I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - CT - 0 0 8 1 5 - S CT TI M M Y PR ENTICE
v. S CHI NDLER EL EVA TOR COM PANY AND ZURICH AMER ICA N I

NS URAN CE COM

P AN Y
ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 01/ 16/ 2007 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. W . SW AN YER GER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT : P RE NT I S S M . GR ANT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEES : BEN J AM I N U . BO W DEN AL L YS ON L
. VAUGH N NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - W OR KE RS ’ CO M P E NS AT I ON DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE COURT OF APP E AL S I S AF F I RMED . T HE J UDGMENT O F TH E C I RC U I T C O U RT FO R T H E FI RST JU D IC IA L D IS T R IC T O F H IN D S C O U N T Y IS REV ERSED. TH I S CA SE I S REM AN DED TO T H E M I S S I SSI PPI W O R K E R S ’ CO M P E NS ATI ON COM M I S S I ON F OR F UR T HE R P RO CE E DI NGS CO NS I S T E NT W I T H T H I S O PI N I O N - 06/ 25/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. CAR LS ON , PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T i m m y P rent i ce fi l ed a p et i t i on to con t rovertw i t h the M i ssi ssi pp i W orkers ’ C om pens at i on Com m i s s i on ( C om m i s s i on)
. H i s e m pl oyer , Schi ndl erEl evat or C om pany

### 2

( Schi ndl er ) , and i t s i ns ur ance c arr i er , Z ur i ch A m er i can I ns ur ance C om pany ( Z ur i ch) , f i l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s bas ed o n t he st atut e of l i m i t at i ons . A n admi ni s tr at i ve j udge of the C om m i s s i on deni ed the mot i on, and on r evi ew , the f ul l C om m i s s i on aff

i r m ed the
a d m in istra tiv e ju d g e ’s o rd e r d e n y in g th e e m p lo y e r/c a rrie r’s m o tio n to d ism iss . O n a p p e a l, the C ir cu itC o u rtfor the F ir st Ju d ici al D istri ct o f H ind s C o u n ty rev erse d the C o m m issi o n ’s deci s i on a nd r ender ed j udgm enti n f avorof the empl oyer/ carr i er . Pr ent i ce appeal ed, ar gui ng that , be caus e Schi ndl eri s es t opped f r om as s ert i ng the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons as a def

ens e, t he ci r cui tcourterr ed. T he C our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed the j udgm ento f t he ci r cui tcourtand
rem and ed thi s case t o the C om m i ssi on . W hil e w e agreed w i th the C ou rtof A pp eal s’ d isp o sit ion of th is ap p ea l, w e g ran ted c erti o rari to clari fy tha t fail u re t o co m p ly w ith M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 71- 3- 67, al one, does notes t op an em pl oyerf r om r el yi ng on t he st atute of l i m i t at i on s. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. O n A pr i l 23, 1998, T i m m y Pr ent i ce, w hi l e empl oyed by Schi ndl er , w as i nj ur ed at the
w or ks i t e w hen a cr ane l i f t ed a por t abl e r es tr oom occupi ed by Pr ent i ce appr oxi m at el y f i f t een f eeta bove the gr ound. W hi l e the r es tr oom w as s us pended i n the ai r , Pr ent i ce s t epped outand fe l l t o the cons truct i on f l oor . Pr ent i ce i nf

or m ed hi s s upervi s orof the i nj ury, and he w as i ns truct ed t o f

ax an A l abam a “f

i r s tnot i ce of

i nj ury” f

or m t o Schi ndl er ’ s A l abama of f i ce;

### See Prenticev. Schi ndler Ele vat

or Co. , 2008 Mi ss . App. LEXIS 376, *5-*6, ¶8- 11 1 

### (Miss. C t. Ap p. June 2 4, 2 00 8). Alth ou ghsome med ical bills w ere paid , the emp loy er/c arri er p aid n o in demn ity 2 

### ben efits. Mississip pi C od e Sectio n 7 1-3 -35 (1) states: 3 N o cl ai m f

orc om pens at i on s hal l be mai nt ai ned unl es s , w i thi n thi r ty ( 30) days af t erthe occurr ence of the i nj ury, actual not i ce w as re cei ved by the empl oyer orby an of

f i cer , m anage r , ordes i gnat ed r epr es ent at i ve of a n e m pl oyer . I f

no rep rese n tat ive h as b ee n d esig n ated b y p o sters pla c e d in o n e o r m o re c o n sp icu o u s p lac e s, th e n n o tice re c e iv e d b y a n y s u p e rio r sh a ll b e su ffic ien t. A bs ence of

not i ce s hal l notbarr ecove ry i f i ti s f ound thatthe em ployerhad k n o w led g e o f th e in

ju ry a n d w a s n o t p re

ju d ice d b y th e e m p lo y e e ' s fa ilu re to gi ve not i ce. R egar dl es s of w hethernot i ce w as r ece i ved, i f no paymentof compensa t i on ( otherthan medi cal tr eatm entorbur i al expens e) i s m ade a nd no appl i cat i on f

orbenef i t s f i l ed w i th the comm i s s i on w i thi n tw o year s f r om the dat e of the i nj ury orde ath, the r i ghtt o c om pens at i on ther ef ors hal l be barr ed. 

### Miss. C od e Ann. § 71 -3-3 5(1 ) (Rev . 20 00 ). 3 P rent i ce com pli ed. A s det erm i ned by the ad m i nis trat i ve judge and the C ou rtof A p p eal s, Pr ent i ce mi s s ed atl eas tf i ve days of

w or k as a r es ul tof

hi s i nj ury. 1 ¶3. P ren ti ce lefth is em p loy m en t w ith S ch ind ler bu t l ater w o rke d at S ch ind ler’s Shr eveport , L oui si ana, l ocat i on. I ni t i al l y, s om e of Pr ent i ce’ s m edi cal bi l l s w er e pai d, but 2 thes e payment s eventua l l y s t op pe d. Pr e nt i c e c on t a c t e d a n empl oyee of Z ur i ch, w ho i nf

or m ed Pr ent i ce thathi s m edi cal bi l l s w oul d be pai d once the pape rw or k came thr ough. ¶4
. T h e m ed ical b il ls n ev er w ere p aid, so in 20 0 2 , P ren ti ce fi led a pe ti ti o n to co n tr o v ert
w i th the C om m i s s i on. Schi ndl erand Zuri ch as s ert ed the expi r at i on of t he st atut e of li m it ati o n s as a d efe n se an d fil ed a m o ti o n to d ism iss; h o w ev er, aft er a h ea ri n g o n the m att er,

3

### 4

the admi ni s tr at i ve j udge rul ed that“al though the St at ute of L i m i t at i ons has run, t he E m p lo y e r/C a rrie r is e sto p p e d fr o m ra isin g th a t a ffirm a tiv e d e fe n se b e c a u se o f th e fa ilu re to f i l e the s t atut or i l y r equi r ed f i r s tr eportof

i nj ury. ” The f

ul l C om m i s s i on af

f i r m ed the or der of the admi ni s tr at i ve j udge. Schi ndl erand Zuri ch appe al ed, an d t he C i r cui tC our tf ort he Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H i nds C ounty r ever s ed the dec i s i on of the f ul l C om m i s s i on. ¶5 . O n F eb rua ry 7 , 2 0 0 7 , P ren ti ce ti m ely a p p ea led, an d the c ase w as a ssign ed to the C o u rt of A ppeal s . T he C our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed the ci r cui tc our ta nd r emanded thi s c as e t o t he C o m m is s io n o n J u n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 8
. P r enti ce v. SchindlerE levatorCo. , 2 0 0 8 M iss. A p p . L E X IS 376 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. J une 24, 2008)
. Schi ndl erand Zuri ch f i l ed a mot i on f

orr ehea r i ng,
w h ic h th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls d e n ie d
. P r enti ce v. SchindlerE levatorCo. , 2 00 8 M i s s . A pp. L E X IS 7 9 5 (M iss . C t. A p p . D e c . 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 ). S c h in d ler a n d Z u ric h s u b se q u e n tly filed th e ir p e titio n fo r w ri t o f c e rt io ra ri , a n d th is C o u rt g ra n te d th e p e titio n . P r enti ce v. Schindler E levatorCo. , 2 0 0 9 M iss. L E X IS 1 0 9 (M iss. M ar. 12 , 2 0 0 9 ). DI S CU S S I ON ¶6. M i ssi ssi pp i C od e S ect i on 71 -3- 67 (1) st at es: W ith in ten (1 0 ) d a y s a fte r th e fa tal te rm in a tio n o f a n y in ju ry , th e e m p lo y e r, if s el f
- i ns ur ed, ori t s carr i er , s hal l f i l e a r epo r tther eof

w i th the comm i s s i on on a f or m appr oved by the comm i s s i on f orthi s purpos e. I n the eve ntof

an i nj ury w hi ch s hal l c aus e l os s of t i m e i n exce s s of

the w ai t i ng per i od p r e s c r i be d i n Se c t i on 7 1- 3- 11 , a r e po r tthe r e of s ha l l b e f

i l e d w i th t he comm i s s i on by the em pl oyeror ca rr i er , on a f or m appr oved by the comm i s s i on f orthi s purpos e, w i thi n t en ( 10 ) days af t erthe pr es cr i bed w ai t i ng per i od has been s at i s f

i ed.

### 5

W ith in ten (1 0 ) d a y s a fte r th e e m p lo y e r o r c a rrie r k n o w s, o r re a so n a b ly sh o u ld k n o w , tha t a n in

ju ry h a s re su lted , o r lik e ly w ill re su lt, in p e rm a n e n t d isa b ili ty o rs e r i o u s h e a d o rf

a c i a l d i s f i g u r e me n t , b u twhi c h d o e s n o tc a u s e a l o s s o f t i me in e x c e ss o f th e p re sc rib e d w a iti n g p e rio d , a rep o rt th e re o f sh a ll b e fil e d w ith the comm i s s i on on a f

or m appr oved by the comm i s s i on f orthi s purpos e. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 3- 67( 1) ( R ev. 2000)
. I n t oday’ s cas e, t he C our tof A ppeal s hel d t hat “S ch indleri s est op ped fr om assert i ng the st atute of l i m i t at i on s as a defense. B ecause S ch ind ler fai led to co m p ly w ith th e n o ti ce requ ir em en ts m an d ated u n d er Ma rtin and s ect i on 71- 3- 67( 1) , w e mustr ever s e the judgm ent of the ci r cui tcourt . ” P r enti ce v. Schindler E levatorCo. , 2008 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 376, *8, ¶12 (M i s s . C t . A pp. J une 24, 2008) ( ci t i ng Mar tin v. L & A C ont r ac ting Com

pa ny , 2 4 9 M iss. 4 4 1 , 1 6 2 S o . 2 d 8 7 0 , 8 7 3 (1 9 6 4 )). H ow ever , the C ourtof

A ppeal s di d notexpl i ci t l y di s cus s any othergr ounds f ores t oppi ng Schi ndl erf

r om as s ert i ng the def

ens e. ¶7. I n Ma r tin , th is C o u rt e x p licitly sta ted th a t “ [w ]e d o n o t h o ld th a t fa ilu re to c o m p ly
w i th s ect i on 28 ( r equi r i ng empl oyer t o gi ve not i ce t o comm i s s i on) al one w oul d es t op t he empl oyerf

r om r el yi ng on t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i on. ” Ma rtin , 1 6 2 S o . 2 d at 8 7 3
. T h is C o u rt hel d thatnotonl y f

ai l ur e t o f

i l e not i ce w i th the C om m i ssi on, butal s o the f actt hat compensa t i on w as pai d t o the cl ai m ant , cons t i tut ed w ai verof the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons d e fe n s e . I

d. A l s o, i n Hol

br ook ex r el

. Hol br ook v. A l

br i ght Mobile H

om es, I nc. , 703 So. 2 d 8 4 2 , 8 4 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ), this C o u rth eld that the tri al c o u rth ad erred in g ran ti n g su m m ary j udgm enti n f

avorof the empl oyer/ carr i er , s i nce m at er i al f act s e xi s t ed on the i s s ue of w hether the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i on s w as t ol l ed bas ed on the pos s i bi l i ty the cl ai m ant s m ay have been
m isl ed co n ce rnin g the e x ist en ce o f w o rke rs’ co m p en sati o n co v era g e, i n ad d it ion to fail u re

### Pre nti ceal so sent medica l bi ll s t o thi s insuranc e c ompa ny em ploye e at t

he 4 

### em ploye e’ s dire ction. The e mpl oyeest at ed that she had not re ce ive d Schindl er ’s Form B-3, or notic e- of- inj ury report , and that Pre nti ce ’s medi ca l bil ls would be paid upon rece ipt of the form. 6 to fi le n o tic e . I

d. L ik e w ise , th is C o u rt h a s sta ted tha t “[w ]hile itis tru e tha t th e failu re to f ile the r equi r ed not i ce by i t s el f does notpr eventthe empl oyerf r om rai si ng t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons def

ens e, thi s i s a f

act ort o be cons i der ed i n the over al l sche m e. ” Mc Cra ry v. City of B iloxi , 7 5 7 S o . 2 d 9 7 8 , 9 8 2 (M iss
. 2 0 0 0 ) (e m p lo y e r to ld cla im a n t i t w o u ld file h is c laim
a n d e n g a g e d in s e ttle m e n t n e g o tia tio n s f o r a s u b s ta n tia l p e ri o d o f t im e ). F u rt h e rm o re , “ [w ]e
ar e r emi nded thatw or ker s’ co m pen sat i on l aw i s t o be l i ber al l y and br oadl y cons t rued,
r es ol vi ng doubt f

ul cas es i n f

avorof compensa t i on s o thatt he benef i centpurpos es of the ac t
m ay be a ccompl i s hed. ” I d. at 98 1 (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶8
. In to d ay ’s ca se, P ren ti ce asse rt s that h e “d id n o t m ak e a claim for m ed ical be n efits dur i ng the s t atut ory per i od beca us e the empl oyerl ed hi m t o bel i eve s ame w oul d be i ng [ s i c] handl ed unt i l t he s t atut ory per i od had pas t[ s i c]
. ” Pr ent i ce t es t i f i ed dur i ng hi s de pos i t i on t hat he di d notfi l e a cl ai m forw or ker s ’ com pens at i on becaus e he w as underthe i m pr es s i on that Schi ndl erhad f

i l ed i tf orhi m . A l s o, a tthe hear i ng bef or e the admi ni s tr at i ve j udge, Pr ent i ce fu rth e r te stifie d th a t h e d id n o t file a c laim fo r w o rk e rs’ c o m p e n sa tio n im m e d iate ly a fte r h is
m edi cal bi l l s be gan goi ng unpa i d beca us e an e m pl oyee of Z ur i ch had l ed hi m t o bel i eve that the in su ran ce w as “tak ing c are o f it
. ” B ase d u p o n the se ad d it ion al c o n side rati o n s, w e a ffi rm 4 the C our tof

A ppeal s ’ j udgm enti n t oday’ s cas e.

### 7 CO NC L US I ON ¶9
. A l tho ug h w e a f f i r m t he Courtof

A ppeal s , w e gr ant ed ce r t i or ar i t o cl ar i f y any
u n c e rta in ty a s to th e iss u e o f w h e th e r f a ilu re to file th e sta tu to ry n o tice a lo n e is s u ffic ien t to p ro h ib it th e e m p lo y e r f

ro m ra is in g th e e x p ir a tio n o f t h e s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n a s a d e fe n s e . W e
re ite ra te th a t lac k o f n o tice is b u t o n e fa c to r to b e c o n sid e re d in m a k in g th e u lti m a te det erm i nat i on of

w hetheran empl oyerand i t s i nsur ance carr i ers houl d be es t opped f r om
assert i ng the p urport ed ex pir at i on of the st atute of l i m i t at i on s. ¶ 1 0
. T HE J UD GMEN T OF T HE CO URT OF AP P EA LS I S AFF I RM ED . T HE J UDGM EN T OF THE CI RCUI T COURT FOR THE FI RS T J UDI CI AL DI S TR I CT OF HI ND S CO UN T Y I S RE VE RS ED . T HI S CA S E I S RE M AN DE D T O T HE M I S S I S S I P P I W ORKERS ’ COM P EN S AT I ON COM M I S S I ON F OR F URT HER P ROCE ED I NGS CONS I S TE NT W I TH T HI S OP I NI ON. DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H, LA M AR AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR. KI TCHEN S , J. , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY W ALLER, C. J . GR AVES, P . J . , J OI NS I N PA RT. CHANDL ER , J . , NOT P ART I CI P AT I NG
. KI TC HENS , J US TI CE , CONCURR I NG I N RE S UL T ONL Y: ¶1 1
. I a g re e w ith the resu lto f tod ay ’s d ec isi o n , w h ich affirm s the jud g m en t of the C o u rt
o f A p p ea ls i n this case
. H o w ev er, be ca u se I a g ree w ith th e u n an im o u s h o lding o f th at co u rt thatan empl oyer ’ s f

ai l ur e t o c om pl y w i th Sec t i on 71- 3- 67' s not i ce r equi r ementes t ops t hat empl oyerf

r om as s ert i ng a t i m e- bardef ens e, I cannotconcurw i th the s ubs t ance of t he
m aj or i ty opi ni on. ¶ 1 2
. S e c tio n 7 1 -3 -6 7 o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o d e re q u ire s a se lf-in su re d e m p lo y e r to re p o rt to the M i s s i s s i ppi W or ker s ’ C om pens at i on C om m i s s i on w i thi n t en days the occ urr ence of any

### 8

i nj ury thatdi s abl es an empl oyee f orf i ve days ormore . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 3- 67( 1) ( R ev. 2000)
. O urpr ece dentm akes cl earthatf ai l ur e t o com pl y w i th t hi s r equi r ementw i l l pr ecl ude the empl oyerf

r om cl ai m i ng a def

ens e bas ed on t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . I n Ho lb ro o ke x re l. Hol br ook v. A l

br i ght Mobile Hom es, I

nc. , 703 So. 2d 842, 845 ( M i s s . 1997) , the j us t i ces
u n a n im o u sly o b se rv e d th a t “[t]h is C o u rt h a s p re v io u sly fo u n d th a t an e m p lo y e r a n d its i ns ur ance carr i erw oul d be es t opped f r om denyi ng t hatt he t w o- yearst atut e of l i m i t at i ons w as t ol l ed w her e they f

ai l ed t o com pl y w i th t he not i ce r equi r ementof [ Sect i on 71- 3- 67]
. ” I d. at 844. The una ni m ous Courtf ur therobs erved, a nd r i ght l y s o, that“ i tw oul d be i nco nsi st ent
w ith th e p u rp o se o f th e [W o rk e rs’ C o m p e n sa tio n A c t] to a llo w th e e m p lo y e r a n d its i ns ur ance carr i ert o t ake a dvant age of thei rf ai l ur e t o per f

or m thei rdut y t o gi ve not i ce t o t he C om m i s s i on. ” I

d. T he maj or i ty i s corr ecti n i t s as s ert i on thatthe H ol br ook C ou rtal so
c o n sid e re d th e e m p lo y e rs’ m isre p re se n tatio n s re g a rd in g ins u ra n c e co v e ra g e b e fo re ru lin g in f avorof the i nj ur ed em pl oyee, M aj
. O p. at¶7; butthe j us t i ces i n Hol br ookhe l d a s they di d,
n o t b e c a u se o f th e c o m b in a tio n o f th o se tw o fac ts, b u t ra th e r b e c a u se e a c h fa c t in d e p e n d e n tly
re q u ir e d e s to p p e l. See id. (“Th i s C ou rthas als o hel d thatt he st atut e of l i m i t at i ons i s t ol l ed
w h ere the e m p loy er m isr ep rese n ts th e n ature an d ex ist en ce o f i ts co v era g e . . . . ”). ¶13. T oday’ s j udgm ents i m i l ar l y m i s pl ace s r el i ance on Mar tin v. L . & A . Contr acting Co. , 2 4 9 M is s . 4 4 1 , 1 6 2 S o . 2 d 8 7 0 (1 9 6 4 ). See M aj
. O p. at¶7. T he Ma rtin C o u rt, a s th e m a jo rity
corr ect l y c ont ends , “ d[ i d] nothol d thatf ai l ur e t o c om pl y w i th [ the not i ce r equi r ement ] al one
w oul d es t op t he empl oyerf r om r el yi ng on the s t atut e of l i m i t at i on. ” Ma rtin , 162 So. 2d at 8 7 3
. B u t th is st atem en t do es n o t de m o n str ate a req u ir em en t of a furthe r sh o w ing , as to d ay ’s

### The r ulewas re it erat ed in McCr ar y v. Ci t y of B iloxi , 75 7 S o. 2d 97 8, 98 1 (M i ss. 5 2000)
. W hi l e the maj or i ty corr ect l y r ecount s thatthe McCrary C o u rt

### obs er ved pa ss ingly that fa ilureto fi lenotic e would not, without more , es top an em

ploye r f rom as serting a

time -bar, Maj . Op. at

¶7, thema

jorit y appe ar s not

to have c onsi der ed the fa ct that t he McC raryCourt offeredthat anno un cement w itho ut p resentatio n o f anylegal supp ort. See id. at 982. 9 m aj or i ty purpor t s ; r ather , the Ma rtin C our tm er el y l ef tf oranotherday the det erm i nat i on of
w hetheran empl oyer ’ s f ai l ur e t o not i fy, st and i ng al one, es t opped the empl oyerf r om
as s ert i ng the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons . I f

any doubtr emai ned by 1997, then the Hol br ookC o u rt def i ni t i vel y and unani m ous l y s ett l ed the ques t i on once a nd f oral l
. Indee d, the rul e of

5 Hol br ooki s s o cl earthati t s annot at i on underSect i on 71- 3- 67 s um m ar i zes the ca s e thus l y: “E m ployer w as est op ped fr om cl ai m i ng that tw o-year st atute of l i m i t at i on s on w orkers ’ compensa t i on cl ai m w as nott ol l ed, w her e empl oyerf ai l ed t o t i m el y f

i l e s t atut or i l y- r equi r ed
n o ti ce o f fatal term ination o f i n jury
. ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 7 1 -3-6 7 (R ev . 2 0 0 0 ). ¶14. T hi s rul e comport s w i th our w el l es t abl i s hed vi ew that w or ker s ’ compensat i on l aw
s houl d be gi ven a l i ber al i nt erpr et at i on , w hi ch s erves bett ert o ef f ectuat e “the bene f

i cent purpos es of

the ac t. . . . ” R obinson v. P ackar d E lec. D i v. , 5 2 3 S o . 2 d 3 2 9 , 3 3 2 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). B u t Hol br ookw as nott he pr oductof s om e bl i nd al l egi ance t o l aboroveri ndus try; r ather , t he unani m ous r es ul tw as a s ound, pr act i cal pol i cy det erm i nat i on thatavoi ded the pos s i bi l i ty of unf ai r l y pu ni s hi ng i nj ur e d w orke r s . Al tho ug h i ti s true tha ta n e mpl oy e r ’ s r e mi t t a nc e of
c o m p e n s a tio n p a y m e n ts to lls th e s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s , s ee P a rc h m a n v. A m w o o d P ro d u c ts , 988 So. 2d 346, 351 ( M i s s . 2008) , hi s t ory has br oughtt o ourcour t ho uses cases i n w hi ch
c o n fu s io n h a s a ri s e n o v e r w h e th e r g iv e n s e ts o f p a y m e n ts q u a lif ie d a s tru e c o m p e n s a tio n , id. ,

### 10

o r e v e n w h e th e r a p a rt ic u la r p a y m e n t w a s a c tu a lly a p a y m e n t a t a ll
. See T reh ern v. G ra

fe A uto Co. , 2 3 2 M iss. 8 5 4 , 1 0 0 S o . 2 d 7 8 6 (19 5 8 ). ¶ 1 5 . O n e n e e d n o t stra in th e im a g in a tio n to e n v isio n a n in ju re d w o rk e r re c e iv in g m o n th ly
r emi t t ance s f

r om an empl oyerw ho f ai l s t o f i l e not i ce butotherw i s e acts in go od f ai th and
w ho, af t ertw o years, l os es al l r i ght s t o an otherw i s e val i d cl ai m and i s l ef tatthe mer cy of a company l egal l y unobl i gat ed t o provi de any f ur theras s i s t ance . T oday’ s m aj or i ty f or goes the opportuni ty t o avoi d thatdangerand, contr ary t o the under l yi ng pr i nci pl e of the Hol br ookC our t ’ s rul i ng, “al l ow [ s ] the empl oyerand i t s i ns ur ance carr i ert o t ake a dvant age of t hei rfa i l ur e t o per f

or m thei rduty t o gi ve not i ce t o the C om m i s s i on. ” Hol br ook , 703 So. 2d at844. ¶1 6
. In m y ju d g m e n t, th e re fo re , to d a y ’s d e c isio n g o es b ey o n d it s stated p u rpo se “ to cl ar i f y” Hol br ook , M aj
. O p. at¶9, by overturni ng i t . B uteven i f one w er e convi nced by a
r evi ew of

ourpr ece dentthatthe ques t i on w as a cl os e one thatw arr ant ed cl ar i f i cat i on, w hi ch,
w i th re s pect , I a m not , then ourdevot i on t o sta re d e c isis sh o u ld co m p e l us to a c c e p t th e re su lt
s ett l ed upon yea r s ear l i erby the barand the j udi ci ary. I ns t ead, w at er s thatw er e di s t i l l ed and filtere d lo n g a g o n o w a re m u d d ied w ith u n a n sw e re d q u e stio n s. F o r e x a m p le , if failu re to compl y w i th the not i ce r equi r ementi s , i n and of i t s el f , notenough t o est op an em pl oyerf r om
as s ert i ng a t i m e- bar , then w hati s ? H ow m any otherm i s deeds m us tthe C om m i s s i on ora t r i al
cour ti dent i f

y bef or e conc l udi ng thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons has t ol l ed? Shoul d ot her f act or s , s uch as m i s r epr es ent at i on of i ns ur ance cover age, be w ei ghed equa l l y? I f not , t hen
w hati s the r el at i ve w ei ghtof an empl oyer ’ s f

ai l ur e t o f

i l e not i ce?

### 11

¶1 7 . T h e re fo re , b e c a u s e th e a n a ly sis u n d e rly in g to d a y ’s ju d g m e n t co n flicts w ith l on gst and i ng preceden t , soun d p oli cy judgm ents , and ou r f eal ty to sta re de c isis , I j o in tod ay ’s d e c isio n in re su lt o n ly . I v o te to a ff ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls, b u t I resp ec tf u ll y su g g est th at ou r affi rm an ce sh o u ld b e fo u n d ed u po n a h o lding that an em p loy er’s fai l ure t o p rovi de the st atutor i l y requir ed n oti ce of i njury to the M i ssi ssi pp i W orkers ’ C o m p e n sa tio n C o m m iss io n e sto p s th a t em p lo y e r fro m a ss e rtin g a d e fe n se u n d e r th e sta tu te of l i m i t at i on s. W A L L E R , C . J. , JO IN S T H IS O P IN IO N . G R A V E S , P . J. , JO IN S T H IS OPI NI ON I N PART.