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 8 - CT - 0 1 2 2 4 - S CT W ADE S HO RT
v. W I L S ON MEAT

HOUS E, L L C A ND BRI DGEFI ELD CA S UALT Y I

NSURA NCE 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 : 06/ 30/ 2008 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. LAM AR P I CKARD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: COP I AH COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT : J OHN HU NT E R S T E VE NS AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E S : P E T E R L
. CO RS ON 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 CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS E D. T HE DE CI S I ON O F TH E M I SSI SSI PPI W O RK ER S’ C O M P E N S A T IO N C O M M IS S IO N IS R E I N ST A T E D A N D A FFIRM E D - 06/ 17/ 2010 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. DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. Th e M i s s i s s i p p i W o r k e r s ’ Co mp e n s a t i o n Co mmi s s i o n d e n i e d a n e mp l o y e e ’ s c l a i m. T he C i r cui tC our tof

C opi ah C ount y, s i t t i ng as an appe l l at e tr i bunal , af f i r m ed. T he C our tof A p p e a ls re v e rse d
. W e g ra n ted c e rtio ra ri a n d n o w re v e rse th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a n d re in sta te the C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on.Although this ca se is styl ed “ Wade Short v. W il so n Meat House, LLC

and Bridgefi eld 1 Casualty Insuranc e Company ,” the name of the em ployer is actual ly Wilson’s Meat House, LLC. B ri dg e f ie ld C a s u a lt yIn s uran c e C o m

p any , W il s o n ’s w o rke rs ’ c o m p e n s ati o nin s uran ce 2 carrie r, is the c o-respondentin this ac tion. Contrary to th e te s tim o nyo f s e v e ral e m

p lo y e e s , S h o rt

te s ti f ie d h e a ls o w a s inv o lv e d

in 3 helping move the desk. Short, who is ill iterat e, stated that he was “not good with dates.” 4 

### 2

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. Forappr oxi m at el y tw enty- ei ghtyear s , W ade Shortw or ked atW i l s on’ s M eatH ous e, 1 a slau g h terho u se a n d retail er o f m ea t, m ea t pro d u cts (su ch a s sa u sag e), an d o ther fo o d s. In 2 addi t i on t o hi s regul ardut i es i n the meat
- pr oces s i ng ar ea, Shor tr egul ar l y f i l l ed i n f

or
vaca t i oni ng cow or ker s on the “ki l l f l oo r, ” w here the s l aught er i ng w as done and w her e the
w ag es w ere h igh er. ¶3. O n D ece m ber1, 2005, J ack W i l s on, J r . ( w hos e f ami l y ow ned W i l s on’ s ) r ece i ved, f or C h ri stm as, a large w o o d en d esk w h ich h ad b ee n b u il t b y M ike W elch , w h o w as S h o rt ’s
s upervi s or . Sever al empl oy ees, i ncludi ng W el ch an d W i l l i e K eyes , unl oaded the des k, w hi ch 3
w ei ghed 150 t o 200 pounds , f r om a truck. Shor tcl ai m s thatas he w as hel pi ng carry the des k, he hea r d a poppi ng s ound i n hi s neck. H e cl ai m s he t ol d W el ch, w ho c al l ed hi m a w i m p and to ld h im to c a rry th e d ra w e rs. T h e w o rk e rs r e m o v e d th e d ra w e rs a n d tu rn e d th e d e sk o n its side to m o v e itthro u g h a d o o r. ¶4. W hen Shor tgothom e, he t ol d h i s w i f e thathe w as i n gr eatpai n. T hey dec i ded that he shou l d go t o the hos pi t al
. Shor t ’ s s t at ement s on the t i m i ng of the eve nt s thatf

ol l ow ed
w er e i ncons i s t ent , butacc or di ng t o hos pi t al r ecor ds , he w entt o the emer gency r oom on 4 D ec em b er 1 2 , 2 0 0 5
. X -ray s sh o w ed sev era l pro b lem s, inc lud ing tw o h ern iat ed d iscs. S h o rtStowe is a mem ber of the Wilson family. 5 

### 3 w a s g iv e n a p re sc rip tio n fo r p a in m e d ica tio n an d –b e c a u se h e h a d m iss e d a d a y o f w o rk to go t o the h os pi t a l –a d oc t or ’ s e xc us e . The e xc us e a l l owed hi m t o r e turn t o w ork the fol l ow i ng day , bu tl i m i t ed h i m t o li ft i ng no m ore than fi ve p ou nd s. ¶5. T he nextda y, Shor tr es um ed hi s us ual dut i es a tW i l s on’ s , de s pi t e the l i f t i ng l i m i t at i on. H e sa i d he gave t he w or k excus e t o T amm y W i l s on St ow e, w ho handl ed empl oyee- r el at ed 5
c ler ica l m a tters fo r W ilso n ’s. S to w e tes tified sh e sa w th e d o c u m e n t fro m th e d o c to r, b u t d id notnot i ce the r es tr i ct i on. ¶6. Shor tm ade s ever al contr adi ct ory s t at ement s conce rni ng the ons etof hi s pa i n. D ur i ng a J anuary 9, 2006, f

ol l ow up vi s i tt o hi s doct or , Shor ts t at ed thathe had be en expe r i enci ng
n ec k p ain ra d iat ing into h is l eft l eg an d a rm fo r three m o n ths (m ea n ing sinc e e arly O ctob er, 2005)
. D ur i ng a J anuary 11, 2006, phys i cal ther apy s es s i on, Sho rtsai d t hathi s pai n began
o n D ec em b er 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 , w h en h e h elpe d li fta d esk a t w o rk. O n F eb rua ry 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 , S h o rt cl ai m ed to m edical personn el that he had b een h aving l eftarm pain f or tw o an d a h al f year s, and thathe had ne w pai n betw een hi s s houl derbl ades thatr adi at ed i nt o hi s l ef ts i de. ¶ 7
. S h o r tr e tu r n e d t o th e d o c t o rs e v e r a l t i me s d u r i n g th e s p r i n g a n d s u mm e ro f 2 0 0 6
. On J ul y 31, 2006, dur i ng a pr es ur gery doc t orvi s i t , he s ai d thatnumbness i n both hands — w hi ch he cl ai m ed had begun i n D ece m ber2005 beca us e of heavy l i f t i ng — w as caus i ng hi m t o dr op thi ngs . O n A ugus t9, 2006, a neur os ur geon f us ed s ever al of

Shor t ’ s vert ebr ae. ¶8. O n A ugus t29, 2006, Shor tf i l ed a Pet i t i on t o C ontr overtw i th the M i s s i s s i ppi W or ker s ’ Com pens at i on Com m i s s i on, a l l egi ng thatW i l s on’ s ha d f ai l ed “t o not i f

y i ns ur ance [ carr i er ] of

cl ai m and pay benefi t s r equi r ed by A ct . ” H e al s o f i l ed a mot i on r eques t i ngTh is moti on wa s st yle d a s “M oti on

to C om pe l P aym ent of Tem

porar y T otal D isa

bil ity 6 Benefits and Medica l Treatment.” Within the text of the mot io n is the phr ase: “thi s Motion for Em ergency Relie f.” 

### 4 “emer gency r el i ef

, ” s t at i ng t hathe w as i n str ai t s fol l ow i ng sur gery, unabl e t o buy food a nd othernece ssi t i es. Forr eas ons unexpl ai ned i n the r ecor d, a hea r i ng on the mot i on thatw as 6
s chedul ed f

orN ovember27, 2006, w as canc el ed and r es chedul ed f orD ece m ber1, 2006. ¶9
. A n o ther n o tice fou n d in the rec o rd sc h ed u led a h ea ri n g “o n the m erit s” fo r Jan u ary 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 . A lth o u g h the rec o rd c o n tain s a tra n sc rip t o f a h e a rin g h e ld o n th a t d a te, n o th in g in the r ecor d i ndi cat es thatm or e than one he ar i ng w as hel d. ¶1 0
. A t th e h ea ri n g , w itn esse s p rov ided co n fl ict ing ac co u n ts of w h ethe r S h o rth elpe d ca rry the mai n partof the des k, orj us tthe dr aw er s . U l t i m at el y, al l the w i tnes s es exce ptShor ts t at ed thatthey coul d notrem ember
. A l l exce ptShor tagr eed thathe had c arr i ed the dr aw er s at
so m e p o int. S h o rt , h o w ev er, said h e a n d an o ther e m p loy ee h ad ca rri ed the d esk it self. ¶11. Shor tt est i f

i ed that— al though he had e xper i ence d back pr obl ems bef or e the des kmo v i n g i n c i d e n t— th e p a i n h a d n e v e rb e e n s e v e r e e n o u g h t o p r e v e n th i m f r o m w o r k i n g . He
sa id th a t h e h a d m a n a g e d it w ith p a in p ill s. A c c o rd in g to S h o rt, ev e n th o u g h h e to ld h is
s upervi s orand cow or ker s he w as i n pain, h e w as notgi ven l i ghtduty. O therw i tnes s es tes tified th a t S h o rt n e v e r h a d sa id h is p a in w a s b a d e n o u g h to re stric t h is w o rk ; th a t h e d id nots eem t o be i m pai r ed; and thathe r egul ar l y had r equ est ed w ork on t he ki l l f l oorw hi ch,
w h il e p h y sically d if

fi cu lt , p aid m o re tha n o ther w o rk in the p lant. A t th e ti m e o f S h o rt ’s al l eged i nj ury, hi s pay ave r aged $460. 02 a w eek. ¶12. Sever al w i tnes s es , i ncl udi ng Shor t , t est i fi ed aboutShor t ’ s act i vi t i es aw ay f r om W i l s on’ s . Shor tt es t i f

i ed thathi s w i fe had an arr angementw i th the ow nerof a s el f
- s t or age

### 5

wa r e h o u s e t o c l e a n o u tu n i t s wh e n r e n t e r s v a c a t e d a n d l e f tth i n g s b e h i n d
. S h e k e p tth e i t e ms

— w hich r ang ed fr om l arge app l i ances such as ref ri gerat ors t o sm al l g oo ds such as shirt s —
a n d so ld th e m . W itn e ss e s s a id th a t S h o rt s o m e tim e s b ro u g h t sm a ll i tem s to W ilso n ’s to se ll t o cow or ker s , butno one coul d r eca l l s eei ng hi m br i ng l ar ge ones . Shor tt es t i f i ed thathe had
nevercl eaned o ut s t or age uni t s on a r egul arbas i s . I tw as hi s w i f e’ s ent erpr i s e, and he ha d
m er el y hel ped s om et i m es . H e s ai d thathe had ne veri nj ur ed hi s back do i ng so. W el ch and K eyes , how ever , t es t i f

i ed thatShor ta nd hi s w i f e w er e both act i vel y i nvol ved i n cl eani ng out st orage u nit s. ¶13. W i tnes s es , i ncl udi ng S hor t , t es t i f i ed aboutan i nci denti n the s pr i ng of 2006 w her ei n,
a s S h o r twa s u n l o a d i n g a h o r s e f r o m a tr a i l e r , s o me th i n g s t a r t l e d th e h o r s e , a n d i tb o l t e d
. By S h o rt’s a c c o u n t, he w ra p p e d th e h o rse ’s le a d ro p e aro u n d a b a sk e tb a ll g o a l po st to re stra in i t . O therw i tnes s es des cr i bed Shor tbei ng dr agged ar ound forseve r al m i nut es bef or e he got th e a n im a l u n d e r c o n tro l. ¶14. T he admi ni s tr at i ve l aw j udge i s s ued an O pi ni on a nd O r deron A pr i l 20, 2007, denyi ng S h o rt’s c laim . S h o rt h a d b e e n in ju re d , th e ju d g e w ro te, b u t h e h a d n o t o ffe re d p ro o f th a t h is i nj ury w as w or k- r el at ed. N ot abl y, Shor tf ai l ed t o i ntr oduce evi dence fr om a phys i ci an on the
caus at i on i s s ue. A t t empt i ng t o corr ectthatdef i ci ency, Shor tf

i l ed a M ot i on t o Suppl ement the R ecor d bef

or e the C om m i s s i on. W i thoute xpl anat i on, the C om m i s s i on deni ed the mot i on and af f i r m ed the A L J ’ s rul i ng. ¶15. Shor tappea l ed t o the C i r cui tC our tof C opi ah C ounty, w hi ch af f i r m ed. T he C our tof Ap p e a l s r e v e r s e d , f

i n d i n g s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n th e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r tS h o r t ’ s c l a i m,

### 6

es peci al l y i n l i gh tof

t he c a s e l a w tha ts t a t e s tha tdo ub t f ul c a s e s s ho ul d b e de c i de d i n f a vor of compensa t i on. W i l s on’ s pet i t i oned f ora w r i tof

cert i or ar i , w hi ch w e gr ant ed. A N A L Y S IS I. ¶ 1 6
. T h e sc o p e a n d sta n d a rd s o f re v iew fo r w o rk e rs ’ c o m p e n sa tio n c a se s a re w e llest abli shed. Fi rs t , this C ou rtr eview s the d eci si on of the C om m i ssi on , no tthat of the A L J, th e c ir c u it c o u rt , o r t h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
. D el ta CM I v. Speck , 5 86 S o. 2 d 7 68 , 77 3 (M i ss. 19 91 ) ( qu oti ng V ardam an S. D unn, Mis s is s i ppiW orkm en’s C om

pens at i on § 286 n. 39 ( 1982) (“ [W ]hile a p p e a ls to th e S u p re m e C o u rt a re tec h n ica lly fro m th e d e c isio n o f th e C irc u it C our t , the dec i s i on of

the comm i s s i on i s thatw hi ch i s a ctual l y unde rr evi ew f oral l pr act i cal p u rpo ses.”)). ¶17. Second, f

ourdi s j unct i ve rul es govern ourr evi ew of an age ncy’ s concl us i ons . T hey
m us t“r emai n undi s turbed unles s the age ncy’ s or der ; ( 1) i s nots uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence , ( 2) i s arbi tr ary orcapr i ci ous , ( 3) i s beyond the s cope or pow ergr ant ed t o t he agen cy, or ( 4) vi olat es one’s const i tuti on al [ ors t atut ory] r i ght s . ” P ublic E m ployees’R et

. S ys.
v. D ear m an , 8 46 S o. 2d 1014, 1018 ( M i s s . 2003) ( quot i ng Mis s . State D ep’t of Heal t h v. N atchezCm t

y. Hos p. , 7 4 3 S o . 2 d 9 7 3 , 9 7 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 )) ( b rac k ets i n o ri g inal). ¶ 1 8
. T h is C o u rt h a s e x p la in e d th e fi rs t o f t h e s e ru le s , th e “ s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd ,” as f oll ow s: [ R ] evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o a det erm i nat i on of w hetherornotthe dec i s i on of the comm i s s i on i s s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence. I f s o, the dec i s i on of

the comm i s s i on s houl d be upheld.
. . . T he Supre m e C our t. . . act s as a courtof r evi ew and is pr ohi bi t ed f r om hear i ng evi dence orotherw i s e eva l uat i ng evidence an d d et erm i ning fact s.

### 7

Speck , 586 So. 2d at772- 73 ( ci t i ng G eor gia-P aci f i c Cor p. v. V eal , 48 4 S o. 2d 10 25 (M i ss. 1 9 8 6 ); B ru ton v . Miss. W o rk m en s’ Co m

p . Co m m ’n , 2 5 3 M iss. 6 9 4 , 1 7 8 S o . 2 d 6 7 3 (19 6 5 ); D u n n at § 2 7 2 ). ¶19. T hough “noteas i l y def i ned, ” id. at773, [ s ] ubs t ant i al evi dence
. . . m eans s om ethi ng m or e than a “ m er e sci nt i l l a” of evi den c e , a nd tha ti tdo e s no tr i s e t o the l e ve l of “ a pr e po nd e r a nc e of

the e v id e n c e .” It m a y b e sa id th a t it“ m e a n s s u c h re lev a n t ev id e n c e a s re a so n a b le m i nds m i ghtacc eptas adequat e t o s uppor ta conc l us i on. Subst ant i al evi dence m eans evi dence w hi ch i s s ubs t ant i al , thati s , af f or di ng a s ubs t ant i al bas i s of f actf r om w hi ch the f

acti n i s s ue ca n be r eas onabl y i nf err ed. ” I d. ( c i t i ng U

n i ted S tates v. H

ar per , 450 F. 2d 1032 ( 5th C i r . 1971) quot i ng Johnson v. Fer guson , 4 3 5 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 1 (M iss . 1 9 8 3 )); B a b c o c k& W ilco x Co . v. Mc Cla in , 149 So. 2d 5 2 3 (M iss . 1 9 6 3 ); S tate O il & G a s B d

. v. Miss. Mine ra l & R o ya lt y O w n ers A ss’n , 258 So. 2 d 7 6 7 (M iss. 1 9 7 1 )). ¶20. T he s econd rul e s t at es thata r evi ew i ng c our tmay r ever s e i f the C om m i s s i on’ s or der
w as “arbi tr ary orcapr i ci ous . ” D earm an , 84 6 S o. 2d at10 18
. T o so m e ex tent, this t est
over l aps the s ubs t ant i al
- evi dence s t andar d. T hi s C our texpl ai ned, “‘ I f an admi ni st rat i ve agenc y’ s deci s i on i s no tba s e d o n s ub s t ant i al evi dence , i tnece s s ar i l y f ol l ow s thatthe dec i s i on i s arbi tr ary and capr i ci ous . ’ ” D earm an , 846 So
. 2 d at1019 (quot i ng F ulce v. P ub. E m ployees’R et

. S ys. , 7 5 9 S o . 2 d 4 0 1 , 4 0 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )). ¶21. T he thi r d rul e, thatthe scope of j udi ci al r evi ew i ncl udes det erm i ni ng w hethert he C om m i s s i on exce eded i t s author i ty, i nvol ves ques t i ons of l aw . Q ues t i ons of l aw ar e pr oper for j u d ici al r ev iew
. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 7 1 -3-5 1 (R ev . 2 0 0 0 ); Centr al E lec. P ow erA s s ’n v. H i cks , 2 3 6 M is s . 3 7 8 , 3 8 8 , 1 1 0 S o . 2 d 3 5 1 , 3 5 6 (1 9 5 9 ) ( c itin g 4 2 A m . J u r. P ubl i c Adm i n.

### 8

La w § 2 10 ( “ W he the ra n a dmi ni s tr a t i ve a ge nc y a pp l i e s the l e gi s l a t i ve s t a nd a r ds i s an appr opr i at e q uest i on f

orj udi ci al deci s i on. M or eover , the ana l yt i cal bas i s of a di s t i nct i on b etw ee n rev iew ab le que st i on s of l aw and no n-r eview able q u esti o n s o f fact i s o ft en n arro w . ”)) ¶ 2 2
. T h e fo u rth ru le c o n c e rn s c o n stitu tio n a l a n d sta tu to ry rig h ts. T h is C o u rt h a s re g u lar ly
r ei t er at ed thati tcan r evi ew al l eged vi ol at i ons of r i ght s und er bot h the s t at e and f eder al
c o n s titu tio n s . See, e. g. , W a rren v . Miss. W

o rk ers’ C o m

p . Co m m ’n , 70 0 S o. 2d 60 8 (M i ss. 1 9 9 7 ) (a lleg a tio n o f v io latio n o f d u e -p ro c e ss rig h ts); G e o rg ia -P a c ific C o rp . v. McL a u rin , 3 7 0 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 9 (M iss . 1 9 7 9 ) (s a m e ); P athf inderCoach D i v. of

SuperiorCoach Cor

p. v. Co ttre ll , 216 M i s s . 358, 62 So. 2d 383 (1953) ( no cons t i tut i onal
- r i ght s vi ol at i on w hen b igam o u s w if

e w as a ll o w ed d ea th b en efit s). ¶ 2 3
. W h ile c o u rt s a lw a y s re v ie w q u e s tio n s o f l a w d e n o v o , Sm it h v. Jacks on Constr. Co. , 60 7 S o. 2d 11 19 , 11 25 (M i ss. 19 92 ), otherw i se th e st and ards of revi ew i n w orkers ’ compensa t i on cas es ar e hi ghl y def er ent i al t o the C om m i s s i on. N o courtcan r ew ei gh t he evidence; the C om m i ssi on i s the fact -f i nd er and t he judge o f the credi bil i ty o f w i tnesses. B a r b e r S e a

fo o d , In c . v. Sm ith , 911 So. 2d 454, 461 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng Jacks on Con str. Co. , 6 0 7 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 2 3 -2 4 ; Mille r T ra n sp o rte rs, In c . v. G u th rie , 5 54 S o. 2 d 91 7, 91 8 (M i ss 1 9 8 9 )). In su m , “[N ]eith e r [th e c irc u it co u rt] n o r th e M iss iss ip p i S u p re m e C o u rt is empow er ed t o det erm i ne w her e t he pr eponder ance of the evi dence l i es w hen the evi dence is co n fli c ting
. . . . Instea d , [a co u rt ] m u st affi rm the d ec isi o n o f th e C o m m issi o n w h ere
s ubs t ant i al cr edi bl e evi dence support s t he C om m i s s i on’ s or der
. ” I d. ( ci t i ng Ja ckson Con str. Co. , 6 0 7 S o . 2 d at 11 2 4 ).Neither the ALJ, the C ommis sion, nor the c ircuitcourt consi dered whether the act of 7 car ryingthedrawe rs, as opp os ed to t hebo dyof

thede sk , w ould h av e been e no ugh tocau se S ho rt’ s inj ury . N o te stim ony o r ev idenc e w as a dd uc ed as to th e w eight o r si ze o f t hedrawe rs. 

### 9 ¶2 4
. F inally, defe ren ce m ea n s tha t un less a re v iew ing co u rtfi n d s th a t th e C o m m issi o n ’s deci s i on w as notbas ed on s ubs t ant i al evi dence ; w as arbi tr ary orcapr i ci ous ; exce eded the C om m i s si on ’s p ow er ; orvi ol at ed a c ons t i tut i onal ors t atut ory r i ght , i tcannots etas i de a C o m m is s io n o rd e r e v e n if it w o u ld ru le d if

fe re n tly if

it w e re th e tr ie r o f f

a c ts . W al kerM f g. Co . v. Ca n tre ll , 577 So. 2d 12 43 , 1 247 (M i s s . 1991) ( “Thatw e may have f ound the f

act
o therw ise, h ad w e b ee n the tri ers o f th e fa ct, i s si m il arly o f no m o m en t, so lon g as th e re co rd cont ai ns cr edi bl e evi dence w hi ch, i f bel i eved, w oul d t ake the C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on outof the r eal m of

the arbi tr ary. ”) II. A . W het her t he C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on w as s upp ort ed by subst ant i al evi dence. ¶25. Shor tf

i r s tar gues thatthe C om m i s s i on’ s fi ndi ng — t hathe f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h thathe
w as i nj ur ed on the j ob w hi l e hel pi ng carry the des k — w as nots uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al 7
ev iden ce . W e b eg in b y loo k ing at th e e v iden ce that tend s to s u p p o rtthe C o m m issi o n ’s deci s i on. ¶26. O n J anuary 9, 2006, abouta mont h af t erthe i nci dent , Shor tt ol d m edi cal per s onnel th a t h e h a d b e e n h a v in g p a in fo r th re e m o n th s. O n J u ly 3 , 2 0 0 6 , S h o rt sta ted th a t th e p a in had begun mor e than a ye arear l i er , w hi ch w oul d have been a tl eas tf i ve mont hs bef

or e the i nci dent
. Shor t ’ s s upervi s or, W el ch, t es t i f i ed thathe ( W el ch) and K eyes had ca rr i ed the des k, and thatShor thad ca r r i ed onl y the dr aw er s . W el ch di d notr emem berShor ts ayi ng t hat h e h ad b ee n h u rt . K ey es a lso testi fi ed that h e a n d W elch h ad ca rri ed the d esk , an d that S h o rtTh e ALJ ’s Opinion rea ds , “ from

thewe ek en ding o n D ece m

be r 6, 2 00 5, throughth e w eek 8 en ding o n Augus t 9, 20 06 .”Decem ber 6, 2005, wa s a Tue sd ayan d Augus t 9, 20 06 , w as a W ed ne sday , n eithe r of

wh ich is c onve nti on ally re garde d a s th e en d o f a we ek . S tow e te sti fi ed

that the company’s pay period is Thursday through Wednesday, which would e xp la inthe phrase “the week ending on [W ednesday] August 9, 2006,” though not “ th e we ekending on [Tuesday] De cem ber 6, 20 05 .” In t he“S um m ary of Re lev ant Eviden ce”sec tio n of th e AL J’s Op ini on , th e judg e tran sp os ed 9 this int o “Welch . . . had not believed hal f of what [S hort] told him.” (Emphasis added.)



### 10 had ca rr i ed onl y the dr aw er s . R agl an t es t i f i ed thatSh orth ad ca rr i ed onl y the dr aw er s and notthe des k i t s el f

. J ones t es t i f

i ed thatW el ch and K eyes carr i ed the des k, and thatShor thad
carr i ed onl y the dr aw er s . W i l s on’ s w or k re cor ds show ed thatShor tcont i nued t o w or k f r om the s econd w eek of

D ece m ber2005 thr ough the s econd w eek of A ugus t2006, and thathe 8 too k o ff ab o u t tw o w ee k s in M arc h 2 0 0 6 an d o n e w ee k in A p ri l of th at ye ar. ¶27. O therr el evantevi dence i n t he r ecor d i ncl udes the f ol l ow i ng: 1. W el ch t es t i f

i ed thathe had k no w n Shor tf orthi r ty- tw o year s and that “ y o u b e lie v e h a lf

o f w h a t h e te lls y o u .” 9 2
. S h o rt co n tin u e d to p e rfo rm h is u s u a l w o rk d u tie s u p o n re tu rn in g to w o rk a fte r th e in c id e n t. 3. T he numberof

ani m al s Shor ts l aught er ed betw een D ece m ber2005 and A ugus t2006 i ncr eas ed. 4. K eyes w or ked w i th Sh ortd uri ng the per i od betw een the i nci dentand S h o rt ’s su rge ry. H e test if ied that h e n ev er s aw an y ind icati o n that S h o rt had tr oubl e doi ng hi s w or k. 5. J ones , the s t at e meati ns pe c t or , r egul ar l y obs erved Shor tw or ki ng on the ki l l f l oor . H e t es t i f

i ed thathe nev er s aw any i ndi cat i on thatShor thad tr oubl e doi ng the j ob. 6. R aglan t est i fi ed that , fr om t i m e t o t i m e over a peri od of several years, S h o rth ad co m p lai n ed o f pa in an d n u m b n ess in h is r igh t sho u lder.Fo r in stanc e, a p hy sic ian ’s t estimony th at might, in is olatio n, “amount to s ub stanti al 10 ev idenc e su

pp ortinga f

indingbytheco mmiss ion, wh enco ns idered wi th t heentire ev idenc e m ay los e m uc h o f i ts ch ara cte r and

n ot ris e to thepo sition

of su bs tantial ev idenc e. ” Sh ipp ersEx pressv. Ch ap man , 364 So. 2d 1097, 1100 (Miss. 1978) ( citing Har po le B ros. Co ns tr. Co. v

. P ar ker , 253 So . 2 d 8 20 , 8 20 (Mi ss. 19 71 )). 

### 11 7. St ow e t es t i f

i ed thatShor tnevernot i f i ed herthathe had be en hurton the j ob. 8
. H o sp ital re c o rd s s tate th a t o n F e b ru a ry 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 , ab o u t tw o a n d a h a lf m onths af

t erthe i nci dent , S hor tt ol d m edi cal per s onnel t hathe had been hav i ng l eftarm pain f

or tw o an d a h al f year s. ¶2 8
. A lth o u g h the e v iden ce li sted ab o v e — all of w h ich ten d s t o sup p o rtthe C o m m issi o n ’s deci s i on — i s s ubs t ant i al , w e ar e mi ndf ul thatcont extm att er s , and that“w e mustl ook at 10 al l the evi dence on both s i des
. ” H ar pole B r os . Constr. Co. v. P arker , 253 So. 2d 820, 823 ( M i s s . 1 9 7 1 )
. Ho we v e r , we f i n d v e ry l i t t l e e v i d e n c e i n th e r e c o r d s u p p o r t i n g S h o r t ’ s c l a i m. H e testi fi ed that, as h e h elpe d m o v e the d esk , h e h ea rd a p o p p ing so u n d in h is ne ck
. S h o rt
w a s th e o n ly w itn e ss w h o te stifie d th a t h is in ju ry h a d o c c u rre d o n th e jo b . O f c o u rse , this d id
n o t p re c lu d e th e C o m m is s io n fr o m fi n d in g in h is fa v o r. S e e , e .g ., A lexanderS m ith, Inc. v. G e n e tte , 232 M i s s . 166, 170- 77, 98 So. 2d 455, 456- 60 ( 1957) ( C l ai m ant w as al one w hen he f el l and w as i nj ur ed, s o no otherw i tnes s coul d have c orr obor at ed hi s t es t i m ony, butt he C o m m iss io n a c c e p ted it as tru e .). W h e n , h o w e v e r, su c h u n c o rro b o ra ted tes tim o n y is contr adi ct ed by otherw i tnes s es , orw hen evi dence be f or e the C om m i s s i on cas t s doubton the
c re d ib ili ty o f th e tes tim o n y (as w h e n the cla im a n t ha s m a d e co n flictin g sta tem e n ts), it is
c e rt a in ly w ith in th e d is c re tio n o f th e C o m m is s io n to r e je c t i t. Bar ne s v. Buck e y e Mol ding Co. , 247 M i s s . 614, 615- 16, 157 So. 2d 63, 63 ( 1963) (Cow or ker s t es t i f i ed t hatcl ai m anthad

### 12

t ol d them she ha d hurthe rba ck athome, s o Com m i s s i on w as notbound t o bas e i t s deci s i on
o n claim an t’ s u n co rrob o rated test im o n y . ). ¶29. I n thi s cas e, the evi dence bef or e the C om m i s s i on w as conf l i ct i ng. S ho r tm ade i ncons i s t ents t at eme nts ab ou tw hen he f i r s thad bac k pai n. H i s s upervi s or , bas ed on an acqu ai ntance of thirty-tw o y ears , castdo ub ton S ho rt ’s truthful ness. ¶30. T he A L J s t at ed that , w hi l e i tw as cl ear t hat Sh orth ad bee n i nj ur ed, the i s s ue w as
w hetherhe w as i nj ur ed atw or k. U l t i m at el y, t he A L J found that , agai ns tt he backdr op of t he evi dence det ai l ed supra , the abs ence of evi dence f

r om a phys i ci an r egardi ng a caus al
connec t i on betw een Short ’ s j ob and hi s i nj ury w as di s pos i t i ve. W e ca nnots ay the C om m i s s i on err ed i n thi s f i ndi ng. I n Cole v. SuperiorCoach Cor por ati on , anot herbacki nj ury cas e, thi s C our ts t at ed that“[ t ] he i s s ues w i th re f er ence t o an al l eged i nj ury of thi s t ype are properl y w i thin t he province o f m edical ex pert s. In all b ut the si m ple and rout i ne cases, it is n e c e s s a ry to e s ta b lis h m e d ic a l c a u s a tio n b y e x p e rt te s tim o n y .” Cole v. SuperiorCoach Cor p. , 234 M i s s . 287, 291, 106 So. 2d 71, 72 ( 1958)
. T hi s C our thas al s o hel d: W e re c o g n ize th e ru le th a t th e w o rk m e n ’s c o m p e n sa tio n law sh o u ld b e b ro a d ly and l i be r a l l y c on s true d, tha td ou bt f ul c a s e s s ho ul d be r e s ol ve d i n f avorof compensa t i on, and thatthe hum ane purpos es the ac ts eeks t o s erve l eave no r oom f ornarr ow and t echni cal construct i on. B utthe rul e of l i ber al cons truct i on m ay notbe ext ended s o as t o el i m i nat e the nec es s i ty of m aki ng pr oof p re re q u isite to re c o v e ry ; a n d th e h u m a n e sp irit of th e law d o e s n o t w a rra n t it s ext ent i on [ sic ] beyond i t s l egi t i m at e s cope. In g a lls S h ip b u ildin gCo rp . v. Ho w e ll , 2 2 1 M iss. 8 2 4 , 8 3 2 , 7 4 S o . 2 d 8 6 3 , 8 6 5 (19 5 4 ). ¶31. T he qua ntum of

e vi de nc e s up po rt i ng the Com mi s s i on w a s c on s i de r a bl e. T hat , coupl ed
w ith th e a b se n c e o f e v id e n c e o n th e c ritica l issu e o f c a u sa tio n , d o o m e d S h o rt’s c a se , as h is
uncorr obor at ed t es t i m ony w as cont r adi ct ed by ot herevi dence
. T her ef or e, w e ca nnots ay that

### 13

the C o m m issi o n ’s de cisi o n — w h ich w as su p p o rt ed b y su b stan ti al e v iden ce — w as a rbitrary or capri ci ou s. B. W he t he r t he C om m i s s i on e r r e d i n de nyi ng Sho r t ’ s M ot i on t o Supp l e m e nt t he R e c or d. ¶32. A f

t erthe A L J i s s ued hi s O pi ni on and O r der , S hor tfi l ed a M ot i on t o Suppl ementthe R e c o rd . H e so u g h t to p u t b e fo re th e C o m m iss io n a le tte r fr o m h is s u rg e o n w h ich h e sa id
w oul d es t abl i sh a causa l connec t i on betw een hi s i nj ury and the i nci dentatw or k. T he C om m i s s i on deni ed Shor t ’ s m ot i on. ¶3 3
. S h o rtis co rrect th at th e C o m m issi o n h ad the p o w er to g ran t his m o ti o n . T h is C o u rt has hel d that“the C om m i s s i on has the author i ty t o r ece i ve l i ve t es t i m ony and otherevi dence t o s uppl ementt he r ecor d m ade bef or e t he A J [ admi ni s tr at i ve l aw j udge]
. ” W al kerM f g. Co.
v. Ca n tre ll , 5 7 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 3 , 1 2 4 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ) (cit ing M W C C P r. R u le 9; D u n n at § 3 6 9 ). A ls o , “ [a ]m e n d m e n ts a re o f c o u rs e lib e ra lly a llo w e d s o th a t th e tru th m a y b e a s c e rt a in e d .” Cr um p v. Fields , 2 5 1 M iss. 8 6 4 , 8 7 1 , 1 7 1 S o . 2 d 8 5 7 , 8 5 9 (19 6 5 ). ¶34. T he Pr ocedur al Rul es of the C om m i s s i on, how ever , s etcert ai n r equi r ement s f ors uch a mot i on: W h e re a d d iti o n a l ev id e n c e is o ffe re d o n th e re v iew b e fo re th e F u ll C o m m is s io n , it s h a ll b e a d m itte d in th e d is c re tio n o f t h e C o m m is s io n . A m ot i on f orthe i ntr oduct i on of

addi t i onal e vi dence mustbe made i n w r i t i ng at lea st fiv e (5 ) d a y s p rio r to th e d a te o f th e h e a rin g o f th e re v iew b y th e F u ll C om m i s s i on. Such s hal l s t at e w i th part i cul ar i ty the natur e of s uch evi dence , the n ec essity the refo r, an d th e rea so n i t w as n o t i n tr o d u ce d at th e e v iden ti ary hear i ng. M i s s i s s i ppi W or ke r s ’ Compe ns a t i on Comm i s s i on Pr oc e du r a l R ul e 9, ht tp: //w w w . m w cc. s t at e. m s . us / l aw - cl m s /_rul es . as p#pr odrul e9 (l ast v isi ted J u n e 1 4 , 2 0 1 0 ).Be cau se t heCo mmiss ion ’s r

ulingwa s criti cal to Sho rt’ s ca se, wereq uired addition al 11 briefing on the question of why the evidence was not presented earlier. Short’s c ounsel offered no explanati on. The Commission’s rules r equire that “[a] proposed order must accompanye ach non- 12 dispo sitivem oti on .”Mis sis sippi Workers ’ C om pe ns ati on Co mmiss ion

Proc ed ural Rule22 (a) , http ://www. mwcc .s tate .ms. us /l aw -c lms/_rules.a sp#prodrule22 (l a s t vis it ed June15 , 2 01 0). No su ch order appear s in the re cord. 

### 14 ¶ 3 5
. N o th in g in th e th re e se n ten c e s th a t co m p rise th e s u b sta n c e o f S h o rt’s m o tio n su g g e sts th e re a so n h e d id n o t in tro d u c e th e e v id e n c e a t, o r p rio r to , the h e a rin g . It is u n d e rsta n d a b le 11 that the C o m m issi o n v iew ed S h o rt ’s m o ti o n as d e ficient, esp ec ial ly in li g h t of th e ru le’s part i cul ar i ty r equi r ement . W e cannots ay thatthe C om m i s s i on abus ed i t s di s cr et i on by
r equi r i ng conf

or m i ty w i th i t s rul es and by denyi ng Shor t ’ s m ot i on. 12 ¶36. Shor tar gues that , unde rthe C om m i s s i on’ s Pr ocedur al R ul e 8, evi dent i ary s t andar ds
ar e r el axed
. O n t hi s poi nt , he i s corr ect : “I n compensa t i on hear i ngs the gene r al rul es of evi dence s hal l be r el axed s o as t o perm i tthe int roducti on of any r el evantand compet ent evi dence
. ” 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 Pr ocedur al R ul e 8, http: //w w w . m w cc. s t at e. m s . us / l aw - cl m s /_rul es . as p#pr odrul e8 (l ast v isi ted J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 1 0 ). T h is ru le h a s b e e n c o n stru e d to a p p ly to th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f E v id e n c e . F o r e x a m p le, th is C our thas s ai d t hatthe st atut e “gr ant [ s ] author i ty t o the W or km en’ s C om pens at i on C o m m is s io n to re la x , i n i t s dis cr et i on , the tr adi t i onal comm on l aw and s t atut ory rul es of evi dence i n or dert o obt ai n a f ul l de vel opm entof

the f act s conce rni ng eac h cl ai m . ” Coo per’s, I nc . of Mis s . v. Long , 224 So. 2d 866, 870 ( M i s s . 1969) ( emphasi s added)
. A gai n, w e f i nd
no a bu s e of

di s c r e t i on ; the Com mi s s i on i s e nt i t l e d t o r e qu i r e a dh e r e nc e t o i t s pr oc edur al rul es.

### 15 CO NC L US I ON ¶ 3 7
. S u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t e d th e C o m m i s s i o n ’ s d e c i s i o n . F u rth e r mo r e , we cannots ay the C om m i s s i on abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n denyi ng S hor t ’ s M ot i on t o Suppl ement the R ecor d. A ccor di ngl y, w e r ever s e the C our tof A ppeal s and r ei ns t at e an d aff i r m the deci s i on of

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. ¶38. T HE J UD GMEN T OF T HE C OU RT OF A P P E AL S I S R E VE RS ED . TH E DE CI S I ON OF T HE M I S S I S S I P P I W OR KE RS ’ CO M P E NS AT I ON CO M M I S S I ON I S RE I NS TA TE D AND A F F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARLS ON, P. J . , RANDOLP H, LAM AR, CHANDLE R AND PI ERCE, J J . , CO NCU R. GR AVES, P. J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OP I NI ON
. KI T CH E NS , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . GR AV E S , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶ 3 9
. I a g re e w ith th e m a jo rity ’s fin d in g th a t th e W o rk e rs’ C o m p e n sa tio n C o m m iss io n d id
n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g S h o rt ’s M o tio n to S u p p le m e n t th e R e c o rd ; h o w e v e r, I d isag ree that there w as su b stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe C o m m issi o n ’s find ing that S h o rt had f ai l ed t o pr ove the el ement s of hi s w or ker s ’ compensa t i on cl ai m . I m us tther ef or e di s s ent
a n d w o u ld a ffirm th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls’ d e c isio n to re v e rse th e C ir c u it C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t,
w hi ch af f i r m ed the C om m i s s i on’ s de ci s i on. Fur ther , I w oul d r emand the case t o the C om m i s s i on for a d et erm i nat i on of the ext entt o w hi ch Shor thas s uf f er ed a l os s of

w agee a rn in g c a p a c ity d u e to h is d is a b ility
. ¶40
. T he record ref

l ect s that Sho rtw as a hardw orki ng labo rer a t W il son’s M eat H ou se ( W i l s on’ s ) f

orm or e than tw enty- f

i ve yea r s . H i s s upervi s ort est i fi ed thathe w as a good, pr oduct i ve empl oyee thr oughoutt he ent i r e l ength of hi s empl oym ent . M or eover , thr oughout his m any years atW i l son’s, d esp it e ex p eri encing p ai n b efor e and especi al l y aft er the d eskTheme dic al re co rds ref lec t, an d it is un disputed

that , wh enSh ort

we nt to th e emerg en cy 13 roo m on De cem be r 12 , 2 00 5 (s ho rtly a ft er t hede sk -li ftinginc ident), he was diagn os ed wi th disk he rni ati on . A s th e ALJ ’s Opinion stated : “Thereal qu estion he re i s not wh eth er Mr. S ho rt h as a cer vic al c on dition – he obv iou sly do es. Th e thres ho ld i ssu e is sim ply wh eth er h e w as inju

red at work.” 

### 16 incid en t, S h o rtn ev er o n ce fi led a w o rke rs’ co m p en sati o n c lai m u n ti l th e instan t on e. R athe r, h e “ w a s ta k in g p a in p ill s a n d fin d in g th e w o rk to m a k e a liv in g .” H e “k e p t try in g to d o h is j ob the bes t[ he] coul d, ” and he “ [ di d] w hat everthey t ol d [ hi m ] t o do, ” w hetheri tw as t o go
s l aught erani m al s on the ki l l f l oororper f

or m othert as ks , l i ke r emovi ng the meatf r om t he bones of s l aught er ed animal s . Shor tpr i ded hi m s el f on bei ng a har dw or ki ng, ef f i ci ent but cher , and w hen W i l s on’ s di d nota l t erhi s dut i es t o acc om m odat e the f i ve- pound w ei ght
re str ic tio n in d ica ted o n th e w o rk e x c u se h e su b m itt e d , S h o rt c o n tin u e d p e rfo rm in g h is
c u sto m a ry d u ties u n til h is c o n d iti o n w o rse n e d to th e p o in t o f n e e d in g s u rg e ry . O n ly th e n d id h e fin a lly file h is w o rk e rs ’ c o m p e n sa tio n c laim . F u rth e rm o re , as e x p lain e d b e lo w , itis undi s put ed that , on D ece m ber1, 2005, Shor tw as i nvol ved i n tr ans por t i ng the l ar ge w ooden desk, and no ta si ng l e w i tness w as able t o ref ute that Sho rt , atsom e po i nt, helped l i ftthe d esk i t s el f and, i n doi ng, s uf

f er ed a ne ck and ba ck i nj ury. 13 ¶41. T hi s C our t has expl ai ned that i n a w or ker s ’ compensa t i on cas e, the cl ai m ant has t he bur den of

es t abl i s hi ng the f

ol l ow i ng el ement s by a f ai rpr eponder ance of

the evi dence : (1 ) a n a c c id e n tal in

ju ry , (2 ) a risin g o u t o f a n d in th e c o u rse o f e m p lo y m e n t, and ( 3) a ca us al connec t i on betw een the i nj ury and the dea th orcl ai m ed di s abi l i ty. H a rdin ’s B a k e rie s v . D e

p e n de n t o

f Ha rr e ll , 5 6 6 S o . 2 d 1 2 6 1 , 1 2 6 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ). ¶ 4 2
. A s th e m a

jo rity e x p lain e d , th is C o u rt w ill d istu rb th e C o m m iss io n ’s o rd e r o n ly if it is n o t s u p p o rt e d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . I d. ; H ar daw ay Co. v. B r adley , 887 S o. 2d 793, 795

### 17

(M iss . 2 0 0 4 ). “S tate d d iffe re n tly , this C o u rt w ill re v e rse th e C o m m iss io n ’s o rd e r o n ly if it fi n d s th a t o rd e r c le a rl y e rr o n e o u s a n d c o n tr a ry to th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e .” Har daw ay Co. , 887 So. 2d at795 ( quot i ng Fought v. Stuart

C . I rby Co. , 52 3 So
. 2d 314, 3 1 7 ( M i s s . 1 9 8 8 ) )
. As th e ma j o r i ty a l s o r e c o g n i z e s , i n th e wo r k e r s ’ c o mp e n s a t i o n r e a l m, “doubt f ul cas es s houl d be r es ol ved i n f avorof compensa t i on. ” H

ar din’s B aker ies , 566 So. 2d at1264. ¶4 3
. I co n clu d e th a t th e re w a s n o t su b sta n tial e v id en ce to su p p o rtthe C o m m issi o n ’s f i ndi ng thatShor thad f

ai l ed t o pr ove the el ement s of hi s w or ker s ’ compensa t i on cl ai m by a f ai rpr eponder ance of

the evi dence
. T he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence i ndi cat es th a t S h o rt su ffe re d a n ac c id e n tal in ju ry aris in g o u t of

a n d in th e c o u rse o f h is e m p lo y m e n t,
a n d th a t th e re w a s a c a u s a l c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n th a t in ju ry a n d h is c la im e d d is a b ility
. ¶44. Fi r s t , nota s i ngl e t es t i f yi ng w i tnes s w as abl e t o r ef ut e that , a ts om e poi nt , Shor t l i f t ed the des k. A s the C our tof A ppeal s expl ai ned i n i t s opi ni on of the i ns t antcas e:

. . . [ A l l of

Sho rt ’s co -w orker s ] s t at ed thatthey s i m pl y coul d notr emem ber w hetherShor tl i f

t ed the des k ornot . Shor t ’ s s upervi s or , W el ch, t es t i f i ed that h e h ad b u il t th e larg e d esk a n d h ad rec ruit ed S h o rtan d an o ther c o -w o rke r, W i l l i e K eyes , t o del i verthe des k t o the se cond f l oorof W i l s on’ s on D ece m ber 1 , 2 0 0 5
. . . . W h en sp ec if

icall y q u esti o n ed b y co u n se l if he rem em b ere d S h o rt carr yi ng the desk atany t i m e, W el ch t es t i f i ed that“[ h] e r eal l y coul dn’ ts ay. Y o u k n o w , [

Shor t ] m ighthave he l

ped i toverthe tabl e but

I r eal l y couldn’ ts ay

. . . y o u k n o w. ” Sh o r t l y th e r e a f t e r , i n a n a t t e mptt o c l a r i f y a q u e s t i o n , th e ALJ stat ed to W elch , “O k ay . Y o u c an ’trec all w h ethe r [Sh o rt ] d id o r did n ’t[carry orl i f tthe des k ats om e poi nt ]
. I s thatw hatyou’ r e t el l i ng us ?” W el ch r es ponded, “Y es , s i r . ” E ar l y i n W el ch’ s t es t i m ony, the A L J as ked i f Shor tw as pr es entatthe t i m e the des k w as i ni t i al l y t aken of f of the truck thatdel i ver ed the desk, and W el ch t es t i f i ed thatShor tw as pr es entatthatt i m e. W hen the A L J as ked W el ch w hatShor tw as doi ng dur i ng the t i m e they w er e t aki ng the des k i nt o the bui l di ng, W el ch t es t i f i ed that“w e [ w er e] al l , you know , s t andi ng th e r e tr y i n g t o g e tt h e d e s k i n . . . . W e [ we r e ] a l l o n b r e a k s o th a t ’ s wh e n we

### 18

[ w er e] doi ng that
. So I don’ tknow
. . . . ” W hen r es pondi ng t o a l at erques t i on pos ed by the A L J w hetherhe ke ptup w i th w hatShor tw as doi ng dur i ng al l of thi s per i od, W el ch r es ponded, “[ n] o, si r . ” W el ch t es t i f i ed atl eas ts even t i m es thathe “r eckone d” or“as s um ed” eve nt s re l at i ng t o Shor t ’ s i nvol vementorthat he s i m pl y c oul d notr emem berw hatShor tw as doi ng. A l t ho ug h, W el ch di s t i nct l y t est i fi ed thatShor tw as pr es entdur i ng the ent i r e epi s ode and that Shor tl i f t ed and c arr i ed the des k dr aw er s , he pr es ent ed no def i ni t i ve t es t i m ony t hat Sh ortdi d notats om e poi nt , dur i ng the tr ans por t at i on of the des k, l i f

tor carr y the des k. Shor tt es t i f i ed thathe he l ped t o carry the des k tw i ce, and af t er he t ol d W el ch thathe f

el ts om ethi ng “pop” i n hi s neck, K eyes hel ped ca rry the d e sk u p sta irs. .
. . W e lch tes tified th a t h e d id n o t re c a ll i f

Shor ti ndi cat ed that he had hurthi m s el f

af t er[ he, W el ch, got ] the des k upst ai r s . H e al s o t es t i f i ed th a t he di d nothave any know l edge th a t S h o rt e v e r in d ic a te d th a t h e h u rt h is neck as a r es ul tof

l i f t i ng the des k. A l s o, he di d notr eca l l i f S ho rthad ever pr es ent ed a doc t or ’ s excus e t o t ake hi m off of w or k beca us e of

a w or k- r el at ed i nj ury. H ow ever , w hen as ked i f he had hear d thatShor thur thi s neck a tw or k, he s t at ed, “[ y] ou know , I ca n’ tt el l you w ho and I don’ tknow exac t l y i f they w ere jok ing o r w h at, y o u k n o w . ” T h e A L J the n att em p ted to clarif y W elch ’s sta tem e n t, an d h e a sk e d W e lch if h e w a s s a y in g th a t so m e b o d y m ig h t h a v e to ld h im th a t S h o rt in

ju re d h is n e c k a t w o rk . W e lc h a n s w e re d , “ [y ]e s , s ir .”
. . .

. . . K eyes ’ s t es t i m ony w as m uch the s ame as W el ch’ s t es t i m ony. K ey es tes t i fi ed thathe d i d n ot r em em ber w hetherS ho rthad helped t hem l i ft the des k atany t i m e. A l s o, K eyes t es t i f i ed thathe coul d not even r emem ber i f Shor thad ent er ed the el evat orw i th them w hi l e they w er e movi ng the des k. A f t erK eyes t es t i f

i ed thatShor tl i f

t ed the dr aw er s , . . . [ Shor t ’ s couns el as ked K e y e s: “ If M r. W e lch te stifie d th a t it’s p o ss ib le [S h o rt] c o u ld h a v e h e lp e d y ’a ll getthe thi ng up overthe t abl e, you w oul dn’ tdi s agr ee w i th thati f he s ai d that w as p o ssible. Y o u just d o n ’trem em b er.” K ey es resp o n d ed : “N o , sir. I do n ’t r emem ber
. ”] I n t he s ame vei n, K eyes w enton t o t es t i f y thathe coul d not r emem berw hetherShor thad putthe dr aw er s dow n a tany poi nt . N ei thercow o rk e r d istin c tly re m e m b e re d w h e th e r S h o rt h a d h e lp e d lift th e d e sk o r n o t. J i m m y J ones , a meati ns pect orf orthe M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof A gr i cul tur e, w as al s o pr es enton the day i n ques t i on. . . . J ones t es t i f i ed thathe w as notpr es entdow ns t ai r s w hen t he des k w as m oved f r om the truck i nt o the bui l di ng, m aneuve r ed overthe t abl e, thr ough the narr ow hal l w ay, and i nt o the elev ator. A lth o u g h Jo n es m ay h av e b ee n ab le t o sp ea k ab o u t Sh o rt ’s i nvol vementupst ai rs , he w as unabl e t o att es tt o ordeny Shor t ’ s acc ountof w hathappene d dow ns t ai r s . J ones of f er s no contr adi ct i on t o S hor t ’ s s t at ement of the ev ents . In r egard t o carrying t he d raw ers , S ho rtt est i fi ed as fol l ow s: Af t e rI p i c k e d [ th e d e s k ] u p I f e l ts o me th i n g th a tp o p p e d i n my neck up ther e. I s ai d, M r . C ur l y [ i
. e. , M r . W el ch] , I f eel s om ethi ng thatpopped i n m y neck.

. . . .Th is C ourt h as also explaine d th at, “[o ]n the o ther hand , if

theclaim ant is un co rro bo rat ed 14 as to th e occurren ce of

a claimed

acci de nt an d is s ho wn

to h av e m ad e st ate m ents inc on sis tent w ith theclaim , thec om

miss ion is n ot bo un d to acc ep t t

hete stim ony as theb asi s fo r an award. ” Penrod Drilling Co. , 487 So . 2 d at 13 33 . In theins tant ca se, ho we ve r, S ho rt did n ot make st ate m ents inconsist ent with his c laim. 

### 19

A nd he t ol d m e, . . . you ai n’ tnothi ng bu ta w i m p. . . . A nd th a t’s w h e n M r. B u b b a K e y e s [c a m e ] an d h e lp e d m e a n d C u rly t o pi ck i ton up and ca rry i tup t o the of f i ce. T hat ’ s w hen M i ke W el ch t ol d m e t o back up and s t artt aki ng the dr aw er s outof the desk, and carry iton up the st ai rs , m e, him , and B ub ba K eyes. Shor tdi d notcl ai m t o have c arr i ed orl i f t ed the des k w hi l e he w as ups t ai r s , and J ones w as notdow nst ai r s t o pr ove ordi s pr ove Shor t ’ s acc ountof w hat hap pen ed d ow nst ai rs . Sh o r t v. W il s o n Me a t

Ho us e, LLC , 2009 W L 1668491, at*3- 4 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. J une 16, 2 0 0 9 ). ¶ 4 5
. In su m , S h o rt’s te stim o n y a b o u t t h e o c c u rr e n c e o f th e w o rk -r e late d in ju ry , w h ile
unc orr ob or a t e d b y o the rw i tne s s e s , w a s no tr e f ut e d, a nd thi s Cour tha s he l d tha t“t he undi s put ed t es t i m ony of a cl ai m antw hi ch i s notso unr eas onabl e as t o be unbel i evabl e, gi ven the f actual s ett i ng of

the cl ai m , gener al l y oughtt o be ac cept ed as true. ” W hite v. Superior Pr oduc t s, I nc. , 5 1 5 S o . 2 d 9 2 4 , 9 2 7 (M is s . 1 9 8 7 ). See al s o P enr od D r il

ling C o. v. E t her idge , 4 8 7 S o . 2 d 1 3 3 0 , 1 3 3 3 ( M i s s . 1 9 8 6 ) ( “ T h e c l a i ma n ti s c o mp e t e n tt o p r o v e h i s o wn cl ai m , and hi s t es t i m ony m ay be a cce pt ed w i thoutcorr ob orat i on. I tm ay be a ct ed upon al though di s put ed by ot herw i tnes s es and i f undi s put ed and notuntrus tw or thy, m us tbe t aken
as concl us i ve pr oof

of f act . ”)
. T her ef

or e, S hor t ’ s unre f

ut ed, re as onabl e t es t i m ony aboutt he 14 al l eged w or k- r el at ed i nj ury he s uf f er ed w hi l e l i f

t i ng the des k s houl d be ac cept ed as true.The injury suffered by the c laimant in Westbrook was an injury i n his lower back that he 15 fe lt o ccu r whil e h e an d a

co -w orker w erelif

tin g trans iteb oards w eighing f rom 17 5 to20 0 p ound s. Marley Constr. Co., Inc. v. Westbrook , 107 So. 2d 104, 105 (Miss. 1958). A few days following the i ncident, the claimant went to the doct or. Id. In other words, the fact surroundi ng the workrelate d injury in Westbrook are similar to the facts in the i nstant cas e. 

### 20 ¶ 4 6
. In a d d iti o n to S h o rt ’s te s tim o n y b e in g u n re fu ted , h is m e d ica l re c o rd s s u p p o rt h is t es t i m ony t hathe s uf

f er ed the w or k- r el at ed i nj ury, and thatthe i nj ury c aus ed hi s di s abi l i ty. A s the C our tof

A ppeal s expl ai ned:

. . . [ M ] edi cal re cor ds ver i f y thatShor tvi s i t ed the emer gency r oom f or treatm ent s oo n aft er the inci den tatw ork, and h e rep o rt ed t o the tri age n urse thathi s pai n and numbness began a f t er“l i f t i ng a hea vy des k. ” A l though the m edi cal r ecor ds do notc ont ai n a s peci f i c s t at ementby a doct orthatl i f t i ng the des k c aus ed Shor t ’ s i nj ury, ther e i s no s t at ementordi agnos i s by a phys i ci an, orotherm edi cal per s onnel , thatcontr a di c t s Sho rt ’ s s t a t e mentt o the emer gency ro o m p e rs o n n e l a b o u t th e c a u s e o f h is p a in
. . . .

. . . Shor t ’ s m edi cal r ecor ds s how that no doct oreverexcl uded the li f ti n g in c id e n t a s a n e v e n t th a t m a y h a v e e x a c e rb a te d S h o rt ’s c o n d itio n . . . . Fur therm or e, m ul t i pl e m edi cal r ecor ds r ef l ectthatShor tcons i s t ent l y gave the s ame st at ementaboutthe i nci denta tw or k a nd hi s i nj ury. A tno poi ntdi d he s ta te th a t h e w a s in

ju re d a t h o m e o r d u ri n g s o m e o th e r a c tiv ity
. . . . S h ort , 2009 W L 1668491, at*5. T hus , Shor tpr es ent ed uncontr adi ct ed t es t i m ony, s uppor t ed by hi s m edi cal r ecor ds , thathe had s uf f er ed a w or k-r el at ed i njur y, and thatthe i nj ury had
caus ed hi s di s abi l i ty. N ot abl y, thi s C our thas hel d that“i ti s notnece s s ary thatm edi cal t es t i m ony [ e. g. , f

r om Shor t ’ s tr eat i ng phys i ci an] be s uppl i ed t o es t abl i s h the ca us e and e f f ect
o f a n in ju ry o f th e n a tu re w h ic h th e c la im a n t s a y s th a t h e s u s ta in e d .” Ma r le y Co n s tr. Co ., 15 I nc. v. W es t br ook , 107 So. 2d 104, 108 ( M i s s . 1958)
. “A cl ai m ant , l i ke any l ay w i tnes s , m ay
no tund ert ake t o m ake a progn osi s, bu the m ay st at e fact s conce rni ng his con dit i on and t hese f act s m ay be of

such a natur e as t o enabl e the B oar d t o det erm i ne the ext entand dur at i on ofAs the Court of Appeals explai ned: 16 Th e m edical re co rds ref lec t an entryon July 3, 2006 , which s tat es t hat S ho rt described s ymptom s of weakness, numbness, and t ingling for a littl e over a year , and an entry in J anuary 2006 thatstates he experience d pain for three months. Sh ort, 2 00 9 WL 1 66 84 91 , at *7 . Them edical re co rds als o re fl ect that on Febru ary 20 , 2 00 6, Sh ort reported having experie nced pain for two and a hal f years. 

### 21 the d i s a bi l i ty e ve n i n the a bs e nc e o f med i c a l t e s t i mony. ” I d . ( quot i ng Y

ocum Cr eek Coal Co. v. Jones , 2 1 4 S .W . 2 d 4 1 0 , 4 1 2 (K y . C t. A p p . 1 9 4 8 ))
. ¶ 4 7
. In a d d iti o n , as the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a p tly n o ted , the re is a p re su m p tio n th a t sta tem e n ts
m a d e b y a p e rs o n s e e k in g m e d ic a l t re a tm e n t a re tr u th fu l. S h ort , 2009 W L 1668491, a t*5- 6. T hi s pr es um pt i on of

truthf ul nes s i s embodi ed i n M i ssi ssi ppi R ul e of E vi dence 803( 4) , t he h e a rsa y e x c e p tio n a llo w in g a d m iss io n o f s tate m e n ts m a d e fo r p u rp o se s o f m e d ica l d iag n o sis
o r t re a tm e n t. Id

. (c it ing M iss. R
. E v id. 80 3 (4)). T h u s, itsh o u ld b e p resu m ed that S h o rt ’s
re p o rts to th e e m e rg e n c y ro o m n u rse a n d h is p h y sic a l th e ra p ist th a t h e h a d e x p e rie n c e d p a in
a n d n u m b n e ss a fte r lifting a h e a v y d e sk w e re tru th fu l. ¶4 8. T her ef

or e, t he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof t he evi de nc e tha twas p r e s e nt e d at t he
e v id e n tiary h e a rin g e sta b lish e s th a t S h o rt su ffe re d a w o rk -re late d in ju ry th a t c a u se d h is di s abi l i ty, and an opi ni on f r om a medi cal ex per ti s notr equi r ed t o es t abl i s h the ca us at i on
e l e me n to f

S h o r t ’ s c l a i m. ¶49. T he ar gum ent s W i l s on ’s p res ents in an at t em pt t o ref ute Sh ort ’ s cl ai m s that he
su ffe re d th e w o rk -re late d in ju ry a n d th a t it c a u se d h is d isa b ili ty la c k m e rit. F irst, w h ile it is tru e th a t d u rin g so m e o f S h o rt’s d o c to r v isits h e rep o rte d tha t h is p a in b e g a n b e fo re th e d a te of the des k- l i f

t i ng i nci dent , t hatdoes noti ndi cat e, as W i l s on’ s cont ends , thatShor tm ade

16Moreover, eve n if it wer e somehow established thatShort was injur ed at some point prior 17 to his first emergency room visit ( on December 12, 2005) due to lifting an obj ect from the storage units (orfrom

anywhere, f

or that m atter) , it still would not disprove that he was injured on the j ob from li fting the d esk . A dditi on ally, as e xp laine d a bo ve , th e f

act that a c laim ant m ayhavea 

### 22 conf l i ct i ng s t at ement s . R ather , i ts i m pl y s upport s Sho rt ’s doct or s ’ r ecor ded opi ni ons t hat Shor thad a pre exi s t i ng condi t i on of ce r vi cal di s k degener at i on, and t hi s C our thas hel d t hat “w hen a pr eexi s t i ng di s eas e ori nf i r m i t y of an em pl oyee i s aggr avat ed, l i ght ed up, or
acc el er at ed by a w or k- connec t ed i nj ury, ori f the i nj ury combi nes w i th the di s eas e or i nf i r m i ty t o p roduce d i s abi l i ty, the r es ul t i ng di s abi l i ty i s compensa bl e. ” He d g e v. L e g g e tt & P latt , I nc. , 641 So. 2d 9, 14 ( M i s s . 1994)
. A s the C our tof A ppeal s not ed:

. . . [T] her e ar e mul t i pl e entr i es w her e Shor tt ol d m edi cal per s onnel thathe exp e r i e nc e d s ud de n p a i n a f t e rl i f t i ng the de s k. A r e vi e w of the m edi cal recor ds reveal s that Sho rtnev er gave an y reason o therthan m ov i ng the d esk f orthe s udden w or s eni ng of hi s pai n, nori s ther e anythi ng i n the r ecor d that i ndi cat es thatShor tevers oughttr eatm entf orpai n orw eakne s s pr i ort o the in c id e n t w ith th e d e sk . It i s im p ru d e n t to ig n o re m u lti p le s tate m e n ts m a d e to m e d ica l p e rso n n e l fo r th e p u rp o se o f se e k in g tre a tm e n t b e c a u se o f sta tem e n ts abo ut a pr i or pai n o r w eakn ess. S h ort , 2 0 0 9 W L 1 6 6 8 4 9 1 , a t * 7
. ¶5 0. W i l s on’ s ef

f or tt o s ho w tha tSh ort ’ s d i s a bi l i ty w a s c a us e d by a n i nj ur y t hat had
o cc u rred o u tsi d e the co u rse o f em p loy m en t al so fail s. W il so n ’s su g g ests that S h o rt ’s i n jury
m ay h av e co m e ab o u t d u ri n g S h o rt ’s pe rson al t im e, w h il e li ft ing h ea v y it em s h e a n d h is w if e
r emoved f

r om s t or age uni t s orw hi l e bei ng dr agged by a hor s e; how ever , thes e s ugges t i ons
a re p u re ly sp e c u lativ e a n d u n p e rsu a siv e . S h o rt te stifie d th a t h e n e v e r w o rk e d ste a d ily
c l e a n i n g o u tth e s t o r a g e u n i t s , a n d n o wi tn e s s t e s t i f i e d th a tS h o r te v e rb r o u g h ta n y l a r g e i t e ms fro m th e sto ra g e u n its to w o rk to se ll, n o r th a t t h e y e v e r o th e rw ise h a d se e n S h o rt in po sses si on of l arge i t em s fr om the st orage un i t s. F urtherm ore, the inci den tw i th the horse 17preexist ing conditi on or injury (from, for exam ple, having li fted something heavy at some time prior to the work-r elated i njury at i ssue) does notnecessari ly bar rec overy under worker s’ compensation law. Notably, it was another witness ( Jones), not Short , who testified that Short li ked working

18 on the kill floor. Short explained the following in response to a question about him working on the kil l fl oo r desp it e h is w o rs e n ingp a in : “ Wh e nth e yte llm e , M r. S h o rt , y o u ’v e g o t to g o o nth e kil l fl oo r if I wante d my jobI ha d to do what t he y tel l me to do. . . . If

I di dn ’t I ’d g et s ent ho m e o r el se I’d lose my job, so I had to go wher e they tel l me to go.” 

### 23 occurr ed m onths af

t erS hor ti ni t i al l y w entt o t he em er gency r oom and re por t ed t hathe w as
e x p e ri e n c in g p a in a ft e r h a v in g lif te d a h e a v y d e s k
. ¶5 1
. W il so n ’s al so high li g h ts the fa ct th at, foll o w ing th e d esk i n cide n t u p un ti l S h o rtleft W i l s on’ s t o have hi s s ur gi cal pr ocedur e, Shor tcont i nued t o per f or m hi s r egul arw or k dut i es
w el l a nd s eemed e agert o w or k on the “ki l l f l oor , ” w her e he e arned more m oney. A s t he 18 C our tof A ppeal s expl ai ned: S h o rt tes tified th a t h e w a s ta k in g p a in m e d icin e , an d h e d id w h a t h e w a s to ld t o do. A tone poi ntdur i ng h i s cross - exami nat i on w hen as ked w hatt as ks he p e rfo rm e d , h e s tate d : “ I d o w h a tev e r th e y te ll m e to d o , sir. If th e y c o m e tell m e t o go back ther e and hang some m or e s aus age orw hat ever , I do w hatthey tel l m e to d o if

I w an t m y job
. ” H e a lso testi fie d th a t h e w o u ld “w o rk a n y w h e re [h e ] c [o u ld ] to m a k e . . . a d o lla r.” S h ort , 2009 W L 1668491, at*7. L i ke t he C our tof A ppeal s , I r ef us e t o penal i ze a per s on f or perseveri ng i n o rdert o earn a li ving, and , as the C ou rtof A pp eal s no t ed, Sh orti s no tthe fi rs t
c la im a n t w h o c o n tin u e d to w o rk a f te r h a v in g s u ff

e re d a c o m p e n s a b le in

ju ry . I d . ( ci t i ng Fr ito-L ay, I

nc. v. L eat

her w ood , 9 0 8 S o . 2 d 1 7 5 , 1 7 8 (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); B ryan Foo ds, In c . v. W

h ite , 9 1 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 0 6 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 5 )). ¶52. L as t l y, W i l s on’ s cont ent i on t hatS hor tneveri ndi cat ed t hathe suf f er ed a w or k- r el at ed i nj ury i s i ncorr ect . A s the C our tof A ppeal s expl ai ned:

### 24

. . . [U ] n d ispu ted tes tim o n y sh o w s tha t sho rt ly after m o v ing the d esk , S h o rt p re se n ted a m e d ica l ex c u se to T a m m y S to w e [a m e m b e r o f th e W ilso n fa m ily w ho hand l es W i l son’s t i m e and w age records, as w el l as w o rkers ’ c o m p e n sa tio n c laim s] th a t in d ica te d h e h a d b e e n tre a ted a t th e U n iv e rsity H o sp ital a n d th a t h e sh o u ld n o t li ft a n y th in g h e a v ier th a n fiv e p o u n d s u n til clea red b y n eu rosu rge ry. A lso, othe r co -w o rk ers testi fi ed that S h o rt compl ai ned of

back pa i n and otherai l m ent s thr oughoutthe mont hs pr ece di ng hi s s ur gery. . . . S hor tal s o t es t i f i ed t hathe t ol d hi s s upervi s or , W el ch, thathe had expe r i ence d a “pop” i n hi s n eck as w el l as pai n w hi l e movi ng the des k, a n d h e co m p lain e d o ff a n d o n at w o rk d u rin g th e fo llo w in g e ig h t m o n th s, u n til hi s s ur gery, thathe had hurthi s neck. S h ort , 2 0 0 9 W L 16 68 49 1, at*8
. W el ch als o tes t i fi ed thatatsom e t i m e aft er the d esk incid en t bu t befo re h is surg ery , h e g av e Ja ck W il so n , the o w n er o f W il so n ’s, a d o ctor’s
e x c u s e in d ic a tin g th a t h e c o u ld n o t lif t m o re th a n fi v e p o u n d s . ¶ 5 3
. F o r th e f

o re g o in g r e a s o n s , I c o n c lu d e th a t th e re w a s n o t su b sta n tial e v id e n c e to supp ortthe C om m i ssi on ’s fi nd i ng that Sho rthad fai l ed to prov e the el em ents of hi s w orkers ’ compensa t i on cl ai m , and I ther ef or e di s s ent . A ccor di ngl y, I w oul d af f i r m the C our tof A p p ea ls’ d ec isi o n to rev erse the C ir cu itC o u rt ’s j u d g m en t, w h ich a ffi rm ed the C o m m issi o n ’s deci s i on, and I w oul d r emand t he ca s e t o the C om m i s s i on f ora det erm i nat i on of

the ext ent t o w hi ch Shor thas s uf

f er ed a l os s of

w age- earni ng capa ci ty due t o hi s di s abi l i ty.