IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI N O. 2017-WC-01394-COA ROSE COX APPELLANT

v. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AT GULFPORT APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/03/2017 TRIBUNAL FROM W HICH APPEALED: MISSISSIPPI W ORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: CAROLINE JANE SCOTT ROGEN K. CHHABRA ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: RONALD T. RUSSELL NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - W ORKERS’ COMPENSATION DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED: 07/24/2018 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE IRVING, P.J., WILSON AND TINDELL, JJ. TINDELL, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. F o l l o w i n g a w o r k

- r e l a t e d com pensable injury , Rose Cox f iled a claim s e e k i n g perm anent-partial d isability benef its. Af ter the adm inistrative judge ( A J ) d e n ied Cox’s claim , she appealed to t he Mississippi W orkers’ Com pensation Com m ission (Com m ission). The Com m ission af

f irm e d the A J’s f

indings, and Cox t hen a

ppealed to this C ourt. Finding no error, we af

f irm the Com m ission’s judgm ent.

FACTS ¶2. At the tim e of her i nj u r y , C o x h a d b een em p loy ed f or two y ears as a distribution technician at Mem orial Hospital (Mem orial) in Gulf port, M ississippi. On May 8, 2014, Coxwas leaving work and walking to the em ploy ee parking lot when a vehicle struck her. The collision injured Cox’s legs and pelvis. Dr. Inez Kelleher, an o rthopedic surgeon af f iliated with Mem orial, perf

o rm ed surge r y o n C o x. F ollowing surgery , Cox underwent inpatientr e h a b i litation treatm ent at Mem orial. In addition to Dr. Kelleher, Cox received t reatm ent f rom Dr. Lee Voulters, a neurologist who oversaw her rehabilitation. ¶3. At the hearing, the only m edical evidence C o x subm i tted to the AJ consisted of the f ollowing: (1) Dr. Kelleher’s w ork-release f orm , (2) Dr. Voulters’s f

inal report, and (3) Dr. Voulters’s letter assigning Cox a p erm anent partial i m p airm ent (PPI) r ating. The March 3, 2015 work release f

rom Dr. Kelleher released Cox to return t o w ork without any restrictions. Six day s later, on March 9, 2015, Dr. Voult e r s f o und t hat Cox h ad reached m axim um

m edical im

provem ent (MMI). Dr. Voulters’s f inal report s tated that Cox had recovered well f rom her injury and achieved a f unctional status com

parable to her p re-injury b aseline level. Dr. Voulters opined that Cox s hould be a ble to resum e her pre-injury position. Dr. Voulters f urther noted that Cox was a ble t o squat well a nd am

bulate without a ny assistive device. The only restrictions Dr. V oulters assigned C ox were no crawling or activities on her knees. On April 2 , 2015, Dr. Voulters signed a letter assigning Cox a PPI of three percent f or her body as a whole. ¶4. Af ter Dr. Voulters placed her on MMI, Cox r eturned to her position at Mem orial on April 14, 2015, and she perf orm ed the sam e tasks as she had b ef ore her injury

. W hile Cox initially earned t he s am e h ourly wage rate she had previously earned, she eventually received

a wage increase b a sed upon a good evaluation f r om her s upervisor at the end of 2015. At the

2hearing on October 11, 2016, Cox testif ied that, since returning to work in April 2015, she had neither taken tim e of

f nor sought additional treatm ent related to her injury

. She f urther testif i ed that she did not need her cane to assist her at work and had never used a walker at work. Although she som etim es rested when h er legs hurt and used a cart t o help her distribute m edical supplies, Cox testif ied that she was able t o tim ely com plete her assigned tasks and had not received any work-related com

plaints. ¶5. Cox’s supervisor, Mary Bradley , conf irm ed that Cox returned to the s am e position she held prior to the accident and p erf orm ed the sam e tasks. According to Bradley , several carts

were available to help all the em ploy ees in Cox’s departm e nt distribute h ospital supplies, and she stated that she did not n otice Cox rely on t h e c a r ts m ore of ten f ollowing her injury

. Bradley testif

ied t hat she observed Cox f or s e veral w eeks upon Cox’s r eturn to evaluate Cox’s post-injury capabilities. B radley stated that Cox never f ailed t o perf

orm any assigned tasks, never expressed c oncerns about her work assignm ents, never com plained a bout injury

related issues, and n e ver m issed work due to such issues. Based u pon her observations, Bradley c o ncluded that Cox could satisf actorily perf

orm a ll her job requirem e nts. Bradley f urther testif

ied that Cox had not received any reprim ands since returning to work. Bradley instead characterized Cox as a valuable and k nowledgeable em

ploy ee whom she would “hire . . . again today

if [ Cox] reapplied tom orrow . . . .” ¶6. C a thy W ood, who served as Mem orial’s vice president of hum a n r e s o u r c e s , a l s o testif i ed t hat Cox returned to work f ull tim e af

ter her injury without any restrictions. W ood conf irm ed that C ox perf

orm e d the sam e pre-injury tasks at the s a m e hourly wage rate and had

3received no work-related com plaints since returning f

rom her injury . Like Bradley , W ood testif i ed that Cox received a w a g e increase af t er returning to work based on her f avorable perf orm ance evaluation. ¶7. Based on t he evidence a nd testim ony present e d a t t h e h e a r ing, the AJ f ound Cox suf f e r e d n o l o s s i n w age-earning capacity

. As a result, the AJ denied Cox’s claim f or perm ane n t

- p a

r tial disability benef

its. Following Cox’s a

ppeal, the f

ull Com m ission af

f irm ed the AJ’s f indings. Aggrieved, Cox tim ely appeals to this Court. DISCUSSION ¶8. Cox concedes her post-injury return to work at t he sam e or greater wage rate created

a p r esum ption of no loss in wage-earning capacity

. 1 However, C o x argues she p r e s e n t e d suf f i cient evidence t o rebut the presum ption. She theref

ore asserts t he Com m ission erred by af f irm ing the AJ’s denial of

her claim f or perm anent-partial disability benef its. ¶9. “It is the claim ant’s b u rde n t o e s t a b l i s h her e n titlem ent to com pensation, and the question of the existence and extent of any perm a n ent disability arising out of a work-related injury is a question of f

act f or the C om m ission to determ ine based on the evidence bef ore it.” Sampson v. MTD Prods. , 225 So. 3d 541, 5 4 3

- 4 4 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2 017) (quoting Robinette v. Henry I. Siegal C o . , 8 0 1 So. 2d 739, 743 ( ¶7) ( Miss. Ct. A pp. 2000)). This Court a pplies “a substantial-evidence standard to r eview a workers’ com p ensation case . . . .” Leflore Cty. Bd. of Sup’rs v. Golden , 169 So. 3d 882, 885 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014). The

1 S ee H u d s p eth R eg ’l C tr. v. M

itch ell , 2 0 2 S o . 3 d 6 0 9 , 6 1 0 (¶7 ) (M iss. 2 0 1 6 ) (reco g n izin g th at a reb u ttab l e p resu m p tio n o f n o lo s s o f w ag e-earn in g cap a city arises w h en an in j u red em p lo y ee retu rn s to w o rk an d receiv e s th e sam e o r h i g h e r rate o f p a y )

. 4C o mmi s sion constitutes “the trier and f inder o f f acts.” I d. W hen substantial eviden c e supports the Com m ission’s decision, we rem a in bound by the Com m ission’s f indings “even though the evidence would convince us otherwise, were we the f actf i nder.” I d. However, we review questions of

law de novo. Id. ¶10. In the present c ase, Cox’s m edical evidence supported t he Com m ission’s f i nding that Cox f a i l e d t o prove a perm a nent im pairm ent. The m edical evidence established that Dr. Kelleher released Cox o n M a r c h 3, 2015, to return to work without any restrictions. Dr. Voulters, who oversaw Cox’s r ehabilitation, also concluded in his March 9, 2015 report that Cox “ha[ d] m a de a g ood recovery ” and could return to her pre-injury position. Dr. Voulters f ound C o x had reached M M I, a nd on April 2, 2015, he assigned Cox a t hree-percent im p airm ent to her body as a whole. The only restrictions Dr. Voulters placed on Cox were

no crawling or activities o n her k nees. However, neither party of f ered evidence to show that Cox’s job responsibilities ever required such tasks. ¶11. In addition, C ox’s own t estim ony f ailed to support her contention t hat s he sustained

a p e rm anent im

p airm e nt and suf

f ered a loss of wage-earning capacity

. Cox returned to work f ull t im e on April 14, 2015, and she resum ed her pre-injury position a s a d i s t r i bution technician. Cox perf

o rm ed t he s am e tasks and initially received the sam e hourly wage rate that she had prior to h er injury

. Then, f ollowing a f

avorable perf

orm ance evaluation f

rom her supervisor at the end of 2015, Cox received an increase in her hourly wage rate. At the tim e of the hearing on October 11, 2016, Cox still earned this increased wage rate and had received no work reprim ands or com plaints. In additi o n , Cox testif ied that, af

ter reaching

5MMI and returning to work, she never took tim e of f o r sought f

urther m edical t reatm ent due
to h er injuries. Furtherm ore, C ox stated that she h ad been able to t im ely com plete her work duties without the assistance of a cane or walker. ¶12. Upon review, we f ind substantial evidence supported the Com m ission’s decision to af f irm the de n i a l o f C ox’s claim f or perm anent-partial disability benef its. W e theref

ore conclude this argum ent lacks m erit. CONCLUSION ¶13. Because substantial e vidence supported the Com m issi o n ’ s d e c i s i o n to uphold the denial o f Cox’s benef

its claim , we f

ind n o e r r o r. W e theref

ore af f i rm the C om m ission’s judgm ent. ¶14. AFFIRMED. LEE, C .J., IRVING A ND GRI F FIS, P.JJ., BARNES, CARLTON, FAIR, WILSON, GREENLEE AND WESTBROOKS, JJ., CONCUR.

6