03-10849-H-7965. Barrett v. Manning Const. Const.

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

Mississippi Worker Compensation 2005. 03-10849-H-7965. Barrett v. Manning Const. Const WILLIAM H. BARRETT, CLAIMANT vs. MANNING CONSTRUCTION CO., EMPLOYER and ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CARRIER MISSISSIPPI WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION MWCC NO. 03-10849-H-7965Representing Claimant, Mariano J. Barvie, Esquire, Gulfport, MS Representing EmploveE/Carrier: Michael J. McElhaney, Esquire, Pascagoula, MS FULL COMMISSION ORDER This matter was heard by the Commission on November 29, 2004 pursuant to the Employer's and Carrier's Petition for Review. The Employer and Carrier contend that the Administrative Judge erred in finding that Mr. Barrett sustained a work related injury on or about April 17, 2003. The Judge issued an Opinion awarding benefits for this injury on September 28, 2004. We have reviewed the record of evidence, and considered the applicable law as well as the arguments of the parties. Based on our review, we agree with, and hereby affirm the Opinion o f the Administrative Judge dated September 28, 2004. We write, however, to clarify one issue concerning the admissibility of parts of the testimony of Charles Coones. The Administrative Judge concluded, correctly in our view, that Charles Coones should not be recognized and accepted as an expert in the field of occupant kinetics. The Judge recognized that he was not strictly bound by the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, but, using M.R.E. 702 and the Supreme Court's decision in Miss. Trans. Com'n. v. McClemore, 863 So.2d 31 (Miss. 2003)(fn1) as a guide, the Judge found Mr. Coones unqualified to express an expert opinion on the subject of occupant kinetics. By statute, the Commission "shall not be bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence or by technical or formal rules of procedure" in the conduct of its hearings and adjudication of claims. Miss. Code Ann. §71-3-55(1) (Rev. 2000); M.W.C.C. Procedural Rule 8 (1993) ("the general rules of evidence shall be relaxed so as to permit the introduction of any relevant and competent evidence."). The Commission often looks to rules of evidence or procedure which apply to courts of law to aid in the consideration of evidence or the conduct of hearings, but in no way are we required to strictly follow these same rules. Walters v. Blackledge, 220 Miss. 485, ___, 71 So.2d 433, 446 (1954). In regard to the admission of...