03-07910-H-7445. Parchman vs. Amwood Products, Inc.

• Case Date: September 09, 2005
• Court: Mississippi

Mississippi Worker Compensation 2005. 03-07910-H-7445. Parchman vs. Amwood Products, Inc JAMES WALTER PARCHMAN CLAIMANT VS. AMWOOD PRODUCTS, INC. EMPLOYER AND MS MANUFACTURERS ASSN. WORKERS' COMPENSATION TRUST CARRIER MISSISSIPPI WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION MWCC NO. 03 07910-H-7445Appearing for the claimant: John P. Fox, Attorney at Law, Houston, Mississippi Appearing for the Employer and Carrier: John S. Hill, Attorney at Law, Tupelo, Mississippi FULL COMMISSION ORDER The above captioned cause came on to be heard on the 6"hday of June, 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". After consideration of the arguments of counsel, the established facts and the applicable law, the Commission affirms the order of the Administrative Judge dated December 16, 2004 and dismisses claimant's Petition to Controvert. FACTS We do not dispute the relevant facts as found by the Administrative Judge, including: * Claimant alleged an accidental injury to his foot which occurred sometime in March of 2000. * Claimant filed his Petition to Controvert on July 23, 2003. * Claimant was aware by late spring of 2000 that his condition was work rela ted.(fn1) * At the time of the injury, claimant was the assistant plant manager and, i n holding that position, was one of the top two or three management employ ees in the plant. * Claimant had been diagnosed with lupus in the 1908s, a condition which req uired on-going medical treatment. * Claimant did not report the injury as a workers' compensation injury withi n the statutory period (fn2) or pursuant to company policy. ANALYSIS The Administrative Judge was asked to consider three issues, which are as follows: 1. Did the claimant suffer from a latent injury? 2. Did the claimant's receipt of salary constitute "payment of salary in lie u of compensation'? 3. Did the employer's failure to file a B-3 until July of 2003 support a tol ing of the two year statute? The Administrative Judge found in the negative in response to each issue raised. These findings, based on the facts established and the law, accurately applied, allow us to afrm her decision. However, we offer additional analysis. 1. Did the claimant suffer from a latent injury? The Administrative Judge's answer to this question--and ours--is no. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of the claimant as to what he understood his medical professionals to tell him about his injury as well as their expert testimony. By July of 2000, the claimant had been told by treating experts, and understood, that his wound was the result of the March 2000 incident, that the condition would be exacerbated by his work, and was a potentially disabling condition. Latent injuries are injuries of which the claimant is unaware. When a claimant is aware of the injury - even if the degree of disability, if any, is not immediately apparent - the injury is not latent (fn3) One of the classic latent injury cases is that of Strut hers Wells-Gulfport, Inc. v. Bradford, 304 So. 2d 645 (Miss. 1974) where the claimant sustained a spider bite to her ankle in December of 1968 which caused no serious ramifcations until December of 1971, causing claimant to file a Petition to Controvert because the employer had not paid her medical bills incurred after June 1970. The courtfound that Mrs. Bradford "...should be expected to display no greater diagnostic skill than any other uninformed layman confronted with the early symptoms of a progressive condition."(fn4) The Court went on to quote Professor Lawson that the "...reasonableness of a claimant's conduct should be judged in the light of his or her own education and intelligence, not in the light of some hypothetical reasonable man of the kind familiar to tort law.(fn5) While the circuit court found in the Bradford case that Mrs. Bradford remained 'excusably ignorant' of her right to make a claim, and the Supreme Court affirmed, noting that while the accident (bite) was apparent, the injury resulting from the accident was not (latent). Citing TaborMotorCo. v. Garrard, 233 So. 2d 811 (Miss. 1970) -the slag in the ear canal case - the Court reiterated: "where latent injuries are involved ....the two year statute commences to run when it becomes reasonably discoverable that claimant has sustained a compensable injury and disability-from the time the compensable injury becomes reasonably apparent.(fn6) In the 1979 case of Quaker Oats Co. v. Miller, 370 So. 2d 1363 (Miss. 1979), the Court reiterated its holdings in Sbruthers, supra and Tabor, supra and concluded that "...the two year statute of limitations will not begin to run until by reasonable care and diligence it is discoverable and apparent that a compensable injury has been sustained."(fn7) In the Quaker Oats case, the claimant had consulted with physicians who had informed him of the nature and seriousness of his condition. Mr. Miller knew the source of his condition; he knew that the work he performed aggravated his condition. Likewise, in the case of Benoist Elevator Co., Inc. v. Mitchell, 485 So. 2d 1068 (Miss. 1986), when a claimant who is injured and work, and is treated for that injury, ceases treatment and then some years later seeks medical attention for the same member, admitting that the member continued to cause problems but he did not seek medical attention until the pain became so severe that he...