00 15447-H-0125. Briscoe vs. Irvin Industries, Inc.

• Case Date: August 19, 2005
• Court: Mississippi

Mississippi Worker Compensation 2005. 00 15447-H-0125. Briscoe vs. Irvin Industries, Inc CARRIE M. BRISCOE CLAIMANT VS. IRVIN INDUSTRIES, INC. EMPLOYER AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY CARRIER MISSISSIPPI WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION MWCC NO. 00 15447-H-0125 MWCC NO. 02 05372-H-4134Appearinct for the claimant: Lawrence J. Hakim, Attorney at Law, Batesville, Mississippi Appearing for the Employer and Carrier: R. Brittain Virden, Attorney at Law, Greenville, Mississippi FULL COMMISSION ORDER The above captioned cause came on to be heard on the 11'' day of April, 2005 in Hearing Room C of the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission, Jackson, Mississippi, on "Claimant's Petition for Review of Order of the Administrative Judge" and employer and carrier's "Cross-Petition for Review". There is also pending a motion on behalf of the employer and carrier to admit into evidence the deposition of claimant taken on Wednesday, February 21, 2001. Claimant objects to the introduction of this deposition, alleging that its sole probative value is cumulative, and we agree. Thus, employer and carrier's motion to admit said deposition into evidence is denied. Relative to the merits of the case, after consideration of the arguments of counsel, the established facts and the applicable law, the Commission affirms in part and reverses in part the order of the Administrative Judge dated August 16, 2004. We do not dispute the relevant facts as found by the Administrative Judge relative to the claimant's injury reported to have occurred on or about February 1, 2001. We concur. Thus, with regard to the back injury and related claim of right leg injury, we afrm the order of the Administrative Judge (H-4134). We do not dispute the relevant facts as found by the Administrative Judge relative to the claimant's right hand, wrist and thumb injury reported to have manifested itself as a repetitive motion injury on or about June 9, 2000 (H-0125). However, under the facts of the case, we do not reach the same decision as did our Administrative Judge. From our analysis of the facts, and particularly the expert...