Linzie Dorris v. MS Regional Ho Auth

Citation: Not availableDocket: 93-CC-01226-SCT

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court; October 7, 1993; Mississippi; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Linzie Dorris filed a workers' compensation claim after injuring his back while working for the Mississippi Housing Authority on April 3, 1990. Following a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Dorris had reached maximum medical improvement and awarded him permanent partial disability benefits. This decision was upheld by the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission (MWCC) and subsequently by the Leake County Circuit Court. Dorris appealed, raising two primary issues: whether the circuit court erred in affirming the MWCC's finding of maximum medical improvement and whether the awarded disability benefits were insufficient.

The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the circuit court's decision, remanding the case for further proceedings. In analyzing the case, the Court noted that Dorris had refused surgery recommended by three doctors, two of whom concluded he had reached maximum medical recovery without it. Dr. Elmer Nix indicated Dorris' impairment to be 30-35% without surgery, which could potentially decrease to 25% post-surgery. Dr. Robert Bobo also affirmed maximum recovery without surgery but suggested surgery might be beneficial, although the outcome could only be confirmed post-operation. Dr. Bernard Patrick, a neurosurgeon, did not conclude whether Dorris had reached maximum improvement and stated that surgery was not mandatory, indicating no immediate danger but possible ongoing discomfort. The first assignment of error regarding maximum medical improvement was deemed dispositive, leading the Court to not address the second issue regarding benefit sufficiency.

Dorris claims he may remain temporarily disabled despite receiving maximum conservative treatment, as surgery could improve his condition. The court revisits the 1972 ruling in Triangle Distributors v. Russell, which established that temporary disability lasts until an injured employee reaches maximum medical improvement. The court concludes Dorris has not yet achieved maximum medical benefits, categorizing his total disability as temporary and finding the Commission's classification of it as permanent to be a legal error. 

Triangle Distributors indicates that if an employee refuses recommended surgery that could alleviate their disability, the disability should be classified as temporary. The court affirms that Dorris' refusal of surgery was reasonable despite medical advice to the contrary. Evidence shows that while surgery was not life-threatening, the expected improvement was only 10%, and Dorris expressed fear regarding the procedure. Thus, his decision to decline surgery is upheld as reasonable.

Dorris is granted temporary benefits based on the ruling in Triangle Distributors, despite concerns about the implications of awarding temporary benefits on a potentially permanent basis. The court acknowledges Dorris's current refusal to undergo recommended surgery but notes the possibility of worsening pain and future medical expenses related to that surgery. The court emphasizes the supportive policy of workers' compensation statutes favoring employee compensation and reverses the previous decision, remanding for further proceedings.

In dissent, Justice Smith argues that Dorris did not meet the burden of proof and believes the Circuit Court's decision should be upheld. Smith expresses concern that the majority's ruling creates a dilemma regarding the provision of temporary benefits under seemingly permanent conditions. 

Medical testimony indicates that every physician recommended surgery for Dorris, but he declined, citing a misunderstanding about the risks involved. Dr. Bernard Patrick, a neurosurgeon, was unable to fully evaluate Dorris due to his lack of cooperation and suggested that Dorris may have exaggerated his pain or disability, labeling him as potentially fraudulent. Dr. Robert Thompson Bobo, who also recommended surgery, concluded that the procedure carried low risks and would likely improve Dorris's condition, stating that Dorris had reached maximum medical improvement with only a 15% permanent impairment.

Dr. Elmer Nix, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed Dorris with a possible herniated nucleus pulposus at L5 and degenerative disc disease at L3 and L4. He recommended surgery, which he considered low risk and likely to reduce Dorris' impairment from an estimated thirty to thirty-five percent to twenty-five percent. However, Dr. Nix also noted that Dorris had a lifting restriction of forty pounds and contradicted earlier claims about Dorris being able to return to work. Dr. Nix stated Dorris reached maximum medical improvement during his initial visit on October 29, 1990, due to Dorris’ refusal of surgery.

The Commission awarded Dorris permanent partial disability payments of $99.23 per week based on a sixty percent permanent impairment determined by the ALJ, which was double the highest rating given by Dr. Nix. Two other physicians assessed Dorris' impairment as significantly lower—fifteen percent by Dr. Bobo and zero percent by Dr. Patrick, who labeled Dorris a 'fraud.' Evidence indicated Dorris was capable of performing minimum wage jobs and had not experienced a total loss of wage-earning capacity, supporting the lower court's findings.

The case diverges from Triangle Dist's v. Russell, as there is no claim of permanent disability for Dorris; the contention is that he has reached maximum medical improvement and does not exhibit total and permanent disability. The dissent argues against granting Dorris permanent benefits, emphasizing that his condition reflects minimal permanent disability, with one physician denying any injury. The dissenters assert that the findings uphold the intent of the Worker's Compensation Law regarding Dorris' maximum medical improvement and disability benefits.