Sanderson Farms Inc. v. Johnson

CourtMississippi Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtBefore LEE, P.J., IRVING and GRIFFIS, JJ.
CitationSanderson Farms Inc. v. Johnson, 68 So.3d 67 (Miss. App. 2011)
Decision Date25 August 2011
Docket NumberNo. 2009–WC–00840–COA.,2009–WC–00840–COA.
PartiesSANDERSON FARMS, INC., Appellantv.Debra F. JOHNSON, Appellee.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Douglas S. Boone, Laurel, attorney for appellant.John T. Ball, Natchez, attorney for appellee.Before LEE, P.J., IRVING and GRIFFIS, JJ.IRVING, J., for the Court:

¶ 1. On October 19, 2001, Debra F. Johnson filed a petition to controvert with the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission), alleging that she had suffered bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome while working at Sanderson Farms, Inc. Following a hearing, an administrative judge (AJ) concluded that Johnson had developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome on August 16, 2000, and awarded her temporary total disability benefits in the amount of $173.43 per week for the period commencing August 16, 2000,1 and ending November 22, 2003. The AJ later found that Johnson had suffered a permanent disability of ten percent to each hand and awarded her $173.43 per week for the period commencing November 22, 2003, and continuing for forty weeks. Sanderson Farms appealed to the Commission. The Commission affirmed the AJ's finding of compensability for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and the award of temporary total disability benefits; however, the Commission reduced the amount of Johnson's permanent disability rating to five percent in accordance with the medical bilateral impairment rating assigned to Johnson by one of her treating physicians. Sanderson Farms appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the Commission's decision. It is from that decision that Sanderson Farms now appeals, setting forth the following issues, which we quote verbatim:

1. The Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission (hereinafter referred to as MWCC) erred in finding that the Claimant suffered a compensable injury as such decision was not supported by substantial evidence and, in fact, is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

2. The MWCC erred in ordering temporary total disability benefits in the amount of $173.43 each week beginning August 16, 2000 and continuing through November 22, 2003, as such is not supported by substantial evidence but, in fact, is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

3. The MWCC erred in awarding penalties and interest as such was not supported by substantial evidence but, in fact, was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

4. The MWCC erred in not excluding the testimony of Dr. [John] Passman and of Dr. [Robert] Haimson as such violated Daubert standards and Evidentiary Rule 702 of the Mississippi Rules of [Evidence] which require that expert testimony be based on reliable data and not conclusory statements. Dr. Haimson's and Dr. Passman's testimon[ies] w[ere] admitted over objections notwithstanding neither had any data or scientific evidence to support their conclusory statements as to causation. Such was error.

5. The MWCC erred in not giving greater weight to the testimony of Dr. Nortin Hadler who presented ... un-refuted scientific evidence that Claimant's alleged carpal tunnel syndrome was not related to the limited employment of Claimant.

6. The MWCC erred in giving any weight to the testimon[ies] of Dr. Passman and Dr. Haimson as neither based [his] opinion on any scientific data indicating that the limited work exposure of the Claimant at Employer's place of employment caused or contributed to the Claimant's alleged carpal tunnel syndrome.

7. The MWCC erred in calculating Claimant's weekly wage at $260.15 as such was not supported by substantial evidence and was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

8. The MWCC erred in finding that Claimant did not reach MMI [ (maximum medical improvement) ] until November 22, 2003, as such was not supported by substantial evidence and against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

9. The MWCC erred in awarding 20 weeks of permanent partial disability benefits (5% for each upper extremity) as such is not supported by substantial evidence and is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

¶ 2. Although Sanderson Farms lists these nine issues, its brief is focused almost entirely on attacking the medical testimony offered by Johnson, asserting that it was received in violation of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) and Mississippi Transportation Commission v. McLemore, 863 So.2d 31 (Miss.2003).2 We find, as did the circuit court, that the Commission is not required to strictly follow the rules of evidence and, more specifically, the dictates of Daubert, as embraced by McLemore. We further find that there is ample medical evidence to support the Commission's findings. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court, which affirmed the Commission's decision.

FACTS

¶ 3. Johnson began working at Sanderson Farms on August 12, 2000. Initially, she was responsible for pulling the intestines from chickens. Then, approximately one week after she began working, she was transferred to another job where she worked as a backup to a machine that is designed to cut the windpipes of chickens. Johnson was responsible for cutting the windpipes that were missed by the machine. To perform this task, Johnson held the chicken in her left hand and used scissors in her right hand. Both of Johnson's jobs required her to perform repetitive, manual work.

¶ 4. Shortly after changing positions, Johnson began to experience swelling and pain in her hands. She reported these problems to her supervisor, Bernita Smith. At some point thereafter, Johnson saw Dr. David McGraw at the Catchings Clinic in Woodville, Mississippi. Dr. McGraw placed Johnson on medical leave in November 2000.3 Dr. Lee Voulters performed an electromyogram (EMG) and a nerve conduction study (NCS) on June 25, 2001, which confirmed that Johnson suffered from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Specifically, Dr. Voulters found that: “This study shows evidence of a median nerve entrapment neuropathy at the wrists, bilaterally, i.e., bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. This is a neuropraxic type injury, right greater than left.” After the June 25 tests, Dr. McGraw wrote a letter “to whom it may concern,” stating that “this condition is usually caused by or aggravated by repetitive use of the hand and wrist.” He then referred Johnson to Dr. John Passman, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon.

¶ 5. Johnson first saw Dr. Passman on August 21, 2001, at which point Johnson informed him that she had suffered from pain in both of her hands since August 2000. Johnson attributed the pain to her work at Sanderson Farms. On June 24, 2003, Dr. Passman wrote a letter to Sanderson Farms' attorney, stating that Johnson had had a second EMG and NCS on May 23, 2003, that indicated that she had “mild bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome worse on the left side.” Then, on August 22, 2003, Dr. Passman's partner, Dr. Robert Haimson, performed a carpal tunnel release on Johnson's left wrist. The release did not provide Johnson any significant improvement; therefore, she declined further surgery.

¶ 6. Dr. Passman concluded that Johnson had reached maximum medical improvement sometime in 2003, even though he continued treating her until December 2005. Dr. Passman's final diagnosis of Johnson was bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. He opined that Johnson had suffered a five-percent physical-impairment rating in each upper extremity. He further opined that Johnson should refrain from performing work that would cause her to experience pain in her hands or would require flexion of the wrists. Dr. Passman also opined that it is possible for a person to develop carpal tunnel syndrome after only a few months of using scissors to cut the necks of chickens.

¶ 7. Dr. Haimson saw Johnson regularly after he performed the carpal tunnel release on her in 2003. He concluded that Johnson had reached maximum medical improvement three to six months after the carpal tunnel release was performed. In a letter written on June 30, 2004, to Sanderson Farms' attorney, Dr. Haimson noted that he had performed a follow up EMG that showed “some decreased nerve conduction in the area of the carpal tunnel consistent with some degree of residual or recurrent carpal tunnel syndrome.” He further concluded that: “Based upon her recounting of the history of her condition and description of the work she [had] performed at the Sanderson Chicken Factory, I believe that it is medically probable that her carpal tunnel [syndrome] was the direct result of her employment at the chicken company.”

¶ 8. Dennis Lewis and Lisa Caine, two of Johnson's supervisors while she was employed at Sanderson Farms, testified. Neither Lewis nor Caine recalled Johnson ever complaining about pain in her wrists. Further, Lewis testified that Johnson was only responsible for cutting the windpipes of approximately three chickens per minute. Finally, Lewis stated that Johnson was terminated in December 2000 for failure to report to work for three days.

¶ 9. Smith, a nurse at Sanderson Farms, testified via deposition that Johnson came to her office on September 13, 2000, and again on November 27, 2000. According to Smith, Johnson complained of soreness on September 13 and of problems with her hands on November 27.4 Smith could not recall Johnson coming to visit her on any other occasion.

¶ 10. Johnson provided testimony via deposition and again before the Commission. Johnson stated that her duties were changed during her second week at Sanderson Farms. According to Johnson, her hands began to hurt shortly after she began using scissors to cut the chickens' necks. Johnson stated that both of her hands were affected, her right hand more than her left. Johnson stated that she informed her supervisors of the problem that she was experiencing and that she also went to see one particular nurse at least twice and...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex