IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI N O. 2014-WC-00342-COA CARDIE BLACKWELL A/K/A CARDIE B. BLACKWELL APPELLANT

v. HOWARD INDUSTRIES, INC. APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/06/2014 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. BILLY JOE LANDRUM COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: JONES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: W I LLIAM H. JONES ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: DOUGLAS S. BOONE PARKER FORD LEGGETT NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - W ORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: STRUCK APPELLANT’S INITIAL BRIEF AND REPLY BRIEF DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 05/05/2015 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., ROBERTS AND FAIR, JJ. ROBERTS, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. The Mississippi W orkers’ Com p ensation Com m i s s i o n d e n i e d Cardie Blackwell’s request f or perm anent d i sability bene f i t s . B lackwell appealed to the Jones County Circuit Court. For the second tim e, the circuit court has dism issed Blackwell’s appeal based on technical def

iciencies. To be precise, the circuit court held t hat Blackwell’s notice of appeal inadequately set f

orth the grounds of h is a p peal. C onsequentl y , t h e circuit court struck Blackwell’s initial brief and h i s reply brief

. W e f ind that the circuit c ou r t erred. Accordingly , w e r e verse the circuit court’s judgm e nt and rem a n d this m atter f or f urtherproceedings consistent with this opinion. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. Blackwell was working f or Howard Industrie s I n c . ( H o w a r d ) when he sustained a work-related injury to his lef t elbow. He re c e i v e d tem porary total disability benef its, and
H o ward paid f

o r B lackwell’s surgical procedure. Af ter a disagreem ent regarding his
treat m e n t , B l a ckwell f

iled a petition to controvert. Blackwell and Howard exchanged volley s of pleadings and m otions between 2003 and 2007. ¶3. The adm inistrative j udge (AJ) f ound that Blackwell was not entitled to perm a nent and total disability b enef

its. Blackwell appealed, and the f u l l C o m m ission af

f irm ed the AJ’s judgm ent. In October 2009, Blackwell appealed to the circuit court. Howard successf ully

mo ved to dism iss Blackwell’s a ppeal because he never f

i led a brief w ith the circu i t c o u r t

. The circuit c ourt issued a def iciency notice and gave Blackwell f ourteen d ay s to f

i le a brief

. Af ter Blackwell f

iled a brief that did not conf orm to Rule 28(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure, Howard successf ully m oved to dism iss Blackwell’s appeal. ¶4. Blackwell appealed to thi s C o u r t , a n d we held that “a second notice of def iciency should have been sent to Blackwell a nd that lesser sanctions, rather than dism issal, would have been appropriate.” Blackwell v. Howard Indus. Inc. , 98 So. 3d 463, 465 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). Consequently , we r eversed the circuit court’s judgm ent and r em anded the case f or f urther proceedings. Id

. ¶5. O n r e ma n d , H o w a r d f iled a m otion to s trike Blackwell’s brief s. According to Howard, Blackwell’s b rief s f ailed to c o mp ly with R

ule 11 of the Mississippi W orkers’

2Com

pensation Com m ission’s Procedural Rules. Howard also m oved to s trike Blackwell’s ref erence to an internet article on the basis that it was “inadm issible hearsay [ and] irrelevant, [ it] lack[ ed a] proper f

oundation, [ and it could not] be authenticated.” ¶6. The circuit court agreed with both of Howard’s claim s. In its order, the circuit court f ound that Blackwell’s notice of appeal did not r ef erence t he issues t hat Blackwell raised in his brief

. The circuit c ourt g r anted Howard’s m otion to strike Blackwell’s b rief s. I n addition
to t he internet article t hat Howard m oved to s t rike, the circuit court s truck f our other “internet

a r t icles and texts” t hat Blackwell attached as exhibits to his reply brief

. Af ter the c i r c u i t
court struck Blackwell’s brief s and f ive articles that were attached as exh i bits, Blackwell appealed to this Court. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶7. The M ississippi Suprem e Cour t h a s h e l d that an appellate court “reviews a trial court’s grant or denial of a . . . m otion t o dism i ss under a de novo standard.” C opiah Cnty. v. Oliver , 51 So. 3d 205, 207 (¶7) (Miss. 2011) (citation om itted). ANALYSIS ¶8. T h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s t r u c k Blackwell’s brief s based on t he notice o f ap p e a l t h a t Blackwell f

iled a f ter the C om m ission af

f irm ed the AJ’s judgm ent. Blackwell f iled the notice of appeal with the Com m i ssion. According to Blackwell’s notice of appeal, by af f irm ing the AJ’s judgm ent, the Com m ission “issued a d ecision which contained num erous m i stakes of f act and errors in [ the] application of controlling law.” The notice of appeal f urther stated that “[ t]he Com m i ssion considered inadm issible evidence f rom D r. J ef

f r ey Sum m ers, which

3was b ased on insuf f icient f actual data and included hearsay , which was a dm itted in violation of Daubert

and the Mississippi Rules of Evidence.” ¶9. On July 13, 2013, Blackwell f iled his brief in the c i r c u i t c o u r t

. B lackwell’s brief included f

our separate issues. H i s f irst three issues addressed the concept that the Com m i ssion e rred when it denied benef its because h e f

ollowed the treatm ent recom m ended by his t reating phy s ician, a n anesthesiologist, rather than a dif f erent theory of care. Additionally , Blackwell claim ed that the Com m ission e rred when i t ignored a stipulation that the parties entered af

ter Blackwell rested his case-in-chief

. ¶10. On July 26, 2013, Howard f iled a m otion f

or an extension of tim e to f ile its responsive brief

. According to Howard, it could not f ile its brief w i thin thirty day s o f Blackwell’s. Howard r equested a thirty -day extension bey ond t he deadline. Howard did not claim that the issues in Blackwell’s brief d i d not correspond to the statem ent i n Blac k w ell’s notice of appeal. On August 7, 201 3 , t h e c ircuit court e ntered a n agreed order g ranting Howard’s request f or an extension to f

il e i t s brief

. Per the agreed order, Howard’s brief was due on Septem ber 23, 2013 – sixty -two day s af ter Blackwell f

iled his brief

. ¶11. Howard f

iled its responsive brief on Septem ber 1 8, 2013, which was the s am e day that Howard f i led i ts m otion to str ike Blackwell’s brief

. H oward c laim ed that the circuit court should strike Blackwell ’ s b r i e f because Blackwell’s notice o f appeal did not com ply with Rule 11 of the Mississippi W orkers’ Com pensation Com m ission’s Procedural Rules, which provides: Should either party desire to appeal f r o m a n award of the Com m i ssion, the party desiring to appeal

. . . will f ile a notice of appeal with t he Secretary of the

4Com m ission. The notice shall set out the sty le of the c ase, t he grounds upon

which the a

ppeal is taken, and certif

ication that copies of the notice o f appeal have been f

iled with the opposing parties. As stated above, the circuit court granted Howard’s m otion to strike Blackwell’s brief , and subsequently

dism issed Blackwell’s appeal. ¶12. First, no portion of the rule states t hat t he rem edy f or noncom

pliance is dism issal of the appeal. Dism i ssal of an appeal is only appropriate “where there is a clear record of delay

or c ontum acious conduct[ , ] a nd lesser sanctions would not serve the best interests of justice.”
Van Meter v. Alford , 774 So. 2d 430, 433 ( ¶ 9) (Miss. 2 000). “[ D]ism issal with prejudice is

an extrem e and harsh sanction that deprives a litigant of the o pportunity t o pursue his claim . . . .” I d . It is “reserved f

or the m ost egregious cases.” Id

. ¶13. S e c o n d , H o w a r d n e v e r claim ed that it was prejudiced or unf airly s u r p r i s e d b y discrepancies between Blackwell’s notice of appeal and the i ssues that Blackwell raised in his brief

. Blackwell agreed to give Howard an e xtension of tim e to f ile its responsive brief

. App r o xim ately sixty day s af ter Blackwell f

iled his brief

, H oward sim

ultaneously f

iled its responsive brief and its m otion to strike. Howard had am p le tim e to address the i ssues that Blackwell raised in his brief

. ¶14. N e ith er t h e M i s s i s s i p p i R u l e s o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re n o r th e U n if o rm R u les o f C i rcu it a n d C o u n t y C o u rt in clu d e a req u irem en t to state “th e g ro u n d s u p o n w h ich th e ap p eal i s tak en ” in a n o t ice o f ap p eal. S ee M .R

. A .P

. 3 (c); U R C C C 5 .0 4

. Even if the noti c e o f appeal that Blackwell f

iled with the secretary of the Com m ission d id not a dequately state the grounds of Blackwell’s appeal – w h i c h w e d o not f ind

– no provision of the W orkers’

5Com

pensation Com m ission’s Procedural Rules a u t h o r i z e s a c i r c u it court to dism iss an appeal f o r n o n c om

pliance. “The hum anitarian objectives of com pensation laws should not be def eated by over-em

phasis on technicalities or by putting f orm above substa n c e . ” Dunn, Vardam an S., Mississippi W orkmen’s Compensation § 32 (3d ed. 1990). The circuit court clearly erred when it struck Blackwell’s brief s and dism issed Blackwell’s appeal. ¶15. As f

o r t h e circuit court’s decision to strike f ive articles that Blackwell attached as exhibits t o his brief

s, we note that workers’ com pensation proceedings are “not bound by a strict a dherenc e t o t he Mississippi Rules of E vidence.” Forrest Gen. H osp. v. Humphrey , 136 So. 3d 468, 472 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (citations om i tted). The c ircuit court held that the articles were not p art of the record on appeal, and they were all “inadm issible hearsay [ a n d ] irrelevant, [ they ] lack proper f oundation, [ and they ] c annot be authenticated

. ” T h e circuit court did not ela b o rate bey ond its b road, sweeping conclusions. Consequently , we
cannot review the circuit court’s decision. 1 T heref ore, we reverse the circuit court’s judgm ent and rem and this m atter f or f u rther proceedings consistent with this opinion. ¶16. T H E J U D G M E N T O F T H E J O N E S C O U N T Y C I R C U I T C O U R T I S REVERSED, AND THIS C ASE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WI T H T H IS OPINION. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLEE. LEE, C.J., IRVING AN D G R I F FIS, P.JJ., BARNES, I SHEE, CARLTON, MAX W ELL, FAIR AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR.

1 T h is co n clu sio n sh o u l d n o t b e in terp reted as a su g g estio n reg ard ing B lack w ell’s u se o f th e articles at issu e o n rem a n d

. 6