Wright v. Minact Logistical Servs., LLC, 2017–WC–00644–COA
| Decision Date | 01 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2017–WC–00644–COA,2017–WC–00644–COA |
| Citation | 254 So.3d 858 |
| Parties | Angela WRIGHT, Appellant v. MINACT LOGISTICAL SERVICES, LLC and Companion Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Appellees |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ANGELA WRIGHT (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: BRYAN GRAY BRIDGES
BEFORE LEE, C.J., CARLTON AND WESTBROOKS, JJ.
WESTBROOKS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶ 1. Angela Wright was employed by Minact Logistical Services at the Nissan Plant located in Canton, Mississippi. On July 9, 2012, Wright was involved in an incident where she fell off a crate she was seated on in the back of a Fed–Ex truck driven by a supervisor. Wright and Minact agreed to a settlement on October 21, 2016. On February 22, 2017, Wright requested the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission re-open her claim. The Commission denied her request. Wright, appearing pro se, appeals from that order. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶ 2. On July 9, 2012, Wright, employed by Minact, was instructed to ride in the back of a Fed–Ex truck by two supervisors at the Nissan Plant in Canton, Mississippi. The back of the truck did not have any seats, nor did it have any seatbelts, and Wright was instructed to sit on a crate. During the ride, Wright was thrown off the crate and injured her back. Over the span of four years, Wright saw at least nine different doctors regarding her work-related injuries. While it was undisputed between the parties that Wright had a compensable physical injury, it was disputed as to what extent she was disabled and whether her psychological injuries were related to her physical injuries. Due to the varying opinions of the physicians and at the encouragement of the Administrative Judge, both sides agreed to mediation.
¶ 3. At first, Wright seemed to have many hesitations to mediate, but ultimately she agreed to a settlement on October 21, 2016. Four months later, on February 22, 2017, Wright wrote a letter requesting the Full Commission to re-open her claim. In her letter, Wright stated that she felt her attorney did not do his job properly, she also stated she did not read the settlement herself, and she was forced into mediation by the Administrative Judge. On April 13, 2017, the Commission denied her request, stating that she had "failed to present any evidence to establish ‘a change in conditions’ or ‘a mistake in determination of fact’ as grounds for this matter to be reopened." Now, Wright timely appeals from the order denying her claim to re-open. Finding no error, we affirm.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 4. The Commission "sits as the ultimate finder of facts in deciding compensation cases, and therefore, its findings are subject to normal, deferential standards upon review." Pilate v. Int'l Plastics Corp. , 727 So.2d 771, 774 (¶ 12) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). This Court will only reverse the findings of the Commission if the findings are "clearly erroneous." J.R. Logging v. Halford , 765 So.2d 580, 583 (¶ 13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Evans v. Cont'l Grain Co., 372 So.2d 265, 269 (Miss. 1979) ). A finding is clearly erroneous if, "although there is some slight evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made by the Commission in its findings of fact and in its application of the [Workers' Compensation] Act." Id.
DISCUSSION
Whether the Commission erred in denying Wright's request to re-open her claim.
(Emphasis added).
¶ 6. Here, Wright raises seven issues in her principal brief but does not make any arguments in support of a change in circumstance or a mistake in determination of fact as required by the statute.1 Additionally, in her request to re-open, Wright raises the issues that she "felt rushed and forced," she was unaware of who the notary was, she had not read the final medical report, and the mediator had been previously employed as an attorney for the insurance carrier. However, Wright does not fully develop these arguments in her brief.
¶ 7. This Court has held that "a change in conditions means a change in physical conditions due to the original injury which affects an employee's earning capacity or ability to work." Smith v. CompFirst/L.C. Indus. , 186 So.3d 873, 877 (¶ 14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Wright states that she is entitled to benefits for her psychological injuries; however, those were in dispute at the time of the settlement and were encompassed in the petition for approval of the final compromise settlement.
¶ 8. Furthermore, "[t]he burden of proof for showing a change in conditions is on the party, whether claimant or employer, asserting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mabus v. Mueller Indus.
...cases, and therefore, its findings are subject to normal, deferential standards upon review.’ " Wright v. Minact Logistical Servs. LLC , 254 So. 3d 858, 859 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (citation omitted). Therefore, upon review, we will only reverse the Commission's decision if it "lacks the supp......