Opinion ID: 2753793
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory Creation

Text: 15 ¶32. The purpose of the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Law and the coverage requirement is to timely pay disability benefits and medical expenses to workers who suffer work-related injuries and to encourage them to return to work. Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-1(3) (Supp. 2014). The Court has said that “the purpose behind the Workers’ Compensation Law is to share amongst workers, employers, and consumers the burden of supporting those whose ability to work is seriously diminished or eliminated.” Meridian Prof’l Baseball Club v. Jensen, 828 So. 2d 740, 749 (¶ 24) (Miss. 2002) (citations omitted). Employers with at least five employees are required to have workers’ compensation coverage. Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-5 (Rev. 2011). Small companies “engaged in a common type of business” are allowed to come together and form a group to “pool their liabilities.” Miss. Code Ann. § 71- 3-75(3) (Rev. 2011). Those groups are called “self-insured groups,” and they must be approved by the Commission. Id. The Workers’ Compensation Law provides: Pooling of liabilities: The commission may, under such rules and regulations as it prescribes, permit two (2) or more employers engaged in a common type of business activity or pursuit, or having other reasons to associate, to enter into agreements to pool their liabilities under this section for the purpose of qualifying as group self-insurers, and, in conjunction therewith, to enter into agreements to pool any other liabilities to their employees, and each employer member of such approved group shall be classified as a self-insurer. . . . Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-75(3) (Rev. 2011). Comp Choice was a group self-insurer comprised of logging and timber companies. ¶33. In addition to the Workers’ Compensation Law, self-insurers are subject to the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Self-Insurer Guaranty Association Law. See Miss. 16 Code Ann. §§ 71-3-151-181 (Rev. 2011). The stated purpose of the Self-Insurer Guaranty Association Law is: . . . to provide a mechanism for the payment of the covered claims under the Workers’ Compensation Law, to avoid excessive delay in payment and to avoid financial loss to claimants because of the insolvency of a self-insurer, to assist in the detection and prevention of self-insurer insolvencies, and to provide associations to assess the cost of such protection among self-insurers. Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-153 (Rev. 2011). Comp Choice was a member of the Guaranty Association pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 71-3-159. ¶34. Members of the Guaranty Association’s board of directors are selected by the “member self-insurers, subject to the approval of the [C]ommission.” Miss. Code Ann. § 71- 3-161(1) (Rev. 2011). The Guaranty Association is required to submit a “plan of operation” to the Commission for approval. Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-165 (Rev. 2011). Section 71-3- 163 outlines the powers and duties of the Guaranty Association, and it has immunity for good faith actions taken in the course of carrying out its statutory duties. Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3- 179 (Rev. 2011). ¶35. Comp Choice is correct that the Guaranty Association is statutorily created and derives its authority from statutes. However, the fact that an entity acts pursuant to statute does not preclude it from being an instrumentality of a state entity, as Comp Choice seems to argue. In fact, the opposite is true. The Court has held that “[g]overnmental actions under the MTCA are those which are performed pursuant to the act of statute [sic] or are a matter of public necessity.” Spencer v. Greenwood/Leflore Airport Auth., 834 So. 2d 707, 711 (¶ 12) (Miss. 2003) (citing Thomas v. Hilburn, 654 So. 2d 898, 900 (Miss. 1995)). Thus, the 17 Guaranty Association’s duties and responsibilities performed pursuant to statute could be considered “governmental activities.” Further, by and large, much of the Guaranty Association’s operation is subject to the Commission’s approval. The Guaranty Association maintains that its legal status as a “statutorily created unincorporated legal entity” – as Comp Choice labels it – is not relevant. The Guaranty Association asks the Court to look at its relationship with the Commission to determine whether it is an instrumentality of the Commission and, thus, of the state.