 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Twine v. City of Gulfport12/17/2002
irmed by both the Full Commission and the circuit court. However, the Mississippi Supreme Court found that the administrative law judge erred as a matter of law when he specifically stated that the hearing was limited to whether the claimant was suffering from improper medical treatment or lack of medical treatment, and then proceeded to make findings on maximum medical recovery and apportionment. Monroe, 593 So. 2d at 30. The court found that the administrative law judge abused his discretion in misleading Monroe into thinking further hearings would follow when, in fact, that hearing was the final one. Id.
. The case sub judice is distinguishable from Monroe. Here, contrary to what Twine asserts, there is no evidence that the judge gave Twine any indication that the hearing would be anything other than on the merits. This issue has no merit.
IV. DID THE COURT ERR IN DENYING THE APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE?
. With her final issue, Twine argues the Commission erroneously denied her December 1998 motion for additional evidence. Specifically, Twine asked the court to admit Twine's own affidavit plus certain reports from Dr. Weaver, Dr. Jackson, and Dr. Dix which concerned her pain, treatment, and prospects for continued employment in the future.
. Twine cites to Walker Mfg. Co., v. Cantrell, 577 So. 2d 1243 (Miss. 1991), in reminding us of the distinction of the roles of the administrative law judge and of the Commission. See Walker, 577 So. 2d at 1246. She also cites to Wells-Lamont Corp. v. Watkins, 247 Miss. 379, 151 So. 2d 600 (1963), in reminding us that the Commission has the discretion to allow additional evidence if such evidence was inadvertently omitted or if the case has yet to be fully developed. See Wells-Lamont, 247 Miss. at 388, 151 So. 2d at 604. Twine deducts that, in her case, it is clear that "essential testimony and evidence inadvertently left out should be allowed."
. We find in the present case that two and a half years had passed from the date of injury to the date Twine filed her amended petition to controvert, and Twine had ample opportunity prior to the July 1997 hearing to gather and then to present doctors' reports and other evidence relevant to her case. We also note that her motion, as written, did not meet the requirements of the applicable rules of the Workers' Compensation Commission. Procedural Rule 9 states in part:
A motion for the introduction of additional evidence must be made in writing at least five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing of the review by the Full Commission. Such shall state with particularity the nature of such evidence, the necessity therefor, and the reason it was not introduced at the evidentiary hearing.
Rules of Miss. Workers' Comp. Comm'n, Procedural Rule 9. Twine's motion, filed a year and a half after the hearing, was not timely and merely listed the documents without going into detail the need for the documents and reason why they were not introduced previously. We find the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying this motion.
. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS AFFIRMED. COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|