Opinion ID: 1585793
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: was the fell-dead presumption properly applied in this case, and did the company/carrier rebut it?

Text: The found-dead presumption, described in Washington v. Greenville Mfg. & Machine Works, 223 So.2d 642, 645 (Miss. 1969), works thusly: The rule is firmly established in this state when an employee is found dead at a place where his duties require him to be or where he might properly be in the performance of his duties during work hours in the absence of evidence that he was not engaged in his employer's business, there is a presumption that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. This presumption applies regardless of whether the employee is found dead at his place of employment, or falls dead in the presence of fellow employees. Mississippi State University v. Dependents of Hattaway, 191 So.2d 418 (Miss. 1966). The effect of the presumption on the employer's case was stated in Okolona v. Dependent of Harlow, 244 So.2d 25 (Miss. 1971) to be: This presumption is sufficient to place upon the employer the burden of overcoming it by evidence in explanation of the cause of death, and where no proof is offered except that the employee died from unknown causes, the presumption is not overcome and will justify an award. Id., at 26. This case is controlled by our recent decision in Road Maintenance Supply, Inc. v. Dependents of Maxwell, 493 So.2d 318 (Miss. 1986). There, the decedent, Maxwell, was at his job as a truck driver when, while standing on some rocks behind a truck, he fell dead. No autopsy was performed, although the examining physician noted on the death certificate that the immediate cause of death was acute myocardial infarction. Maxwell's personal physician testified to a history of heart trouble, and gave his opinion that Maxwell had suffered a Stokes-Adams attack precipitated by severe cardiac arrhythmia or a myocardial infarction. Justice Robertson, writing for the majority, found the case to be indistinguishable from Washington, stating: In today's case, we have no credible medical expert opinion testimony to the effect that Maxwell's death, even assuming it to have been the result of a heart attack, was not caused at least in part by his work activities. Dr. Flannery, a family practitioner, merely stated that he didn't think Maxwell's work had anything to do with his death, that he could have had a similar spell walking down the street, or .... at home. But the fact is that Maxwell didn't have his fatal attack walking down the street or at home. It occurred while he was on the job. ... . James L. Maxwell, Jr. fell and died at his place of employment during his regular hours of employment. A rebuttable presumption arose that his death was in whole or in part causally related to his employment. Employer and carrier at that point had the burden of going forward with credible evidence  as distinguished from guesswork, speculation and conjecture  that Maxwell's death was not work connected. It avails employer and carrier nothing to say that the evidence that Maxwell's death was work connected is slim. Our law burdened them to produce credible evidence to the contrary, on penalty of having the issue resolved in claimant's favor. On the authority of Washington and progeny, we hold that employer and carrier failed to meet their burden. Id., at 321-22. Similarly, we hold in this case that the testimony regarding the possibility that Stampley suffered an attack of acute malignant arrhythmia does not adequately explain his death on the job, and that the appellants here failed to meet the burden of proof required to rebut the fell-dead presumption. There is no merit to this assignment of error.