Title: Taylor v. US Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
Citation: 420 So. 2d 564
Docket Number: 53456
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: October 13, 1982

420 So. 2d 564 (1982) Joe TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY &amp; GUARANTY CO., et al. No. 53456. Supreme Court of Mississippi. October 13, 1982. William B. Sullivan, Laurel, for appellant. Harold W. Melvin, Patricia Melvin, Laurel, for appellees. Before SUGG, BROOM and BOWLING, JJ. BROOM, Justice, for the Court: Wrongful refusal to pay certain workmen's compensation benefits is asserted as basis of Joe Taylor's (plaintiff's) tort suit against United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF &amp; G) and James Williams and John Grove, agents and employees of USF &amp; G. The declaration, filed in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Jones County, alleged that plaintiff Taylor suffered an injury covered by Workmen's Compensation while he was employed by Luther McGill, Inc. on September 27, 1977. USF &amp; G was the carrier. The lower court, Circuit Judge James Hester presiding, sustained the defendant's demurrer to the declaration. We affirm. Essence of the declaration before us is the allegation that USF &amp; G, Williams and Grove "negligently, carelessly, wrecklessly [sic], willfully and hazardiously [sic], failed, refused and neglected to process legitimate medical claims... ." Other allegations are to the effect that the defendant in like manner declined responsibility for the hospitalization and other expenses related to Taylor's injury and needful treatment. For his resulting "fright, grief, shame, humiliation ... worry ... physical pain ... emotional stress", the plaintiff demanded $5,000,000 in damages. Plaintiff's tort action seeks damages described as "emotional stress" together with "mental stress" and punitive damages. The declaration charged that Williams and Grove, as USF &amp; G's agents, "had charge of and handled" plaintiff's claim against Luther McGill, Inc. for workmen's compensation benefits. Along with their answer, the defendants, USF &amp; G, Williams and Grove, demurred on the ground that the declaration fails to state a cause of action. *565 IS AN EMPLOYEE COVERED BY MISSISSIPPI WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION STATUTES ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN A COMMON LAW TORT ACTION AGAINST THE COMPENSATION CARRIER AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES BASED UPON ALLEGATIONS OF BAD FAITH AND MALICIOUS REFUSAL OF THE CARRIER TO PAY COMPENSATION BENEFITS? The plaintiff's brief asserts that his tort action "is not barred under the exclusive remedy clause of the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation act." The exclusive remedy clause is contained in the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Act, codified as Mississippi Code Annotated § 71-3-9 (1972): Other sections of the Compensation Act, including Mississippi Code Annotated §§ 71-3-15 and 71-3-77 (1972), set forth the usual procedure by which a workmen's compensation claimant may assert his claim to compensation benefits. We have held in a number of cases that a workmen's compensation claimant may assert tort liability in certain third party situations. Index Drilling Company, Inc. v. Williams, 242 Miss. 775, 137 So. 2d 525 (1962). McCluskey v. Thompson, 363 So. 2d 256 (Miss. 1978), states that one employee cannot sue a fellow employee in a negligence action because the employee's exclusive remedy is under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Trotter v. Litton Systems, Inc., 370 So. 2d 244 (Miss. 1979) was a suit where an employee alleged that the doctor selected by the employer aggravated the employee's original injury. He sued the employer for failure to provide proper medical care and our opinion stated: Id., at 247. We expressed the same rationale in Brown v. Estess, 374 So. 2d 241 (Miss. 1979), where we stated our opinion that: Id., at 242-43. In a well-reasoned decision, the California Court had before it the identical question *566 now confronting us. There an employee sued his carrier alleging its negligent delay in providing medical care and its wanton misconduct in refusing to provide such care, causing temporary and permanent injuries to the employee. Noe v. Travelers Insurance Company, 172 Cal. App. 2d 731, 342 P.2d 976 (1959). Rejecting the tort claim presented in that case, the California court stated: Id., 342 P.2d at 979-80. See also, Sullivan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 367 So. 2d 658 (Fla.App. 1979), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 350 (Fla., 1979). To the same effect is Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, Section 72.97, where the author discussed the Noe case and concluded: Id., at 14-308 to 309. After carefully considering the issue presented and the authorities cited in the briefs, we must reject the plaintiff's argument. We find that the authorities cited by him are not persuasive in the context of the facts and the wording of the statutes before us in this case.[1] Upon this record, we cannot say that the legislators, in codifying "Exclusiveness of Liability" in § 71-3-9, supra, intended to allow a tort action such as the one asserted here by the plaintiff. The other proposition argued by the appellant in his brief is his assertion that the lower court erred in "handling preliminary discovery". Although we find no reversible error in this regard, the chief issue first discussed above is dispositive and therefore we need not discuss how the lower court handled the matter of preliminary discovery. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., SUGG and WALKER, P.JJ., and ROY NOBLE LEE, BOWLING, HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE and PRATHER, JJ., concur. [1] Failure of the employer or carrier to pay benefits under an award does not leave the claimant without recourse. Mississippi Code Annotated § 71-3-37 (1972) provides penalties in such a situation.