02-04723-H-4035. Mann v. True Temper Sports.

• Case Date: January 13, 2006
• Court: Mississippi

Mississippi Worker Compensation 2006. 02-04723-H-4035. Mann v. True Temper Sports MIKE MANN CLAIMANT VS. TRUE TEMPER SPORTS EMPLOYER AND AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY CARRIER MISSISSIPPI WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION MWCC NO. 02-04723-H-4035RepresentingLClaimant: Keith S. Canton, Esquire, Corinth, MS Representing Employer and Carrier: Richard Coker, Esquire, Ridgeland, MS FULL COMMISSION ORDER The above styled claim was heard by the Commission on August 15, 2005 pursuant to the Employer's and Carrier's Petition for Review to Full Commission. The Employer and Carrier argue that the Administrative Judge erred in finding this claim was not barred by the two year statute of limitations. We agree, and reverse. I. Mike Mann sustained a back injury at work on June 11, 1999. He continued working and did not seek any medical treatment until February 11, 2000. At no time was he taken off work by a doctor, and he only occasionally missed time from work to attend doctor visits. Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between True Temper and the United Steel Workers of America, Mr. Mann was paid for the time spent attending five doctor visits.(fn1) He was never paid any compensation benefits outright by the Employer or Carrier, nor was he paid for any other doctor visits beyond five.(fn2) Mann did not file a petition to controvert with the Commission until April 25, 2002. The sole question is whether his claim is barred by the two year statute of limitations contained in Miss. Code Ann. §71-3-35(1) (Rev. 2000). The answer to this question turns on whether the sick pay benefts paid to Mann under the terms of the union contract constitute a payment of wages in lieu of workers' compensation benefits so as to erase the statute of limitations, because is it agreed that he was not paid any other benefits by the Employer or Carrier. The Administrative Judge concluded that the sick pay benefits which Mann received under the terms of the union contract constituted the payment of wages in lieu of compensation benefits, and as such, tolled the two statute of limitations. We do not disagree with the notion that the payment ofwages to an injured worker in lieu of compensation benefits is sufficient to erase the two year statute oflimitations, the same as the payment of compensation benefits themselves. However; we do...