 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Cook12/5/2002
ore the trial court is as follows:
(b) The employer and carrier does not have the power to determine the date of maximum medical recovery or percentage of apportionment. This must be done by the attorney-referee, subject to review by the commission as the ultimate fact finder. Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-7(b).
Cook admits in his brief that "while the language of § 71-3-7 (b) may not be strictly applicable to this case, it is not an incorrect statement of Mississippi's workers' compensation law." That is a true statement in that the statute clearly reflects part of workers' compensation law. However, in this context per MP&L;s witnesses, Martha Griffin and Robert Hemphill, the employer did not have the right to determine when a claimant had reached maximum medical recovery. However, this statute deals with apportionment while the present case clearly did not.
. It should not have been brought before the trial court. However, it is harmless error.
IX. WHETHER THE COURT ERRED IN LIMITING THE TESTIMONY OF FORMER MWCC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MARTHA GRIFFIN.
. "A trial judge's determination as to whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert is given the widest possible discretion and that decision will only be disturbed when there has been a clear abuse of discretion." Palmer v. Biloxi Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 564 So. 2d 1346, 1357 (Miss. 1990); Sheffield v. Goodwin, 740 So. 2d 854, 856 (Miss. 1999). MP&L;cannot show that there was an abuse of discretion in the trial court limiting this testimony. We do not believe that it was error for the trial court to limit what Former MWCC Administrative Law Judge Martha Griffin was allowed to testify to in this case.
. Cook cites a Fifth Circuit case, Owens v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 698 F.2d 236 (5th Cir. 1983), wherein the Court interpreted Fed. R. Evid. 704 which Miss. R. Evid. 704 mirrors. In that case, the trial court limited an expert's testimony as to the legal cause of an action. Id. at 239-40. There the witness was not allowed to testify to the ultimate issue because that is the role of the jury to determine. Id. Just as in the case sub judice, it was not for Martha Griffin to testify to the ultimate issue. That was for the jury to determine.
. The compounded problem with Griffin's potential testimony was that the jury may have placed too much weight on her opinion because she was actually an administrative judge sitting for the Commission when this claim came before it. MP&L;was basically wanting to ask her how she would have ruled on a particular case such as this one. However, she was able to testify to key elements of the bad faith claim. For example, she gave testimony saying that it was not unusual for the term "maximum medical recovery" to not be used by physicians. The trial court did not err in limiting her testimony.
X. WHETHER JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 9 WAS REVERSIBLY ERRONEOUS IN FORM OR SUBSTANCE.
. When reviewing jury instructions on appeal, they must be read as a whole. Sentinel Indus. Contracting Corp., 743 So. 2d at 968. Jury Instruction No. 9 was given to the jury as follows in part:
You are instructed that under Mississippi law, the provisions of the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Act are to be construed liberally and that doubtful cases are to be resolved in favor of compensation so that the beneficial purposes of the law will be achieved.
MP&L;argues that the instruction is erroneous because that is the standard used in workers' compensation cases before the Commission and should not be used in circuit court. However, when read in its entirety, we find that granting this instruction was n
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|