 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hurdle v. Holloway6/19/2003
Savage v. LaGrange, 815 So. 2d 485 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). A jury could find that Holloway's injuries are not compensable injuries within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act.
. It is of no consequence that the Court of Appeals found Holloway entitled to workers' compensation benefits. As the Act is to be liberally construed in favor of benefits, the Court of Appeals was limited in its review of the Commission's findings. 749 So. 2d at 347. In order to receive benefits, the Act only calls for the presentation of "substantial evidence." Id. Under such a limited standard of review and burden of proof, it is no wonder the Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's decision. However, the Court of Appeals' ruling as to Holloway's entitlement to benefits does not preclude the litigation of the issues presented in his personal injury action. As the test only addresses "whether an injury is compensable," not whether compensation has granted under the Act. So, the decisive question concerns whether the injury was a compensable injury under the Act. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, these factual determinations should be left to a jury.
. Another important point, not specifically addressed by the majority, is the argument presented by the Hurdles that they cannot now be personally sued since they as the employer have already been held liable under the Workers' Compensation Act. However, receipt of some workers' compensation benefits "does not preclude compensation for the damages that are not compensable under the Act." Davis v. Pioneer, Inc., 834 So. 2d 739, 743 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). See also Blailock v. O'Bannon, 795 So. 2d 533 (Miss. 2001). As stated in the Act " he acceptance of compensation benefits from or the making of a claim for compensation against an employer or insurer for the injury or death of an employee shall not affect the right of the employee or his dependents to sue any other party at law for such injury or death. . . . ." Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-71 (Rev. 2000). Holloway is not suing the Hurdles in their ownership capacity of Hurdle & Son, he is suing Sam and J. K. Hurdle in their individual capacity for Sam's willful acts. In order to file suit against Sam Hurdle, who is a minor, Holloway must include J. K. Hurdle in his capacity as guardian of his son. Miss. Code Ann. § 1-3-27 (Rev. 1998); Miss. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2)(a) & 17(c). Furthermore, Holloway also may assert claims against J. K. Hurdle who is statutorily imputed with liability for his son's auto negligence. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 63-1-23 &-25 (Rev. 1996). Since the facts are unclear as to whether Sam Hurdle was eighteen years old at the time of the accident or whether he had reached the age of eighteen by the time the case reached the Court of Appeals, we can only assume that Holloway has a statutory liability claim against J. K. Hurdle. Sam and J. K. Hurdle in these capacities are not "employers" but "individuals." Hurdle & Son was Holloway's employer, not Sam and J. K. Hurdle. See Index Drilling Co. v. Williams, 242 Miss. 775, 137 So. 2d 525 (1962). There is a distinct difference.
. For these reasons, I dissent.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|