Opinion ID: 1895305
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: did the full commission err in failing to apportion taylor's recovery based on the 1983 injury?

Text: This Court stated in Stuart's, Inc. v. Brown, 543 So.2d 649, 654 (Miss. 1989), that only pre-existing occupational disabilities generate a duty to apportion. The Court further stated that a preexisting physical handicap, disease or lesion which did not impair wage earning capacity ex ante by definition cannot be that which impairs wage earning capacity ex post.  In Brown, the Court further stated: After reviewing the language of Section 71-3-7 and the principles imbedded within our Workers Compensation Act, and as well, nearly all of the previous Mississippi cases relating to apportionment, we find the following as the best and most coherent-though far from perfect-reading our law may be given. In work-connected injury cases where the evidence establishes (a) successive injuries experienced by the employee where following the first injury the employee engages in full-time employment for a substantial period of time prior to the second injury; or (b) a preexisting (symptomatic or asymptomatic) condition which causes the employee to experience no pre-injury occupational disability, apportionment may not be ordered. Brown, 543 So.2d at 655. The Full Commission stated that it appeared from the record that claimant did in fact perform the substantial acts of his employment following the 1983 injury until the disabling injury of June 29, 1986. Therefore, the Commission found that pursuant to Brown, apportionment did not apply. The Commission further amended the Order of Administrative Judge of May 1, 1989, to reflect that Taylor sustained a twenty percent (20%) permanent partial disability to the body as a whole as a result of his June 29, 1986, injury. The Employer/Carrier argued that any disability benefits due Taylor should have been apportioned based on the pre-existing back condition of January, 1983. In so arguing, Employer/Carrier asserted that Taylor's condition did not fall within the above stated rule set forth in Brown, but fell within pre-existing conditions excepted from the rule. The Court in Brown (in referring to the above quoted passage from Brown ) stated: On the other hand, in cases where (1) there is evidence of a medically cognizable, identifiable, symptomatic condition which antedated the injury; and (2) the employee experienced some absence of normal (for him or her) wage earning capacity, then apportionment must be ordered. Brown, 543 So.2d at 655. The Employer/Carrier argued that there was sufficient proof in the record that Taylor experienced a substantial occupational or functional disability that arose from the 1983 injury. In support of the argument, the Employer/Carrier stated that prior to the work-related injury, Taylor was forced to seek medical attention and missed several days of work because of his 1983 pre-existing back condition. Therefore, under Brown, Taylor was occupationally or functionally disabled and apportionment was proper. The Employer/Carrier's argument does not apply the Brown rule on apportionment correctly and is without merit. In Brown, the Court uses occupational disability synonymously with loss of wage earning capacity. Brown, 543 So.2d at 655. In order to determine a worker's occupational disability one must compare the worker's pre-injury wage earning capacity with the post-injury wage earning capacity. Id. Although Taylor had a pre-existing back condition that dated back to 1983, the record revealed that this back condition did not functionally impair or stop Taylor from doing his work from 1983 to June 29, 1986. It was admitted that Taylor sought medical attention in the two-month interim prior to June 29, 1986. However, Taylor returned to his employment doing substantially what he had done since 1983. It was not until after June 29, 1986, that Taylor stated that he was functionally, occupationally disabled to do what he had previously done. In other words, Taylor's wage earning capacity decreased after the work-related injury. The Full Commission considered the conflicting doctors' reports and other evidence in the record. Based upon the record there appears to be no credible evidence to show that the Commission was clearly erroneous in its holding, or that the ruling was arbitrary or capricious or any other credible basis for reversal of the decision exists. Therefore, the Full Commission's decision not to apportion benefits is affirmed.