Case Name: Linzie DORRIS v. MISSISSIPPI REGIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1997-02-27
Citations: 695 So. 2d 567
Docket Number: No. 93-CC-01226-SCT
Parties: Linzie DORRIS v. MISSISSIPPI REGIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.
Judges: DAN LEE, C.J., SULLIVAN, P.J., and PITTMAN, BANKS and McRAE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 695
Pages: 567–570

Head Matter:
Linzie DORRIS v. MISSISSIPPI REGIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.
No. 93-CC-01226-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mssissippi.
Feb. 27, 1997.
David L. Walker, Batesville, for appellant.
Donald V. Burch, Arthur S. Johnston, III, Daniel Coker Horton & Bell, Jackson, Robert J. Arnold, III, Ridgeland, for appellee.

Opinion:
PRATHER, Presiding Justice, for the Court:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This workers' compensation case involves the refusal of the claimant, Linzie Dorris (Dorris), to have surgery on a ruptured inter-vertebral disc. On April 3, 1990, Dorris injured his back while installing cabinets for his employer, the Mssissippi Housing Authority. He subsequently filed his petition to controvert with the Mssissippi Workers' Compensation Commission (MWCC). Dor-ris' claim was heard before an administrative law judge (ALJ), who found that Dorris had reached maximum medical recovery and awarded permanent partial disability benefits. All parties petitioned the MWCC for a review of the ALJ's decision. The MWCC affirmed the order of the ALJ. Dorris appealed to the Leake County Circuit Court, which affirmed the decision of the MWCC. Having timely perfected an appeal to this Court, Dorris raises the following issues:
I. Whether the circuit judge erred in affirming the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission's decision that the appellant reached maximum medical improvement?
II. Whether the circuit judge erred in affirming the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission's decision that the appellant is entitled to permanent partial disability benefits of only $99.23 for 450 weeks?
In accordance with the decision in Triangle Distributors v. Russell, 268 So.2d 911 (Miss.1972), this Court reverses the decision of the trial court and remands for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Because the first assignment of error raised by the appellant is the dispositive issue in this case, the second assignment of error is not addressed.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
I. Whether the circuit judge erred in affirming the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission's decision that the appellant reached maximum medical improvement?
Dorris, age 49, has steadfastly refused to have back surgery. Three doctors recommended that Dorris have the surgery, in order to improve his condition. However, none of them testified that Dorris' improvement would be very substantial. Two of the three doctors testified that, without surgery, Dorris had reached maximum medical recovery.
Dorris saw Dr. Elmer Nix, an orthopedic surgeon, at the request of the insurance carrier. Dr. Nix testified that Dorris had reached the maximum medical recovery without surgery by October 29, 1990. Dr. Nix estimated Dorris' impairment at 30-35%, and he believed the surgery would reduce the impairment to approximately 25%.
Dr. Robert Bobo, an orthopedic surgeon, stated that, without surgery, Dorris had reached maximum medical recovery by January 24,1991. Dr. Bobo testified that surgery would "more likely than not" be beneficial to Dorris. However, Dr. Bobo also stated that the surgery would actually have to be performed before they could know whether Dor-ris would be better.
Dr. Bernard Patrick, a neurosurgeon, could not determine whether Dorris had reached maximum medical improvement. Dr. Patrick recommended surgery, but testified that surgery was not mandatory; that is, Dorris was in no danger of nerve root damage, and only in danger of continued discomfort if the surgery were not done. Dr. Patrick also stated that sometimes a ruptured disc would heal without surgery, and sometimes it would worsen and require surgery.
Dorris contends that he "may continue to be temporarily disabled even through [sic] he has received maximum recovery from conservative treatment if his condition can be improved by surgery." This Court has not considered this question since 1972, when the ruling in Triangle Distributors v. Russell, 268 So.2d 911 (Miss.1972), was handed down. In Triangle Distributors, the claimant refused to have back surgery, and this Court reversed the finding of permanent disability:
Temporary disability, whether total or partial, has reference to the healing period following injury, it begins with the disabling injury and continues until such time as the employee reaches the maximum benefit from medical treatment, or differently expressed, it is a condition which exists until the injured employee is cured or is as far restored as the permanent character of his injuries will permit. Dunn, Mississippi Workmen's Compensation, 2d ed., § 75 (1967).
Under the particular facts of this case, we hold that the claimant has not reached maximum benefits from medical treatment, and therefore, his disability, although total in character is temporary in quality and that the Commission erred as a matter of law in finding that claimant's disability was permanent in quality. Whether the claimant continues to refuse surgery or changes his mind, as he has a right to do, and undergoes such treatment, he will receive all benefits contemplated by the act.
Triangle Distributors, 268 So.2d at 912-913.
The view expressed in Triangle Distributors was summarized by a commentator as follows.
A special situation arises when an employee refuses recommended surgery which, if performed, would likely reduce or eliminate disability, as in the usual case of a ruptured intervertebral disc. In such cases, the disability, pending corrective surgery, is to be classed as temporary in quality. The temporary classification applies as a matter of law and a finding by the commission in such cases of permanent disability will be reversed on appeal.
Dunn, Mississippi Workmen's Compensation, 3d ed., § 75 (1982) (citing Triangle Distributors, 268 So.2d 911).
Thus, the decision in Triangle Distributors is dispositive of the case at hand. It should be noted, however, that Triangle Distributors was based on the decision of the court that the refusal to undergo disc surgery was not "unreasonable" within the meaning of the workers' compensation statutes. That decision was apparently reached with some trepidation:
This Court had a similar question before it in Walker v. International Paper Co., 230 Miss. 95, 92 So.2d 445 (1957). Some of the judges are not impressed with the soundness of the decision in Walker, supra, but it will not be re-examined at this time. It is reluctantly followed and the action of the Commission in finding that claimant's refusal to undergo surgery in the present case was reasonable is affirmed.
Triangle Distributors, 268 So.2d at 912; Walker v. International Paper Co., 280 Miss. 95, 92 So.2d 445, 449 (1957)
Indeed, there is some evidence in the record in the case sub judice that disc surgery is not life-threatening and is much safer than it was years ago. However, the other evidence clearly indicated that Dorris' refusal to undergo surgery in this case was reasonable. Although all the doctors recommended surgery, the projected improvement in Dorris' condition after surgery was only about 10%. Furthermore, Dorris testified that he was afraid of the surgery: "[he's] 49 years old now and [he] don't heal as fast as he used to." Thus, given the facts in this case, Dor-ris' refusal to have the recommended back surgery was reasonable.
Therefore, under Triangle Distributors, Dorris is entitled to temporary benefits. This Court recognizes the dilemma in awarding a claimant temporary benefits on a seemingly "permanent" basis. However, this Court is also mindful of the difficult situation that could arise in the future, should Dorris choose to have the recommended surgery. See generally Lawrin Co., Inc. and USF & G v. Frazier, 213 So.2d 548 (Miss.1968). Although Dorris may reasonably refuse to have the surgery at present, the medical testimony indicated that the pain could worsen. At some point in the future, Dorris may wish to have the surgery; to the extent that he is entitled to payment of the medical bills arising from that surgery, this Court cannot preclude such payment. Furthermore, given the broad policy of the workers' compensation statutes, which operate in favor of compensation to the employee, this Court is persuaded that the reasoning expressed in Triangle Distributors applies to Dorris' situation. Therefore, this case is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
DAN LEE, C.J., SULLIVAN, P.J., and PITTMAN, BANKS and McRAE, JJ., concur.
SMITH, J., dissents with separate written opinion joined by JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., and MILLS, JJ.