 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hurdle and Son v. Holloway10/5/1999
rs were actually bought by Michael Holloway because Sam Hurdle was under the legal age to make such a purchase. The two then returned to the farm where they worked on the truck and each consumed a number of beers. Sam Hurdle estimated that he drank approximately six of the beers.
. At some time later in the evening, the two ceased work and left the farm together in Sam Hurdle's vehicle, which was also owned by the farm and apparently served a dual role as Sam Hurdle's personal vehicle and, on occasion, as an instrument to perform duties associated with the farming operation. Only a few hundred yards after leaving the farm property and entering a public highway, Sam Hurdle testified that the truck experienced a blow-out of one of its tires , causing him
to lose control. The truck flipped over, seriously injuring Holloway. Hurdle was charged with driving under the influence of intoxicants and ultimately pled guilty to the charge.
. Holloway filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits due him for his injuries, claiming they were job-related. His employer defended and raised several matters in defense, all of which the Commission rejected. Hurdle and Son urges in this appeal that the Commission erred in its rulings on these defenses. The specific issues raised on appeal are as follows:
(A) Hurdle and Son claims that Holloway, at the time of his injury, was not acting within the course and scope of his employment but was on a personal adventure with a fellow employee that was not related to the duties of his employment.
(B) The employer claimed alternatively that Michael Holloway had ceased any duties incident to his employment and was traveling home at the time of his injury - a circumstance that bars compensability under the "going and coming" rule.
(C) Hurdle and Son advances the proposition that Holloway imported the risk that actually caused his injury by participating in the purchase and consumption of beer while on the job -- an activity not permitted by his employer and not in furtherance of his employer's interests.
(D) Finally, Hurdle and Son argues generally that certain findings of fact by the Commission were not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
. We will deal with those issues in the order set out above after some preliminary observations on the limited scope of our inquiry in matters such as this.
II.
The Scope of Our Review . Determinations of compensability for injuries alleged to be work-related and, thus, covered under Mississippi's workers' compensation statutes, are, in the first instance, vested in an administrative agency known as the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission. Thyer Mfg. Co. v. Mooney, 252 Miss. 629, 638, 173 So. 2d 652, 656 (1965); Miss. Code Ann. § § 71-3-1 to 71-3-127 (Rev. 1995 and Supp. 1998). Though the laws establishing this scheme of compensating laborers for their job-connected injuries contemplate judicial review of the Commission's decisions, that review is substantially limited. It involves an inquiry into whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commission's determination, or whether, because of lack of supporting evidence, the Commission's decision can fairly be said to be arbitrary and capricious. Georgia Pacific Corp. v. Taplin, 586 So. 2d 823, 826 (Miss. 1991). There is a second area of inquiry that may be appropriate, which involves a determination of whether the Commission has misconstrued or misapplied the law applicable to its decision process. Id.
. The judicial search for substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision does not extend so far as to pe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|