Atlas Roll-Lite Door Corp. v. Ener, 97-CC-01349-COA.

• Decision Date: 04 May 1999
• Docket Number: No. 97-CC-01349-COA.,97-CC-01349-COA.
• Citation: 741 So.2d 343
• Parties: ATLAS ROLL-LITE DOOR CORPORATION and Michigan Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Arthur Ray ENER, Appellee.
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

741 So.2d 343

ATLAS ROLL-LITE DOOR CORPORATION and Michigan Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Arthur Ray ENER, Appellee.

No. 97-CC-01349-COA.

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

May 4, 1999.

Gene D. Berry, John (Jay) F. Perry, III, Jackson, Attorneys for Appellants.

David L. Walker, Batesville, Attorney for Appellee.

EN BANC

DIAZ, J., for the Court:

¶ 1. Atlas Roll-Lite Door Corporation and Michigan Mutual Insurance Company, the employer and carrier, appeal the decision of the DeSoto County Circuit Court reversing the Workers' Compensation Commission decision to deny Arthur Ray Ener workers' compensation benefits. Atlas Roll-Lite and Michigan Mutual assert the following issue in this appeal: whether the circuit court erred in reversing the findings of the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission which denied Ener any additional medical or temporary total disability benefits and denied him permanent partial disability benefits for the injury he suffered to his right arm while in the course and scope of his employment. We find that Atlas Roll-Lite and Michigan Mutual have failed to prove that the circuit court judge substituted its own findings of fact for that of the Commission on the disputed matters. Therefore, we affirm the ruling of the circuit court.

FACTS

¶ 2. The claimant, Arthur Ray Ener, filed a petition to controvert a workers' compensation claim on November 15, 1995. Therein, Ener claimed that on February 24, 1994, he sustained an injury within the course and scope of employment as a result of retrieving metal from the top of a storage cabinet. Atlas Roll-Lite and Michigan Mutual, the employer and carrier, filed an answer on November 17, 1995, averring, inter alia, that claimant's alleged disability was the result of, in whole or in part, a pre-existing condition, disease, or lesion for which they are not liable.

¶ 3. Ener worked for Atlas Roll-Lite in the grill department. He injured his right arm while retrieving metal from atop a storage building. Without the use of a ladder, Ener climbed up a rack and reached for the material. While doing so, a large and heavy container of materials slid and pinned his right arm. With the advice of his supervisor, Ener waited several weeks before seeking medical treatment.

¶ 4. Ener was treated for the injury to his right arm by Dr. J.A. Calandruccio of the Campbell Clinic from approximately March 22, 1994, until December 8, 1995. During this period of time, two surgeries were performed on Ener's right arm, including a "tennis elbow release" and a subsequent "right radial tunnel release." Following a period of physical therapy, Ener was assigned a 10% permanent partial disability rating by Dr. Calandruccio on December 8, 1995, less than two months following his last surgery.

¶ 5. Pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 71-3-15(1) and Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission General Rule 9, Ener requested approval from Atlas Roll-Lite and Michigan Mutual to be examined by a physician of his choice. This request was granted, and Ener was examined by Dr. Robert H. Bobo on March 17, 1995, and treated thereafter on March 24, 31, and August 28, 1995. On the last two examinations, Dr. Bobo and his colleague opined that Ener did not suffer from any permanent partial disability to his right arm. Ener was subsequently discharged from Dr. Bobo's care and instructed to return to the Campbell Clinic with any future complaints.

¶ 6. Atlas Roll-Lite and Michigan Mutual have paid a total of $5,132.82 in temporary total disability benefits to Ener. Additionally, the employer and carrier have paid $16,214.31 in medical bills as the result of Ener's on-the-job injury.

¶ 7. A hearing was held, and the administrative law judge entered an order on December 3, 1996, determining that Ener did not suffer any permanent partial disability to his right arm. Thereafter, the Full Commission affirmed the decision of the administrative law judge. The DeSoto County Circuit Court reversed and remanded the Full Commission's decision, and this appeal was taken.

DISCUSSION

WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN REVERSING THE FINDINGS OF THE MISSISSIPPI'S

WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION

¶ 8. Appellate review of compensation claims is a narrow one. The standard of review utilized by this Court when considering an appeal of a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission is well settled. The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated "[t]hat the findings and order of the Workers' Compensation Commission are binding on the Court so long as they are `supported by substantial evidence.'" Vance v. Twin River Homes, Inc., 641 So.2d 1176, 1180 (Miss.1994) (quoting Fought, 523 So.2d at 317). An appellate court is bound even though the evidence would convince that court otherwise if it were instead the ultimate fact finder. Barnes v. Jones Lumber, Co., 637 So.2d 867, 869 (Miss.1994). Therefore, "the Commission may accept or reject an administrative judge's findings." Id. In this case, the DeSoto County Circuit Court reversed and remanded the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission which affirmed the order of the administrative law judge after thoroughly studying the record and the applicable law. Our standard of review is set forth in Delta CMI v. Speck:

Under settled precedent, courts may not hear evidence in compensation cases. Rather, their scope of review is limited to a determination of whether or not the decision of the commission is supported by the substantial evidence. If so, the decision of the commission should be upheld. The circuit courts act as intermediate courts of appeal. The Supreme Court, as the circuit courts, acts as a court of review and is prohibited from hearing evidence or otherwise evaluating evidence and determining facts. `[W]hile appeals to the Supreme Court are technically from the decision of the Circuit Court, the decision of the commission is that which is actually under review for all practical purposes.'

As stated, the substantial evidence rule serves as the basis for appellate review of the commission's order. Indeed, the substantial evidence rule in workers' compensation cases is well established in our law. Substantial evidence, though not easily defined, means something more than a `mere scintilla' of evidence, and that it does not rise to the level of `preponderance of the evidence.' It may be said that it `means such relevant evidence as reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Substantial evidence means evidence which is substantial, that is, affording a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.

586 So.2d 768, 772-73 (Miss.1991) (citations omitted).

¶ 9. This Court considers the essential components of a compensation case as stated in Penrod Drilling Co. v. Etheridge, 487 So.2d 1330 (Miss.1986):

1. The claimant generally bears the burden of proof to show an injury arising out of employment, and a causal connection between the injury and the claimed disability;

2. The Commission is the trier of facts, judges the credibility of witnesses, and facts supported by substantial evidence should be affirmed by the circuit court;

3. Unless prejudicial error is found, or the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence the Commission's order should be affirmed.

Id. at 1332 (citing Strickland v. M.H. McMath Gin, Inc., 457 So.2d 925, 928 (Miss.1984)).

¶ 10. An order of the Workers' Compensation Commission will be reversed by this Court only where such order is clearly erroneous and contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Mitchell Buick, Pontiac & Equip. Co. v. Cash, 592 So.2d 978, 980 (Miss.1991); see also Hedge v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 641 So.2d 9, 12 (Miss.1994)

. "This Court will overturn a [C]ommission decision only for an error of law ... or an unsupportable finding of fact." Georgia Pacific Corp. v. Taplin, 586 So.2d 823, 826 (Miss.1991) (citations omitted). The claimant bears the general burden of proof of establishing every essential element of the claim, and it is not sufficient to leave the matter to surmise, conjecture, or speculation. Fought v. Stuart C. Irby Co., 523 So.2d 314, 317 (Miss.1988); Flintkote Co. v. Jackson, 192 So.2d 395, 397 (Miss.1966); Narkeeta, Inc. v. McCoy, 247 Miss. 65, 153 So.2d 798, 800 (1963); V. Dunn, MISSISSIPPI WORKERS' COMPENSATION, § 265 (3d ed.1982).

The claimant, as a general proposition, has the burden of proof. He must meet this burden by showing an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and a causal connection between the injury and the claimed disability.

Narkeeta, 153 So.2d at 800. However, "[d]oubtful cases should be resolved in favor of compensating the claimant `so that the beneficent purposes of the act may be accomplished.'" Walker Mfg. Co. v. Butler, 740 So.2d 315 (¶ 24)(Miss.Ct.App.1998).

¶ 11. Although we are aware of the standard of review imposed upon us when reviewing a decision of the circuit court in a workers' compensation case, we are also convinced in the case sub judice that the circuit court correctly reversed the finding of the Commission because it was clearly erroneous under the Mitchell Buick standard. Even though the circuit court found that slight evidence existed to support the Commission's decision, it followed the precepts of Harpole Bros. Constr. v. Parker, 253 So.2d 820, 823 (Miss.1971), which states that a decision of the Commission may be considered clearly erroneous after an appellate court reviews the "evidence [and] is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made...." Moreover, the Workers' Compensation Act should be liberally construed to carry out its beneficent remedial purpose. Stuart's Inc. v. Brown, 543 So.2d 649, 652 (Miss.1989).

¶ 12. In this case, Ener was sent to company doctors at Campbell Clinic who treated him extensively and performed two different surgeries on him. Dr. Calandruccio, a Campbell...