International Staff Management v. Takisha Stephenson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-WC-01641-COA
INTERNATIONAL STAFF MANAGEMENT AND
LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY
APPELLANTS
v.
TAKISHA STEPHENSON
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
08/25/2008
HON. ROBERT P. CHAMBERLIN
DESOTO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
H. MITCHELL COWAN
F. HALL BAILEY
D. BRIGGS SMITH, JR.
CIVIL-WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
AFFIRMED AWARD OF WORKERS’
COMPENSATION BENEFITS TO
STEPHENSON
AFFIRMED-03/09/2010
BEFORE KING, C.J., ISHEE AND MAXWELL, JJ.
ISHEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
After the administrative law judge (ALJ) entered an order finding that Takisha
Stephenson had reached maximum medical improvement and was due no benefits, she
appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission). The Commission
reversed, finding that benefits were wrongfully denied. International Staff Management and
Legion Insurance Company (International),1 her employers, appealed the adverse finding to
the Circuit Court of DeSoto County, which affirmed the Commission’s decision.
International appeals from that judgment and asserts two issues:
I.
Stephenson’s injuries from the shooting were not within the course and
scope of her employment, and
II.
The Commission’s findings regarding Stephenson’s permanent
disability as a result of the shooting are not supported by substantial
evidence and are based on an error of law.
Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
On June 28, 2000, after her shift at One Source,2 in Olive Branch, Mississippi,
Stephenson was leaving work when she was approached by Terry Crane, who was not an
employee.3 Crane told Stephenson that she was wanted inside, so she followed him back in
the building. Upon entering, she discovered Reginald Davis, a former co-worker, armed with
a handgun and holding her co-workers hostage. Davis shot Stephenson in the back of the
head and shot Crane in the shoulder; then Davis turned the gun on himself and committed
suicide.
¶3.
Stephenson handled quality assurance, and she oversaw one of One Source’s three
assembly lines. Davis began working at One Source in December 2000, and he worked on
1
This opinion will refer to the appellants, collectively, as “International,” unless it is
necessary to distinguish between the parties.
2
Stephenson was employed by International, which was a personnel outsourcing
company, but she worked at the One Source facility.
3
Terry Crane previously worked at One Source, but on the date of the shooting, he
was there only to pick up his mother, Debra Bogan, who was a supervisor at One Source.
2
Stephenson’s assembly line. Stephenson had previously experienced problems with Davis,
who she believed had a crush on her and had tried to flirt with her at work. At some point,
Davis had stolen some of Stephenson’s pictures from her desk.
¶4.
On June 20, 2000, Davis got into an argument with Mildred Mack, one of the
managers at One Source. After Davis began cursing Mack, she went to the office and
brought back termination papers that she and Shawn Mullaly 4 had signed. They told
Stephenson that she needed to sign the papers as a witness, but she never signed anything.
Davis was some distance away when they asked Stephenson to sign, but it was unclear
whether he heard the conversation. Davis’s employment was terminated that day. Later that
day, Stephenson discovered that someone had keyed or scratched her husband’s car, which
she had driven to work. She and her husband, Terry Stephenson (Terry), called the police
regarding the incident, and they filled out a police report.
¶5.
On June 26, 2000, Stephenson was notified by a secretary at One Source that she had
a phone call from her husband. When Stephenson picked up the phone, she discovered that
it was not her husband; it was Davis. Davis said he was going to kill Stephenson. He gave
Stephenson his phone number, and he said that if she did not call him, he would kill her
husband and her children. Either Stephenson or someone else at One Source contacted the
police regarding the incident.
¶6.
The following day, Stephenson spotted Davis staring at her after she dropped her kids
off at daycare. She returned home to tell her husband, and they went to the Byhalia Police
Department to complain about Davis, who the Stephensons alleged had been harassing them.
4
This witness’s name is spelled several different ways throughout the record.
3
Officer Jason Hughey talked with the couple about the incident. He then went to the bus stop
in Byhalia where Davis was to question him about the incident. Although Officer Hughey
told Stephenson and her husband to remain at the police station, they also went to the bus
stop. At the bus stop and in the presence of Officer Hughley, Davis again threatened to kill
Stephenson, and he said that he had stolen pictures off of her desk.
¶7.
On June 28, 2000, the morning of the shooting, Terry was dropping his children off
at daycare when he again encountered Davis. He noticed Davis staring at him, and Davis
approached him and said he needed to tell Terry something. Terry responded that he did not
want to talk to Davis. When Davis noticed someone else approaching, he ran away. The
police were called regarding the incident, and Officer Hughey apprehended Davis and
transported Davis back to the daycare. At that point, Davis began telling Terry that he was
having an affair with Stephenson. The police released Davis from custody, and it was that
afternoon that he returned to One Source and shot Stephenson.
¶8.
As Stephenson was leaving for the day, Crane approached her and asked her to come
back inside to speak to the manager. Stephenson, believing that something was wrong with
the paperwork that she had filed, went back inside the building and into the office. Jackie
Cook testified in her deposition that she entered the office that afternoon, and Davis pointed
a gun at her. He said he was there for Stephenson. Cook had heard that Stephenson had
fired Davis, and she thought that was the reason Davis was after her. Cook admitted that she
had also heard that it was Mack who had fired Davis. As far as Cook knew, Stephenson and
Davis only had a working relationship; she had never heard any rumors about an affair
between them. Cook did not recall any problems between Stephenson and Davis besides the
4
confrontation at the daycare. Also, Mack, who actually signed Davis’s termination papers,
had not heard that Stephenson and Davis were having an affair, and the only problem she had
heard about was the daycare incident.
¶9.
On August 8, 2000, Stephenson filed a petition to controvert alleging that she had
suffered a work related injury when she was shot by Davis on June 28 and as a result, was
she was permanently and totally disabled. International filed an answer admitting that the
incident occurred, but it denied that Stephenson was permanently disabled as a result of the
incident or that she suffered a loss of wage earning capacity as a result of her injury.
¶10.
In November 2000, Stephenson was released to return to work by Dr. John Brophy,
a neurosurgeon and Stephenson’s treating physician for her gunshot injuries.
¶11.
The ALJ entered an order in April 2002 finding that the injuries Stephenson received
when she was shot by Davis, were suffered in the course and scope of her employment. The
ALJ ordered that Stephenson be paid temporary total disability benefits beginning on June
28, 2000 and continuing through November 27, 2000. The ALJ also ordered that Stephenson
undergo an independent medical examination by Dr. Keith Atkins, a clinical
neuropsychologist. The ALJ’s decision was affirmed by the full commission.
¶12.
Stephenson underwent an examination by Dr. Atkins. Dr. Atkins was offered as an
expert in the field of clinical neuropsychology. He examined Stephenson on June 5 and 19,
2002. Based on his review of Stephenson’s medical records, Dr. Atkins described how the
bullet caused injuries to the cerebellum and the lower occipital lobe in her brain. Dr. Atkins
testified that the cerebellum controls coordination of fine motor control and movements and
the occipital lobe, which is the vision center of the brain. Dr. Atkins detailed various tests
5
that he gave Stephenson to test her effort and symptom exaggeration. Based on the results
of the tests, he concluded that Stephenson was not giving her best effort on the exams and
was probably exaggerating her symptoms. Dr. Atkins reasoned that: “[S]uch widespread
poor effort and symptom exaggeration invalidates the remainder of [Stephenson’s]
neuropsychological profile. In other words, I have no confidence in the validity of her
neuropsychological scores, most of which fell within the impaired range.” Dr. Atkins found
no reason why she would not be able to return to the workplace.
¶13.
Stephenson was also examined by Dr. Martha Nan Hawkes.
Dr. Hawkes, a
neuropsychologist, testified at the hearing as an expert in neuropsychology and clinical
psychology.
Over two days, on January 13 and 14, 2003, Dr. Hawkes performed a
neuropsychological evaluation of Stephenson, consisting of several tests, to examine her
brain function or cognitive function or thinking. According to Dr. Hawkes, Stephenson’s
motivation tests were valid. The tests indicated that she was not exaggerating her symptoms;
she was not faking or malingering. Incidents in Stephenson’s patient history included the
following: memory problems, poor concentration, personality changes, slurred speech,
confusion, hearing difficulty in her right ear, and chronic cough. At the time Dr. Hawkes
examined Stephenson, it had been three years since the shooting, and Dr. Hawkes found that
Stephenson had reached maximum medical improvement approximately eighteen to twentyfour months after the injury. Dr. Hawkes concluded that Stephenson had suffered moderate
brain damage from the gunshot and that Stephenson could not be gainfully employed due to
memory and cognitive problems.
¶14.
The Commission asked Dr. Atkins to reevaluate Stephenson in light of Dr. Hawkes’s
6
findings, but he refused. He reasoned that his initial critical evaluation of Stephenson
compromised his ability to evaluate her further. It was his belief that, in light of his critical
report, Stephenson would not cooperate with him, and he would not be able to establish a
working rapport with her.
¶15.
The Commission remanded the case with instructions that the ALJ admit the
testimony of Dr. Hawkes. After considering Dr. Hawkes’s testimony, the ALJ found that
Stephenson had reached maximum medical improvement on November 27, 2000, and had
no permanent impairment or loss of wage-earning capacity. The ALJ based his findings on
the fact that Dr. John Brophy released Stephenson to return to work and on Dr. Atkins’s
testimony that Stephenson exaggerated her symptoms. Stephenson appealed the ALJ’s ruling
to the Commission. The Commission reversed the opinion of the ALJ, finding that Dr.
Hawkes performed a thorough evaluation of Stephenson and that Dr. Atkins’s testimony did
not discredit that evaluation. The Commission noted that it was unclear how Dr. Atkins
could opine that Stephenson could return to work, when he had no confidence in the validity
of the results of her neuropsychological exams and found Dr. Hawkes’s results to be flawed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶16.
This Court applies a limited standard when reviewing a decision of the Commission.
Ameristar Casino-Vicksburg v. Rawls, 2 So. 3d 675, 679 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008)
(citation omitted). As the Commission is the ultimate fact-finder, we will only reverse its
decision if it was not supported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary and capricious, or if
the judgment contained an error of law. Id.
DISCUSSION
7
I.
¶17.
Compensability
First, International takes issue with the Commission’s finding that Stephenson’s
injuries from the shooting were compensable injuries. Its position is that Davis’s motives for
shooting Stephenson were purely personal, having to do with an alleged relationship between
the two. International concludes that, because Davis’s motives were personal, they were
wholly unconnected from Stephenson’s employment; therefore, her injury is not
compensable.
¶18.
An order from the Commission must be final before it is appealable. Flexible Flyer,
Inc. v. Harris, 755 So. 2d 50, 51 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Bickham v. Dep’t of
Mental Health, 592 So. 2d 96, 97 (Miss. 1991)). Here, International appealed the ALJ’s
determination of compensability to the Commission, and the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s
opinion and remanded the claim for a determination of benefits. At that time, it was not
proper for International to have appealed the determination of compensability because the
proceedings were ongoing.
¶19.
Mississippi Code Annotated section 71-3-7 (Rev. 2000) provides as follows:
“Compensation shall be payable for disability or death of an employee from injury or
occupational disease arising out of and in the course of employment, without regard to fault
as to the cause of the injury or occupational disease.” “Injury” includes both an accidental
injury and “an injury caused by the willful act of a third person directed against an employee
because of his employment while so employed and working on the job . . . .” Miss. Code
Ann. § 71-3-3 (Rev. 2000). This Court has stated the following regarding the compensability
of an intentional act that causes an injury:
8
When the assault is unconnected with the employment, or is for reasons
personal to the assailant and the one assaulted, or is not because the relation
of the employer and employee exists, and employment is not the cause, though
it may be the occasion of the wrongful act, and may give a convenient
opportunity for its wrongful act, it is ordinarily held that the injury does not
arise out of the employment.
Hawkins v. Treasure Bay Hotel & Casino, 813 So. 2d 757, 760-61 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App.
2001) (quoting Brookhaven Steam Laundry v. Watts, 214 Miss. 569, 626, 636, 59 So. 2d 294,
300 (1952)). The determination of whether a third party’s intentional tort against an
employee is compensable is a factual determination for the Commission. Total Transp., Inc.
of Miss. v. Shores, 968 So. 2d 400, 406 (¶21) (Miss. 2007) (citing Barry v. Sanders, 211
Miss. 656, 661, 52 So. 2d 493, 495 (1952)).
¶20.
International alleges that the facts show that Stephenson was not involved in Davis’s
termination and that Davis was romantically obsessed with Stephenson. Notably, Davis only
harassed and threatened Stephenson, and she admitted that Davis tried to flirt with her and
had a crush on her. International also points out that Davis never mentioned his firing and
that it was unclear whether Davis even knew that Stephenson was asked to sign his
termination papers. Aside from being asked to sign the papers, which Stephenson did not
do, she had no part in Davis’s termination.
¶21.
However, none of Stephenson’s coworkers suspected any romantic involvement
between her and Davis, and Stephenson denied that they had been having an affair.
Furthermore, a rumor circulating around One Source was that Stephenson was the one who
fired Davis. Cook testified that she heard the rumor from Davis’s friend, Dewayne Pitts, who
was a temporary worker at One Source. Davis only shot at Stephenson, but he told everyone
9
else that entered the office that he or she had “bought it too.” Aside from Davis’s threats and
allegations of an affair, with which the ALJ found little credibility, there was little to support
a finding that he and Stephenson were having an affair.
¶22.
Ultimately, the ALJ found the case to be doubtful as to whether the existence of any
real or imagined relationship between Davis and Stephenson was the sole cause of her
injuries. To “fulfill the beneficent purposes of the statute,” the rule is that doubtful claims
must be resolved in favor of compensation. Duke ex rel Duke v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 925
So. 2d 893, 897-98 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Marshall Durbin Cos. v. Warren, 633
So. 2d 1006, 1010 (Miss. 1994)). Therefore, the ALJ found that it was proper to resolve the
claim in Stephenson’s favor. The Commission signaled its agreement with the ALJ’s finding
by adopting his ruling. There was certainly some evidence to support a finding that the
shooting was personally motivated. However, we afford the Commission discretion when
reviewing its findings, and we find the ruling, that Stephenson’s claim was compensable, was
supported by substantial evidence. All of the testimony reveals that until the day Davis was
fired, he was an agreeable employee, and he did not have any arguments with his coworkers.
It was not until after he was fired that he appeared to target and eventually shoot Stephenson.
Furthermore, when Stephenson returned to the office and was shot, she was responding to
what she believed was a request from her supervisor.
¶23.
The ALJ considered the applicable law addressing whether a third-party assault was
a compensable injury or if it was the product of a personal-vendetta that bore no relation to
the claimant’s employment. International takes issue with the ALJ’s ruling that there needed
to be a love triangle for the personal-vendetta exception to apply. However, what the ALJ
10
found was that, in those cases in which the personal-vendetta exception has been applied,
“there was no doubt that a love triangle existed and that the love triangle clearly [motivated]
the non-employee to commit the tort against the employee.” See Big “2” Engine Rebuilders
v. Freeman, 379 So. 2d 888, 891 (Miss. 1990) (reviewing cases that denied compensation
because the intentional tort was the result of a personal vendetta). In this case, the ALJ found
that Davis’s motives as to why he shot Stephenson were unclear. “[I]n order for a claim to
be compensable, there must be some causal connection between the employment and the
injury. This causation may be minimal or even ‘reasonably incidental’ to the employment
. . . .” Id. at 890
II.
¶24.
Benefits
The claimant bears the burden of proving a loss of wage-earning capacity. McCarty
Farms, Inc. v. Kelly, 811 So. 2d 250, 254 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (McGowan v. Orleans
Furniture, Inc., 586 So. 2d 163, 167 (Miss. 1991)). The determination of whether a claimant
has suffered a loss of wage-earning capacity is a question of fact for the Commission. Id.
(citing McGowan, 586 So. 2d at 167).
¶25.
This Court has previously held that “when examining conflicting opinions by medical
experts, ‘we will not determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies . . . the
assumption being that the Commission as trier of fact, has previously determined which
evidence is credible, has weight, and which is not.’” Rawls, 2 So. 3d at 679 (¶16) (quoting
Hardaway Co. v. Bradley, 887 So. 2d 793, 796 (¶12) (Miss. 2004)). The present issue
involves the conflicting neuropsychological evaluations performed by Dr. Atkins and Dr.
Hawkes. Dr. Atkins concluded that his examination of Stephenson was unreliable, and he
11
saw no reason why she could not return to work. On the other hand, Dr. Hawkes found that
her examination of Stephenson was sufficiently reliable, and she concluded that Stephenson
was “not competent to be employed due to her memory problems as well as other cognitive
deficits.” Dr. Atkins found fault with Dr. Hawkes’s testing of Stephenson, but he refused to
reexamine her when the circuit court requested that he do so.
¶26.
Dr. Hawkes testified as to a number of Stephenson’s problems that would preclude
her from gainful employment. Stephenson was mentally deficient on a test of her memory
of immediate material, which meant she would have trouble remembering or repeating things
that people told her. Additionally, she did very poorly on the test of her visual-spatial
functioning. That meant that she had problems dealing with shapes, mechanics, or seeing
what was going on around her. Dr. Hawkes also found that Stephenson did poorly at
reasoning and that she was withdrawn and depressed.
In its order, the Commission
summarized Stephenson’s problems that Dr. Hawkes noted: “constructional dispraxia,
impaired visual tracking and search skills, impaired visual-spatial memory, inability to cope
with environmental visual-spatial interference, poor hypothesis testing, abstract patternperception issues, left upper extremity motor impairment, attention and concentration deficit,
impaired perceptual problem solving, visual motor impairment, and visual and auditory
memory impairments . . . .”
¶27.
Dr. Atkins found that most of Stephenson’s scores fell within the impaired range, but
he felt that she could have performed better on the tests. He had no confidence in the results
of his examination because he found that Stephenson gave poor effort and may have been
exaggerating her symptoms. He also found Dr. Hawkes’s tests to be flawed and unreliable.
12
¶28.
In examining the conflicting opinions of the experts, the Commission reasoned as
follows:
Dr. Atkins testified at some length that Dr. Hawkes’[s] evaluation and testing
was flawed, and unreliable due to what he characterized as non-standardized
testing methods. Despite, however, his strong testimony that Dr. Hawkes’[s]
test data and conclusions are unreliable, Dr. Atkins actually offered the
opinion that, based on this test date, [Stephenson] was able to return to the
same type of work as before her injury with no impairment or restrictions.
This begs a huge question, of course, as to how Dr. Atkins can opine anything
based on an evaluation carried out by Dr. Hawkes which he termed invalid,
tainted[,] and unreliable. Dr. Atkins was not even able to opine anything with
regard to [Stephenson’s] employability from his own evaluation because he
had “no confidence in the validity of her neuropsychological scores.” He
obviously had even less confidence in the validity of Dr. Hawkes’[s] scores[;]
thus[,] his opinion of [Stephenson’s] permanent disability based on these very
scores is itself suspect.
In the end, Dr. Brophy apparently performed magnificently in treating
[Stephenson] for the penetrating gunshot wound to the brain. Beyond this, Dr.
Hawkes conducted a thorough neuropsychological evaluation of [Stephenson]
and offered a very credible opinion, based on this evaluation, that [Stephenson]
is permanently and totally disabled. Nothing in the testimony of Dr. Atkins
convinces us that Dr. Hawkes’[s] opinion is flawed or otherwise unreliable.
¶29.
After reviewing the expert testimony on each side, we find that the Commission’s
decision was supported by substantial evidence, namely, the testimony of Dr. Hawkes. There
was certainly competing testimony offered by Dr. Atkins.
However, it is for the
Commission, and not this Court, to judge the reliability of conflicting expert opinions. We
do not find the Commission’s decision, to award Stephenson permanent total disability
benefits, to be clearly erroneous or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. This
issue is without merit.
¶30. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DESOTO COUNTY IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANTS.
13
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES,
ROBERTS AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
14
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.