THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI V. NO WC COA KLAUSSNER FURNITURE CORPORATION D/B/A BRUCE FURNITURE INDUSTRIES

Transcription

1 E-Filed Document Dec :10: CT SCT Pages: 20 THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI BETTYE LOGAN CLAIMANT V. NO WC COA KLAUSSNER FURNITURE CORPORATION D/B/A BRUCE FURNITURE INDUSTRIES EMPLOYER AND AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PA CARRIER On appeal from the Court of Appeals of the State of Mississippi APPELLEE S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT Amy Lee Topik - MSB No MARKOW WALKER, P.A. P. O. Box Jackson, MS (601) ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS BETTYE LOGAN CLAIMANT V. NO WC COA KLAUSSNER FURNITURE CORPORATION D/B/A BRUCE FURNITURE INDUSTRIES EMPLOYER AND AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PA CARRIER The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons have an interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the Court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal. 1. Bettye Logan, Claimant/Appellant 2. Roy O. Parker, Sr., Attorney for Claimant/Appellant 3. Haley W. McIngvale, II, Attorney for Claimant/Appellant 4. Klaussner Furniture Corporation. 5. American Casualty Company of Reading, PA 6. Administrative Judge Cindy P. Wilson 7. Commissioners Mark Formby, Thomas A. Webb and Beth H. Aldridge 8. Amy Topik, Attorney for Employer and Carrier/Appellees _s// Amy Lee Topik Amy Lee Topik - MSB No COUNSEL FOR EMPLOYER/CARRIER (APPELLEES) i

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS i TABLE OF CONTENTS...i i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... iii-iv STATEMENT OF ISSUES...v STATEMENT OF THE CASE....1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT...6 ARGUMENT...7 I. I I. The holding of the Court of Appeals is in direct conflict with the precedent of this Court insofar as it mandates that the claim be considered only under (c)(25) (non-scheduled member injuries) should there be a finding by the Commission of permanent partial disability associated with some loss of wage earning capacity Under clear Mississippi Supreme Court Precedent, an injury to the leg is properly considered under (c)(2) in cases of permanent partial disability or under (a) in cases resulting in permanent total disability CONCLUSION ii

4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES A. Mississippi Cases. Natchez Equip. Co., Inc. v. Gibbs, 623 So. 2d 270, 273 (Miss. 1993) Weatherspoon v. Craft Metals, Inc., 853 So. 2d 776, 778 (Miss. 2003) Winters v. Choctaw Maid Farms, 782 So. 2d 155, 159 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) Short v. Wilson Meat House, LLC, 36 So. 3d 1247, 1250 (Miss. 2010) Lott v. Hudspeth Ctr., 26 So. 3d 1044 (Miss. 2010)....8 Howard Indus. v. Robbins, 176 So. 3d 113 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) Alumax Extrusions, Inc. v. Wright, 737 So. 2d 416 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998)... 8 Levi Strauss & Co. v. Studaway, 930 So. 2d 481 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) Posey v. United Methodist Senior Srvs., 773 So. 2d 976 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) City of Laurel v. Guy, 58 So. 3d 1223 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) Lifestyle Furnishings v. Tollison, 985 So. 2d 352 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) McCary Farms v. Kelly, 811 So. 2d 250 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) Gaston v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 122 So. 3d 797 (Miss. Ct. App McDowell v. Smith, 856 So. 2d 581 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) Smith v. Jackson Constr. Co., Inc., 607 So. 2d 1119 (Miss. 1992) Eaton Corp. V. Brown, 130 So. 3d 1131 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) Hathorn v. ESCO Corp., 224 So. 3d 543 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) Good Earth Development, Inc. v. Rogers, 800 So. 2d 1164 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) McDonald v. I. C. Isaacs Newton Co., 879 So. 2d 486 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) iii

5 B. Statutes. Miss. Code. Ann (c)(1)-(24)... 6,8,11,12 Miss. Code. Ann (c)(2)... 9,10 Miss. Code. Ann (c)(25)... 9,11 Miss. Code. Ann (a)....11,12 C. Treatises 4 A. Larson. LARSON S WORKERS COMPENSATION LAW 57.14(c)(1998) iv

6 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1. The holding of the Court of Appeals is in direct conflict with the precedent of this Court insofar as it mandates that the claim be considered only under (c)(25) (nonscheduled member injuries) should there be a finding by the Commission of permanent partial disability associated with some loss of wage earning capacity. 2. Under clear Mississippi Supreme Court Precedent, an injury to the leg is properly considered under (c)(2) in cases of permanent partial disability or under (a) in cases resulting in permanent total disability. v

7 STATEMENT OF THE CASE PROCEDURAL HISTORY Bettye Logan (hereinafter Claimant ) filed her Petition to Controvert before the Mississippi Workers Compensation Commission on December 9, This matter was heard before the Honorable Cindy P. Wilson in Oxford, Mississippi, on August 12, Judge Wilson found Claimant sustained a four percent (4%) permanent partial impairment rating to her left lower extremity. Claimant appealed that finding to the Full Commission, which affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge by way of an Order dated February 6, Claimant then filed her Notice of Appeal before the Mississippi Court of Appeals appealing the decision of the Full Commission. The Court of Appeals reversed the Full Commission s decision, and remanded the case back to the Commission in their opinion Logan v. Klaussner Furniture Corp., 127 So. 3d 1138 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) ( Logan I ). Subsequently, the Employer and Carrier filed a Writ of Certiorari with the Mississippi Supreme Court, but such was denied by order of the Court dated December 13, On remand, Judge Wilson found Claimant suffered a sixty percent (60%) loss of industrial use to her left lower extremity by an Order dated April 8, Judge Wilson further ruled that Claimant suffered a 100% loss of industrial use to her left lower extremity would be contrary to the medical evidence. Claimant again appealed Judge Wilson s Order to the Full Commission for review. The Full Commission affirmed Judge Wilson s Order finding Claimant suffered a 60% impairment to her left lower extremity, stating that both the medical and vocational evidence supported a finding that Claimant possessed the ability, at the least, to return to a sedentary level 1

8 of employment. On November 17, 2015, Claimant filed with this Court her Notice of Appeal of the Full Commission s Order. On November 15, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the Commission s decision. On November 29, 2016, Employer and Carrier timely appealed by filing a Motion for Rehearing. On August 15, 2017, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision denying Employer and Carrier s Motion for Rehearing in Logan v. Klaussner Furniture Corp., No 2015-WC COA, 2017 Miss. App. LEXIS 474 (Miss. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2017), ( Logan II ). STATEMENT OF FACTS Claimant is from New Albany, Mississippi and was sixty-two (62) years of age at the time of the hearing. (Tr. 5). Claimant completed the tenth grade and later obtained her GED in (Tr. 6). Claimant sustained an admittedly compensable injury to her left leg on October 9, 2003, with an average weekly wage at the time of injury of $ (Tr. 4). Prior to working for the employer herein, Claimant worked as a waitress and in various other manufacturing jobs. (Tr ). Following her medical treatment, Claimant returned to work light duty for the employer in May (Tr. 14). Claimant worked light duty until August 2004, at which time the plant manager suggested she take another job within the plant that paid less. Claimant did not believe she could perform this job, as she had never before performed such job. The plant manager inquired as to whether there was any other job that Claimant would like to try, to which Claimant advised management that she had only worked in the cutting room prior to her injury. Claimant decided to instead take a voluntary layoff; however, she later stated that she was not financially prepared to 2

9 take such layoff status. Claimant subsequently drew two weeks of unemployment benefits. (Tr ). Following her layoff, Claimant provided care for her diabetic mother with the assistance of Hospice Care. She also applied for some jobs in October Four out of the five places where Claimant applied were not hiring at that time. (Tr ). Claimant began receiving Social Security Disability benefits in May (Tr. 6). Claimant has not made application for any employment since October 2005 or applied for any of the jobs provided by Brawner and Associates, a vocational rehabilitation firm. (Tr. 36). Claimant s daughter, Ginny Graham, testified that her mother had lived with her for three to four years around the time of her alleged injury. She testified that her mother constantly complained about pain in her leg and had swelling in her ankle when standing. (Tr. 38, 40). Mr. Lamar Crocker testified for the claimant as an expert in the field of vocational rehabilitation. Mr. Crocker s opinion was that the claimant had a 100% loss in the labor market. (Tr. 51). Mr. Crocker acknowledged during cross-examination that his opinion was based in part on the Social Security opinion. (Tr ). It was further noted that the Social Security Administration did not have the benefit of any records from Dr. Cooper Terry, because Dr. Terry did not see Claimant for the first time until some four years after her Social Security award. (Tr. 53). Mr. Crocker acknowledged that the Social Security Judge might have come to a different conclusion had he had Dr. Terry s records. (Tr. 54). Ms. Jennifer Oubre testified for the employer and carrier as an expert in the field of vocational rehabilitation. Claimant s attorney did not allow Ms. Oubre to meet with Claimant as part of her vocational analysis. (Tr. 62). Ms. Oubre s opinion was that Claimant has transferrable skills and is employable. (Tr ). Ms. Oubre based her opinions on all the medical records, and 3

10 gave her opinion that even if she assumed that some medical restrictions assigned by Dr. Stimpson prior to his assignment of maximum medical improvement were Claimant s permanent medical restrictions, Claimant still remained employable. (Tr. 66). Medical records and medical depositions entered into evidence revealed that Claimant sustained a fractured fibula and a spiral fracture of the tibia as a result of her work injury. Claimant was evaluated by Dr. Ernest Lowe, but elected to come under the care of Dr. Kim Stimpson. Dr. Stimpson treated the claimant with a long cast and later with a fracture brace. On March 26, 2004, Dr. Stimpson noted some lower extremity edema and recommended removal of the brace. (Exh. 3, p. 6). Claimant had symptoms of pain and swelling in the left leg and also some numbness in her left foot. Dr. Stimpson attributed what he termed neuralgia to the fracture brace being applied too tightly. The tibia fracture had healed and a work hardening program was started. Dr. Stimpson opined that Claimant could begin light duty work on April 23, (Exh. 3, p. 7). Nerve conduction studies performed in June 2004 revealed a right peroneal mononeuropathy with deep peroneal nerve injury. Dr. Stimpson clarified in his deposition testimony that this meant that the nerve injury was isolated to the peroneal nerve deep in the muscle. Dr. Oakes, who performed the studies noted that there would be recovery with time, as there was evidence of intact axons to the tibialis anterior. The muscle in the leg was intact with no damage. Further, the nerve at the peroneus longus was not injured. Claimant s recovery was complicated by the nerve injury. Dr. Stimpson last saw Claimant on August 24, (Exh. 7, p ). Dr. Stimpson testified in his deposition testimony that he would have assigned maximum medical improvement in October (Exh. 7, p. 15). Claimant had two functional capacities evaluations performed, one by Cornerstone Rehabilitation and the other by Hill Rehabilitation. 4

11 The report from Cornerstone revealed that Claimant could return to work with no restrictions. The therapist at Cornerstone who performed the evaluation noted that based on a review of Claimant s job description, there was no physical reason why she could not perform her pre-injury job. The therapist at Hill found that Claimant could return to sedentary duty. Dr. Stimpson testified that he would rely on the report from Cornerstone because the evaluation was performed soon after his last visit with Claimant, while the evaluation at Hill was completed several months later. (Exh. 7, p ). Claimant began treating with Dr. Rommel Childress for pain in her left knee. An MRI of the left knee revealed a cleavage tear in the medial meniscus. He recommended surgical intervention. (Exh. 4, p. 2). Dr. Cooper Terry first saw Claimant on February 9, 2009, for an employer s medical evaluation. Dr. Terry related the meniscal tear to Claimant s work injury and agreed that surgery would be proper. Claimant elected to continue her medical care with Dr. Terry. (Exh. 5, p. 3-4). Dr. Terry also noted that Claimant suffered with a mild residual sensory deficit as a result of the peroneal nerve injury and that the motor deficient associated with this injury had resolved. (Exh. 5, p. 3-4). Dr. Terry did perform the arthroscopic surgery recommended. Prior to the surgery, Dr. Terry responded to questions posed by the employer and carrier with his initial evaluation. He opined that if Claimant elected not to have the knee surgery, she would have an 8% permanent partial impairment rating based on the meniscal tear and the residual sensory deficit. Further, if she elected not to undergo the knee surgery, she would be limited in her squatting and kneeling as well as no climbing or working at unprotected heights. However, Claimant did have the recommended surgery and followed up postoperatively with Dr. Terry. (Exh. 5, p. 4). Postoperatively, Dr. Terry 5

12 released the claimant as having reached maximum medical improvement on September 25, He assessed a four percent (4%) permanent partial impairment rating to the left leg and assigned no permanent work restrictions. (Exh. 5, p. 5). SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The law in Mississippi regarding scheduled member injuries has essentially remained unchanged since the Workers Compensation Act was created by the Mississippi Legislature. The Court of Appeals in its majority decision is completely changing the law in Mississippi as it pertains to scheduled member injuries. The dissenting opinion correctly applies the long established law in Mississippi. There is absolutely no precedent found for the majority opinion, as the dissent correctly points out. The Appellate Courts in Mississippi have long held that loss of wage earning capacity can be one of the factors to be used in determining the extent of a claimant s permanent disability in a scheduled member case. However, this Honorable Court as well as the Court of Appeals has always held prior to Logan II that in these cases, a claimant is limited to the number of weeks outlined in the Schedule created by the Legislature in Miss. Code. Ann (1)-(24) unless that claimant is found to be permanently and totally disabled by the injury. The majority opinion not only misinterprets , they essentially throw out sections (c)(1)-(24) from the statute, going against all previous decisions rendered by the Appellate Courts in this State. Further, the terms loss of wage earning capacity and loss of industrial use have been used interchangeably in cases involving scheduled member injuries for years. In the instant case, the Commission used the term loss of industrial use, and the Court in Logan I used the term loss of wage earning capacity. The interchangeable use of these terms of art does not affect the final 6

13 analysis in scheduled member cases, as those are defined in the statute, and the opinion of the Court of Appeals has no basis in the law whatsoever and is completely contrary to the entire body of established workers compensation law in Mississippi. ARGUMENT Standard of Review Under Mississippi Law, the Workers Compensation Commission is the ultimate finder of fact in compensation cases. Natchez Equip. Co., Inc. v. Gibbs, 623 So. 2d 270, 273 (Miss. 1993). Reversal of a Commission order is proper only when a Commission order is not based on substantial evidence, is arbitrary or capricious, or is based on an erroneous application of the law. Weatherspoon v. Croft Metals, Inc., 853 So. 2d 776, 778 (Miss. 2003). Further, an appellate court is bound by the findings of the Full Commission even though the evidence would convince that court otherwise if it were instead the ultimate fact finder. Winters v. Choctaw Maid Farms, 782 So. 2d 155, 159 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). Lastly, this Honorable Court has routinely held that appellate courts of the state of Mississippi act as courts of review of the decisions of the Full Commission and are prohibited from hearing evidence or otherwise evaluating evidence and determining facts. Short v. Wilson Meat House, LLC, 36 So. 3d 1247, 1250 (Miss. 2010). I. The holding of the Court of Appeals is in direct conflict with the precedent of this Court insofar as it mandates that the claim be considered only under (c)(25) (non-scheduled member injuries) should there be a finding by the Commission of permanent partial disability associated with some loss of wage earning capacity. 7

14 The Court of Appeals subsequent Logan II decision on appeal from the initial remand, directly conflicts with long standing Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals precedent. In the majority opinion, the Court states that the Commission did not abide by its mandate in Logan I. In Logan II, the Court found that the opinion in Logan I specifically states that claimant at least had a loss of wage earning capacity, and therefore because of that finding, the Commission should have analyzed the case under (a) or (c)(25). There are numerous Mississippi cases regarding scheduled member injuries which discuss a finding of loss of wage earning capacity. See Lott v. Hudspeth Ctr., 26 So. 3d 1044 (Miss. 2010); Howard Indus. v. Robbins, 176 So. 3d 113 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015); Alumax Extrusions, Inc. v. Wright, 737 So. 2d 416 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998); Levi Strauss & Co. v. Studaway, 930 So. 2d 481 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006); Posey v. United Methodist Senior Srvs., 773 So. 2d 976 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) and City of Laurel v. Guy, 58 So. 3d 1223 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). In all of these cases, the Court was very clear that loss of wage earning capacity is a factor to be considered to determine the amount of permanent disability attributable to a scheduled member injury, but that a claimant is nonetheless limited to the number of weeks allowed under the schedule outlined in (c)(1)-(24) unless the claimant proves that he or she is unable to engage in any form of gainful employment as a result of the injury. Lifestyle Furnishings v. Tollison, 985 So. 2d 352 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). Schedules, to a certain extent, presume loss of wage earning capacity. Legislatively created schedules are justified because there is a conclusive presumption that sooner or later injuries to scheduled members result in loss of wage earning capacity. 4 A. Larson. LARSON S WORKERS COMPENSATION LAW 57.14(c)(1998). 8

15 Also, in some of these cases, the Court has stated that a claimant must prove loss of wage earning capacity to be entitled to an award for permanent disability over and above the functional medical impairment; however, the awards were always limited to the number of weeks allowed under the statutory schedule of benefits. See McCary Farms v. Kelly, 811 So. 2d 250 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) and Gaston v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 122 So. 3d 797 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). Judge Wilson in his written dissent correctly points out that there is not one case where (c)(25) has been applied to a scheduled member case. Further, the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous that (c)(25) only applies to non-scheduled cases. Taking the Court of Appeals ruling in Logan I by its plain meaning, the Commission had a choice of finding that Claimant sustained either a permanent partial or permanent total disability. However, in Logan II, the Court went further to state that the Commission erred when it did not analyze the case under (a) or (c)(25). There is no language in Logan I which states that the Commission had to analyze the case in this fashion, which would have been an incorrect analysis anyway. The Commission correctly analyzed the case under established Mississippi law regarding scheduled member injuries. After reviewing the medical evidence, lay testimony and the vocational expert testimony, the Commission found that Claimant had suffered a permanent partial disability, limiting her benefits to the weeks of disability allowed for a leg under (c)(2). By finding that Claimant had suffered a 60% impairment to her left lower extremity, the Administrative Judge, along with the Full Commission, followed the directive of the Court of Appeals in Logan I that they find that Claimant suffered a "permanent partial or total disability." The Administrative Judge's opinion on remand, along with the Full Commission's 9

16 confirmation of the same, did not rise to the level of being arbitrary or capricious, and was not contrary to the instruction of the Court of Appeals in Logan I. To now remand back to the Commission and mandate that they use an analysis that has never before been used in the history of Mississippi workers compensation law would have detrimental effects on the implementation of scheduled member law by the Commission and its Administrative Law Judges. II. Under clear Mississippi Supreme Court Precedent, an injury to the leg is properly considered under (c)(2) in cases of permanent partial disability or under (a) in cases resulting in permanent total disability Permanent partial disability falls into two, and only two, categories. It is either scheduled [(c)(1) to (24)], or non-scheduled [(c)(25)], but it cannot be both. Yet, that is exactly what the majority opinion in Logan II holds by acknowledging this is a scheduled member injury and then incorrectly applying the non-scheduled portion of the statute. It has long been established that an injury to a scheduled member is subject to a maximum number of weeks allowed under the schedule for permanent disability. When dealing with a lower extremity, that number is 175 weeks. Miss Code Ann (c)(2). Although it is certainly possible under our law for an injured employee to prove that a scheduled member injury has resulted in permanent and total disability, the burden is on Claimant to prove that her injury has resulted in a total permanent loss of wage-earning capacity and that she is unable to engage in any gainful employment as a result of her injury. However, such burden is not an easy one for Claimant to prove. In McDowell v. Smith, 856 So. 2d 581 (Miss. 10

17 Ct. App. 2003), the Court of Appeals emphasized that an injured employee must show that his injuries rendered him totally occupationally disabled from "any form of gainful employment." See also, Smith v. Jackson Constr. Co., Inc., 607 So. 2d 1119 (Miss. 1992); Eaton Corp. V. Brown, 130 So. 3d 1131 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013); Hathorn v. ESCO Corp., 224 So. 3d 543 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) and Good Earth Development, Inc. v. Rogers, 800 So. 2d 1164 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). In the instant case, Claimant has failed to prove that she is totally occupationally disabled from any gainful employment. The Court in all of these cases has held that scheduled member cases can only be analyzed under the schedule in (c)(1)-(24) or under (a). Again, no Mississippi case involving scheduled members can be found which has applied the non-scheduled member portion of the statute in (c)(25). Claimant pointed the Court of Appeals to case law which discussed loss of wage-earning capacity in body as a whole cases and the factors that the courts must use in determining the same. However, this is clearly an incorrect analysis. As seen throughout the record of this case, Claimant has suffered injury to a scheduled member, not a body as a whole injury. And as such, she must show that she has sustained a loss of use over and above the anatomical impairment rating issued by a treating physician or permanent and total disability. Again, there are only two categories of injury, scheduled or non-scheduled. The claimant s injury clearly falls under the scheduled member analysis. Only in the rarest of instances can a scheduled member injury be taken out of the schedule, but the Courts have been clear that when they are taken out of the schedule, it is only for a finding of permanent and total disability as defined in (a). McDonald v. I. C. Isaacs Newton Co., 879 So. 2d 486 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). In the two cases cited by Claimant, Smith and Good Earth, 11

18 the Court stated that if a claimant can prove that they are unable to engage in any gainful employment due to the injury, a scheduled member case can be analyzed under (a), but only in that instance. In all other instances, claimants with scheduled member injuries are limited to the benefits allowed under the schedule in (c)(1)-(24). The Commission correctly applied the clear language of (c)(2) to find permanent partial disability based on the scheduled member injury to the leg. The majority opinion incorrectly held that (c)(25) should apply. Claimant s benefits should be limited to application within the schedule (c)(2), as supported by Supreme Court precedent. CONCLUSION The law in Mississippi is clear that scheduled member cases are only analyzed under Miss Code Ann (c)(1)-(24) or (a). There is no case in the history of Mississippi workers compensation law which has ever applied (c)(25) to scheduled member injury cases. The Court of Appeals erred when it found that (c)(25) applied to the instant case. As there was no incorrect application of the law by the Commission, this Court should affirm the decision of the Commission. 12

19 THIS the 8th day of December, Respectfully submitted, KLAUSSNER FURNITURE CORPORATION D/B/A BRUCE FURNITURE INDUSTRIES AND AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PA BY: MARKOW WALKER, P.A. s// Amy Lee Topik Amy Lee Topik Amy Lee Topik - MSB No MARKOW WALKER, P.A. P. O. Box Jackson, MS P: (601) F: (601) ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES 13

20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Amy Lee Topik, attorney for the employer and carrier, do hereby certify that I have filed, via ECF, with the Supreme Court a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Appellee s Supplemental Brief in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court to: Roy O. Parker, Sr., Esq. P. O. Box 92 Tupelo, MS A courtesy copy has been sent to: Chairman Mark Formby Mississippi Workers Compensation Commission P. O. Box 5300 Jackson, MS th This the 8 day of December, s// Amy Lee Topik Amy Lee Topik 14