 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Powe v. Roy Anderson Construction Co.9/6/2005
o. 2d at 826.
. For these reasons, we find that summary judgment was proper.
III. TIMELINESS OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT
. The Powes also argue that summary judgment was premature, in that they "did not yet have sufficient time to conduct discovery on outstanding fact issues." The Powes cite to Malone v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 583 So. 2d 186, 187 (Miss. 1991), and T.M. v. Noblitt, 650 So. 2d 1340, 1345 (Miss. 1995), in support of his argument that summary judgment was premature. We disagree. Unlike the litigants in Malone, the Powes never requested additional time to conduct discovery. Additionally, under Mississippi's workers' compensation act, ADS and Anderson are immune. We do not agree that further discovery will pierce this immunity. Powe was injured while at work, his injuries are compensable under workers' compensation, and there is no evidence that either ADS or Anderson willfully injured him. This issue is without merit.
. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE TAXED TO THE APPELLANTS.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES, P.J., IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|