Opinion ID: 1097522
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the circuit court err in failing to require appellees to pay penalties and interest?

Text: Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-37(5) (1972) provides: If any installment of compensation payable without an award is not paid within fourteen (14) days after it becomes due, as provided in subdivision (2) of this section, there shall be added to such unpaid installment an amount equal to ten per centum (10%) thereof, which shall be paid at the same time as, but in addition to, such installment unless notice is filed under subdivision (4) of this section, or unless such non-payment is excused by the commission after a showing by the employer that owing to conditions over which he had no control such installment could not be paid within the period prescribed for the payment. The commission has no discretion in the application of [Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-37] and must impose the penalty unless the same is controverted by the carrier or employer or is excused by the commission. Goasa and Son v. Goasa, 208 So.2d 575, 580 (Miss. 1968). Furthermore, the law is clear that imposition of the penalty is mandatory and is not excused by the fact that the employer may have disputed liability in good faith. South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Aden, 474 So.2d 584, 593 (Miss. 1985); O'Neil v. Multi-Purpose Mfg. Co., 243 Miss. 775, 140 So.2d 860 (1962); Dunn, Mississippi Workmen's Compensation § 279, 350-351 (3rd ed. 1982). In the present case both the administrative judge and the full Commission awarded the appellants penalties and interest in accordance with § 71-3-37(5). However, the Jones County Circuit Court reversed those awards stating, Lastly, the Court is of the opinion that the Commission's award of interest and penalties was improper for the reason that under the decision of New & Hughes Drilling Co. v. Smith, 219 So.2d 657, 661 (Miss 1969), such claim was waived. Although the better practice might have been for the appellees to have asked for penalties and interest before their first hearing, the Court finds that the imposition of the statutory penalties was mandatory and that the appellants' petition was not so untimely as to bring this case under the rule of New and Hughes Drilling Co. v. Smith .