. City of Gulfport, 2002, 833 So.2d 596. Workers’ Compensation 1172

Clear and convincing evidence established that workers’ compensation claimant’s mental injury arose out of employment and was caused by something more than ordinary incidents of employment; claimant was assigned 300 insurance claims, witnesses testified that this was unreasonable, and supervisor made admittedly false statement that claimant was ineligible for specific raise. Kemper Nat. Ins. Co. v. Coleman, 2002, 812 So.2d 1119, rehearing denied. Workers’ Compensation 1529

Evidence supported Workers’ Compensation Commission’s finding that claimant suffered no permanent mental impairment; claimant’s medical expert declined to assign claimant permanent disability rating. Kemper Nat. Ins. Co. v. Coleman, 2002, 812 So.2d 1119, rehearing denied. Workers’ Compensation 1529

Workers’ Compensation Commission properly awarded claimant larger amount of permanent partial disability benefits, based on difference between claimant’s pre-injury wages and his current wages as a sorter, rather than smaller amount, based on difference between prior wages and offered position as a security guard; Commission found that security guard job description provided by employer to doctor was plainly misleading. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Caston, 2001, 812 So.2d 1052. Workers’ Compensation 1756

Substantial evidence supported finding that workers’ compensation claimant sustained 100% industrial loss to right arm; physicians testified as to her impairment ratings, claimant was unable to work in former job due to lifting restrictions, injury prevented claimant from performing other jobs for employer, and claimant attempted to find employment elsewhere. McCarty Farms, Inc. v. Kelly, 2001, 811 So.2d 250. Workers’ Compensation 1660

The Workers’ Compensation Commission, as fact-finder, is entitled to weigh the competing testimonies and render its decision accordingly, provided that the acceptance of the testimony over that of the other did not result in a decision which was clearly erroneous. Moore v. Independent Life and Accident Ins. Co., 2001, 788 So.2d 106. Workers’ Compensation 1408

Evidence supported award in the minimum allowed by law for permanent partial disability; though treating physician testified that claimant’s restrictions did not prohibit her from returning to her former employment, claimant testified that pain associated with her injuries prevented her from performing the customary duties of her former job. Moore v. Independent Life and Accident Ins. Co., 2001, 788 So.2d 106. Workers’ Compensation 1641

Sufficient evidence supported finding by Workers’ Compensation Commission that claimant’s disability related to her body’s lower extremities did not arise from a work-related injury, and thus, claimant was not entitled to disability benefits; independent medical expert stated he could find no connection between claimant’s job in chicken processing plant and her disability. Ross v. B.C. Rogers Processors, Inc., 2001, 787 So.2d 664. Workers’ Compensation 1419; Workers’ Compensation 1487

Workers’ compensation judge’s decision not to give controlling weight to emergency room medical technician’s report that unnamed co-workers made statements about how injury occurred was proper; considering centrality of issue of causation, judge could well have believed that witnesses with actual knowledge of what occurred should have been called or affidavits or other evidence obtained from them and reference in medical report to what unknown people with unknown level of knowledge may have said did not have to be given appreciable weight. Brock v. Hankins Lumber Co., 2000, 786 So.2d 1064, rehearing denied, certiorari denied. Workers’ Compensation 1487

In a workers’ compensation case, the claimant bears the burden of proving by a fair preponderance of the evidence each element of the claim. Owens v. Washington Furniture Co., 2000, 780 So.2d 643, rehearing denied. Workers’ Compensation 1421

Evidence was not sufficient to show that claimant was permanently disabled to any extent as a result of his work injuries, where none of nine physicians seen by claimant provided medical basis for claimant’s claim, and three of nine physicians claimant used as basis of claim were not able to articulate medical explanation for claimant’s continued allegations regarding his work related disability. Owens v. Washington Furniture Co., 2000, 780 So.2d 643, rehearing denied. Workers’ Compensation 1633

Evidence was not sufficient to show that workers’ compensation claimant made reasonable efforts to find employment, and thus, to sustain his burden of showing loss in wage earning capacity to support claim for permanent disability benefits, where in four years prior to date of hearing, claimant made no attempt to obtain employment of any kind. Owens v. Washington Furniture Co., 2000, 780 So.2d 643, rehearing denied. Workers’ Compensation 1672

In determining lo



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Content Protected Using Blog Protector By: PcDrome.
SEO Powered By SEOPressor

Page optimized by WP Minify WordPress Plugin