Opinion ID: 865517
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the statute of limitations was tolled

Text: FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT. 18 ¶37. Parchman argues that Amwood failed to give the statutorily required notice to the commission, and thus the statute of limitations is tolled. Parchman directs this Court to Holbrook by & Through Holbrook v. Albright Mobile Homes, Inc., 703 So. 2d 842 (Miss. 1997) (employer estopped from relying on two-year statute of limitations defense where employer failed to give notice and employer misrepresented existence of insurance coverage for deceased employee) and Martin v. L. & A. Contracting Co., 249 Miss. 441, 162 So. 2d 870 (1964) (employer estopped from relying on two-year statute of limitations where employer failed to comply with notice requirement and employer arranged coverage from Florida instead of Mississippi because Florida benefits were less). ¶38. Parchman incorrectly relies on Holbrook and Martin, as the crux of those decisions was other misconduct by the employer besides failure to give notice, that being misrepresentation and providing less generous benefits from another state. Parchman further argues that, according to our decision in Holbrook, either failure of the employer to give notice or misconduct tolls the statute of limitations. I disagree. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 71-3-67(1) (Rev. 2000) states: Within ten (10) days after the fatal termination of any injury, the employer, if self-insured, or its carrier, shall file a report thereof with the commission on a form approved by the commission for this purpose. In the event of an injury which shall cause loss of time in excess of the waiting period prescribed in Section 71-3-11[2 ], a report thereof shall be filed with the commission by the employer or carrier, on a form approved by the commission for this purpose, within ten (10) days after the prescribed waiting period has been satisfied. 2 The prescribed period is five days. 19 Within ten (10) days after the employer or carrier knows, or reasonably should know, that an injury has resulted, or likely will result, in permanent disability or serious head or facial disfigurement, but which does not cause a loss of time in excess of the prescribed waiting period, a report thereof shall be filed with the commission on a form approved by the commission for this purpose. (Emphasis added). First, Parchman’s injury was not fatal. Second, Parchman’s injury, which occurred in March 2000, did not require any absence from work for more than five days at the time of the injury. Thus, Amwood was not required to give the commission notice. Finally, Amwood never knew that Parchman’s injury did cause or would likely cause permanent disability and was therefore not required to give notice. I find that this statute is not applicable to the case sub judice. ¶39. On the other hand, Mississippi Code Annotated Section 71-3-35(1) (Rev. 2000)3 states: No claim for compensation shall be maintained unless, within thirty (30) days after the occurrence of the injury, actual notice was received by the employer or by an officer, manager, or designated representative of an employer. If no representative has been designated by posters placed in one or more conspicuous places, then notice received by any superior shall be sufficient. Absence of notice shall not bar recovery if it is found that the employer had knowledge of the injury and was not prejudiced by the employee’s failure to give notice. Regardless of whether notice was received, if no payment of compensation (other than medical treatment or burial expense) is made and no application for benefits filed with the commission within two years from the date of the injury or death, the right to compensation therefor shall be barred. I find that, pursuant to the applicable statutes, Amwood was not required to give notice to the commission. I also find that, regardless of whether Amwood had actual notice of Parchman’s 3 The applicability of this statute was discussed by the Court of Appeals. Parchman v. Amwood Prods., Inc., 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 31, -9, ¶¶ 12-14 (Miss. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2007). 20 injury, the statute of limitations began to run at the time of the injury, and thus ran in March 2002. This issue is without merit.