IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI N O. 2017-WC-00644-COA ANGELA WRIGHT APPELLANT

v. MINACT LOGISTICAL SERVICES, LLC AND COMPANION PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY APPELLEES

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/13/2017 TRIBUNAL FROM W HICH APPEALED: MISSISSIPPI W ORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ANGELA W RIGHT (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: BRYAN GRAY BRIDGES NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - W ORKERS’ COMPENSATION DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 05/01/2018 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE LEE, C.J., CARLTON AND WESTBROOKS, JJ. WESTBROOKS, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. A n g ela W right was em ploy ed by Minact L ogistical Services at the N issan Pl a n t located in Canton, M i ssissippi. On July 9, 2012, W r ight was i nvolved i n a n i ncident where she f ell o f f a c rate she was seated on in the back of a Fed-Ex truck driven by a supervisor. W r ight an d M i n a c t a g r e ed to a settlem ent on October 21, 2016. On February 22, 2017, W r ight requested the Mississippi W orkers’ Com pensation Com m ission re-open her claim

. The Com m ission denied h er request. W right, appea r i n g p r o s e, appeals f rom that order. Finding no error, we af

f irm

. FACTS¶2. On July 9, 2012, W right, em ploy ed by Minact, was instructed to ride in the back of a Fed-Ex truck by

two supervisors at the Nissan Plant in Canton, M ississippi. The back of the truck did not h ave a ny seats, nor did it have any seatbelts, and W r ight was instructed to sit on a crate. During the ride, W right was thrown of f the crate and injured her back. Over the span of f

our y ears, W right saw at least nine dif f erent doctors regarding her work-related injuries. W hile it was undisputed between the parties that W ri g h t h a d a com pensable phy sical i njury , i t w as disputed as to what extent she was disabled and whether her
psy c h ological injuries w ere related to her phy sical i njuries. Due to the vary ing opinions of the phy sicians and at the encouragem e nt of the Adm inistrative Judge, both sides agreed to

m ediation. ¶3. At f

irst, W r ight seem ed to have m any h esitations to m ediate, but ultim a tely she agreed
to a settlem ent on October 21, 2016. Four m onths later, on February 22, 2017, W right wrote

a letter requesting the Full C om m ission to r e - open her claim

. In her letter, W right s tated that she f elt h er attorne y d i d n o t do his job properly , she also stated she did not read the settlem ent herself

, and s he was f

o r ced into m ediation by the Adm inistrative Judge. On April 13, 2017, the Com m ission denied her req u e s t , s t a t i ng that she had “ f a iled to present any evidence to establish ‘ a change i n conditions’ or ‘a m istak e i n determ ination of f act’ as grounds f or this m atter to be reopened.” Now, W right tim ely appeals f rom the order deny ing her claim to re-open. Finding no error, we af f irm

. STANDARD OF REVIEW

2¶4. The Com m ission “sits as the ultim ate f inder of f acts in deciding com

pensation cases, and theref ore, its f indings are s ubject to norm al, def erential s tandards upon r eview.” Pilate

v. I nt ’ l Plastics Corp. , 7 27 So. 2d 771, 774 (¶12) ( Miss. C t. App. 1999) (internal quotation

m arks om itted). This Court w ill only r everse the f i ndings of the Com m ission i f the f indings

are “ clearly erroneous.” J.R. Logging v. Halford , 765 So. 2d 580, 583 (¶13) ( Miss. Ct. App. 20 0 0) (citing Evans v. Cont ’ l Grain Co., 372 S o. 2d 265, 269 (Miss. 1 979)). A f inding is clearly erroneous i f

, “although there is som e slight evidence to support it, the reviewing court

on the e ntire evidence is lef t with the d ef

inite a nd f

irm c o n viction that a m istake has been

m ade by the Com m i ssion in its f indings of f

a ct and in its a

pplication of the [ W orke r s’ Com pensation] Act.” I

d. DISCUSSION W hether the Commission erred in denying W right’s r e quest to re-open h er claim. ¶5. This Court f

inds that the Com m ission did not err in deny ing W right’s request to reopen her claim . Under Mississippi Code Annotated section 71-3-53, Upon its own initiative or upon the application of any party i n interest on the ground of a change in conditions or b ecause of a mistake in a determination of f act , the com m issi o n ma y . . . review a com pensation case, issue a new comp ensation order which m ay term inate, c ontinue, r einstate, increase, or decrease such com

p ensation, or award com

pensation. (Em phasis added). ¶6. Here, W right r a ises seven issues in her principal brief but does n ot m ake any argum ents in support of a change in circum stance or a m istake i n d e t e r mi nation of f act as 3required by the statute. 1 A dditionally , in her request to re-open, W right raises the issues that

she “f elt rushed and f

orced,” she was unaware of who the notary was, she had not read the f inal m edical report, a nd the m ediator had been previously em ploy e d as an attorney f

or the insurance carrier. However, W right does not f u lly develop these argum ents in her brief

. ¶7. Th i s C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t “ a change in conditions m eans a change in phy sical conditions due to the original injury which af f ects an em

p loy ee’s earning capacity or ability
to w ork.” Smith v. CompFirst/L.C. Indus. , 186 So. 3d 8 73, 8 77 (¶14) ( Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (internal quotation m arks om itted). W right states that she is entitled to benef its f or her
psy c h ological injuries; however, those were i n dispute a t the tim e of the settlem ent and were

encom passed in the petition f

or approval of

the f i nal com prom ise settlem ent. ¶8. Furtherm ore, “ [ t]he b urden of proof f or showing a c hang e i n c o nditions is on the party , whether claim a nt o r em ploy er, asserting the change.” Id. “If this preponderance of the evidence burden is not m et, the petition to reopen should be denied a nd the o riginal order

m aintained.” Id. ( internal quotation m arks o m itted). W right does not provide any additional docum entation o n h e r c hange in circum stances regarding her injuries. Theref ore, the Com m i ssion did not err in f i nding there was no change in circum stances.

1 W rig h t claim s th e f

o llo w in g issu es in h er p rin cip al b rief : (a) th e A d m i n istrativ e Ju d g e’s d ecisio n w as arb itrary an d cap ricio u s in ap p ro v in g a 9 I S ettlem en t; (b ) th e A d m i n istrativ e J u d g e f

o rced h er in to m ed i atio n ; (c) th e tw o B 3 1 s h ad d if f eren t sig n atu res; (d ) th e em

p l o y er-carrier p aid h e r in co rre c t l y f o r tem p o rary d isab ility ; (e) sh e is en titled to b en ef its f o r p sy ch o lo g ical in

j u ries th at c au s ed p o st-trau m atic stress d iso rd e r; (f ) sh e w as d en ied d u e p ro cess; an d (g ) th e f u ll C o m m issio n sh o u ld h av e w eig h ed i n an d rev iew ed th e ev id e n c e th at w a s p resen ted b ef o re th e j u d g e m a d e a f

i n a l d ecisio n . 4¶9. Additionally , the Com m ission did n ot f ind a m istake in determ ination of f a c t

. As stated above, W right did not dem onstrate any m istake i n determ ination o f f a ct regarding her settlem ent. A lthough these issues a r e not d ispositive o f her appeal, w e will address them brief ly

. ¶10. In her l etter to the Com m ission, W right states that she f elt her attorney did not provide adequate representation during the settlem ent hearing on October 2 1, 2016. W right stated that she asked h i m if he was g o ing to read the settlem ent contract that day , a n d he r esponded that he was not. Other than this claim , W right does not g ive any o ther evidence of def icient counsel. ¶11. W r ight also states that the Adm inistrative Judge f orced her into m ediation. However, there i s nothing in the record that i n d i c a t es the Adm inistrative Judge f orced W r ight into

m ediation. Moreover, W right was represented by counsel w h o, according t o the record, was engaged in every s tep of the process. Theref ore, w e do not f

ind that these two issues or the others raised dem onstrate a m istake in determ ination of f act. CONCLUSION ¶12. Af ter review of the r ecord, w e do not f ind the Adm inistrative Judge erred in accepting the settlem ent agreem ent provided b y W right and Min a c t

. Moreover, W right did not dem onstrate a change i n circum stances or a m istake in determ ination of f a ct in a ccordance with section 71-3-53. Theref ore, this C ourt f

inds that the Com m ission did not err in its denial of W right’s request to re-open her claim

.

5¶13. AFFIRMED.

LEE, C .J., IRVING A ND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, CA RLTON, FAIR, WILSON, GREENLEE AND TINDELL, JJ., CONCUR.

6