01-04062-H-4583. Perryman v. Imperial Palace Casino.

• Case Date: August 04, 2005
• Court: Mississippi

Mississippi Worker Compensation 2005. 01-04062-H-4583. Perryman v. Imperial Palace Casino MARY PERRYMAN CLAIMANT V. IMPERIAL PALACE CASINO EMPLOYER AND GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY CARRIER MISSISSIPPI WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION MWCC NO. 01 04062-H-4583Representing Claimant: James Lynn Perry, Attorney at Law, Daphne, Alabama. Representing Employer/Carrier: Stephen A. (Tony) Anderson, Attorney at Law, Gulfport, Mississippi FULL COMMISSION ORDER The Commission heard the above styled cause on August 1, 2005 in the offices of the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission, Jackson, Mississippi, on employer/carrier's "Petition for Review". Having carefully considered the arguments of counsel, the record and the pleadings on file, together with the applicable law, the Commission reverses Administrative Judge Mounger's Order of February 24, 2005. We have no problem with Judge Mounger's evaluation of the evidence; we find it true. to the record and exhibits in this case. Where we differ with Judge Mounger is her conclusion. While Judge Mounger found evidence to suggest that the claimant suffered a permanent partial disability as a result of the work related injury of March 26, 2001, while the claimant was mopping a bath in the Imperial Palace Casino, we disagree. We believe that the weight of the evidence suggests that the March 26, 2001 event resulted in a temporary aggravation to a pre-existing condition. We believe that the March 26, 2001 event, in workers' compensation parlance, "lighted up" her pre-existing condition.(fn1) But we also believe, based on the medical testimony of Doctors Stewart, Smith and Wyatt, that this aggravation resolved itselfby August 27, 2001, at which time the claimant was in a physical condition similar, if not identical to, her physical condition when she became employed at the Imperial Palace Casino. Thus, we conclude that the effect of the incident of March 26, 2001 had subsided by August 27, 2001, and could no longer combine with Ms. Perryman's pre-existing condition to produce a subsequent disability. We do not dispute that Ms. Perryman may be disabled at this time. Certainly, using another standard, the Social Security Administration found her to be so. But we find the relevant medical testimony to consistently demonstrate that Ms. Perryman's current...