Garcia v. Super Sagless Corp.

Citations: 975 So. 2d 267; 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 753; 2007 WL 3349079Docket: No. 2006-WC-02163-COA

Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi; November 12, 2007; Mississippi; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Justino Garcia appeals the Circuit Court of Lee County's affirmation of the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission's dismissal of his motion to reinstate his workers’ compensation claim. Garcia sustained a back injury while working on November 14, 2002, and initially received benefits. He filed a petition to controvert on February 14, 2003, which his employer, Super Sagless Corporation, and its insurance carrier, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, acknowledged, although they disputed various aspects including the injury's extent and Garcia's medical treatment. The administrative law judge dismissed Garcia's claim on November 4, 2003, due to his failure to file a required pre-hearing statement. The employer later claimed Garcia had unauthorized surgery and participated in his deposition on March 17, 2004.

Garcia sought to reinstate his claim on April 8, 2005, but the employer argued it was barred by a one-year statute of limitations, asserting that they had filed a Form B-31 notice of final payment on January 26, 2004, which was never actually filed. The administrative law judge denied Garcia's motion on July 12, 2005, citing the statute of limitations. The Workers’ Compensation Commission upheld this decision, and the Circuit Court affirmed the Commission's ruling. Garcia contends that the dismissal was erroneous due to the lack of the Form B-31 filing and argues that the employer should be estopped from using the statute of limitations as a defense since they engaged in settlement negotiations post-dismissal. The Court will defer to the Commission's findings if supported by substantial evidence, reversing only if there are unsupported findings, clear legal errors, or arbitrary decisions.

Garcia contends that the Commission and the administrative law judge failed to consider the employer's lack of a Form B-31 notice of final payment when they refused to reinstate his claim. However, Mississippi Code Annotated section 71-3-53 grants the Commission continuing jurisdiction over claims under specific conditions. The statute allows for a review of a compensation case within one year after the last payment of compensation or claim rejection. The limitations period began when the administrative law judge's dismissal order became final on November 24, 2003. Consequently, Garcia had until November 24, 2004, to file for reinstatement, which he did not do until April 8, 2005. Additionally, Garcia argues for estoppel against the employer and carrier due to their post-dismissal actions. However, to preserve this argument for Supreme Court review, it must be presented to both the Commission and the circuit court, which Garcia failed to do. He did not raise estoppel in his petition for review or appeal notice; it was only mentioned in his circuit court brief, rendering it improperly before the Court.

Garcia contends that a strict interpretation of the workers’ compensation statute undermines the legislation's intended benefits. However, the court finds that the application of the statute in this case is neither 'strained nor technical.' After his claim was dismissed for not adhering to the Commission's procedural rules, Garcia delayed over a year to submit the required pre-hearing statement. The statute grants the Commission extensive authority to establish procedural rules, which must be published and accessible to interested parties (Miss.Code Ann. 71-3-47). The court emphasizes that it rarely overturns the Commission's decisions related to its procedural enforcement (Pennington v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 722 So.2d 162, 165; Delta Drilling Co. v. Cannette, 489 So.2d 1378, 1380-81). The judgment of the Lee County Circuit Court is affirmed, with all appeal costs assigned to the appellant. The court also notes that the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not apply to excuse Garcia's noncompliance with Procedural Rule 5, as there were no misrepresentations from the employer or carrier. Garcia failed to file a pre-hearing statement, which was his responsibility to rectify before the statute of limitations expired, despite his claims of intent to reinstate.