Linda Thomas v. Pascagoula Municipal Separate School District
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-WC-00898-COA
LINDA THOMAS
APPELLANT
v.
PASCAGOULA MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL
DISTRICT AND RELIANCE NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEES
6/10/2002
HON. DALE HARKEY
JACKSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
FLOYD J. LOGAN
KELLY PENDERGRASS DEES
KARL R. STEINBERGER
CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CIRCUIT COURT AFFIRMED THE DECISION
OF THE FULL COMMISSION DENYING
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS.
AFFIRMED - 08/26/2003
BEFORE MCMILLIN, C.J., THOMAS AND CHANDLER, JJ.
MCMILLIN, C.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Linda Thomas was denied compensation benefits for a claimed work-related back injury when the
Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission concluded that she had failed to carry her burden of
showing that her alleged disabling injury was traceable to an on-the-job accident. Thomas appealed that
decision without success to the Jackson County Circuit Court and now asks this Court to reverse the
decision of the circuit court. We affirm.
I.
Facts
¶2.
Thomas was employed by the Pascagoula Municipal Separate School District as a custodian. Her
duties included cleaning classrooms and the gymnasium, waxing and buffing the floors, and performing other
janitorial functions. Thomas claimed that in December 1997 she slipped and fell on a recently-mopped
gymnasium floor. No formal report of the fall or claim of injury from the fall was filed at the time. Thomas
continued to work the remainder of the afternoon. In fact, she continued in her employment without
reporting any physical problems related to her fall until late January 1998, when she voluntarily left
employment for reasons unrelated to her physical condition. (Thomas had ended her employment when
her request for transfer to another school within the employer’s system was denied.)
¶3.
Thomas testified at the hearing that she began to feel pain in her back and left leg at some point after
the fall. Expert medical testimony established that the time at which pain symptoms manifested themselves
was critical to establish a causal connection between Thomas's fall and the onset of symptoms of pain. On
this key point the record shows that, on different occasions, Thomas gave widely inconsistent reports of
when her pain symptoms first began, ranging from as long as “days, maybe weeks later" to a medical history
offered to one treating physician in which she claimed that she was unable to ever return to work after her
fall.
¶4.
After leaving employment, Thomas was diagnosed with a herniated disc and underwent surgery.
The operating physician, Dr. Thomas J. McCloskey, offered the view that, after reaching maximum medical
improvement following surgery, Thomas had suffered a ten percent permanent partial disability to the body
as a whole. Thomas’s contention in this proceeding is that her back condition that required surgery was
2
proximately caused by the fall at work in December 1997. The Commission concluded that Thomas had
failed to meet her burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the fall at work either caused
the herniated disc or exacerbated existing back problems that, until that time, had not been of sufficient
severity to adversely affect her ability to perform the duties of her job. On that basis, her claim for
compensation benefits was denied.
II.
Discussion
¶5.
A claimant in a worker's compensation case has the burden of proving the following elements: 1)
accidental injury; 2) arising out of and in the course of employment; and 3) a causal connection between
the injury and the claimed disability. Hedge v. Leggestt & Platt, Inc., 641 So. 2d 9, 13 (Miss. 1994).
¶6.
There is no legitimate dispute that Thomas suffered from a herniated disc of sufficient severity that
surgical repair of the damaged disc was required. There is, likewise, no dispute between the parties as to
the validity of Dr. McCloskey’s post-operative opinion concerning the degree of permanent partial
impairment to Thomas’s ability to function physically in her post-operative condition. The pivotal issue
before the Commission – and the one this Court is called upon to consider under the applicable standard
for judicial review for such matters – is whether Thomas met her burden of proving that her fall at work
either caused the herniated disc or substantially aggravated an existing back condition that previously had
not been of sufficient severity to impair her ability to perform the normal duties of her job.
¶7.
Thomas relies heavily on the deposition testimony of Dr. McCloskey to support the notion that she
offered compelling proof that her back problems were either caused or substantially aggravated by the
incident at work in December 1997. It is true that, initially, Dr. McCloskey testified that, “Well, you know,
consistent with the history that she gave me, you know, she . . . she had pre-existing back problem which
3
was made a lot worse by the fall at the Exceptional School.” However, during cross-examination, Dr.
McCloskey indicated his agreement with the proposition that, if the herniation of the disc was caused by
a traumatic event such as the fall described by Thomas, she would have experienced a very rapid onset of
pain. It was further developed, during the course of cross-examination, that Thomas had offered a medical
history to Dr. McCloskey that included an assertion that she had been unable to return to work at any time
after the fall occurred and that Dr. McCloskey had interpreted that to mean that the commencement of pain
symptoms immediately followed the accident. When confronted with information given by Thomas in other
settings that her pain symptoms had not begun to manifest themselves until days or even weeks after the
accident and that she had, in fact, continued to work in her same job until she voluntarily ended her
employment weeks later for reasons not related to her medical condition, Dr. McCloskey effectively
conceded that such a scenario was inconsistent with the idea that the fall had caused the herniated disc.
¶8.
The employer presented additional competent evidence from another examining physician, Dr.
Bernie McHugh, who offered the opinion that “it’s with a reasonable degree of certainty that the herniated
disc did not occur at the time of the fall that the patient reported in December.” Dr. McHugh went on to
explain that a herniated disc caused by a sudden traumatic event typically “results in a significant
neurological deficit and is an emergency.” He found the medical history following the fall and Thomas’s
own testimony that there was no immediate onset of pain to be factors inconsistent with her theory of the
cause of her herniated disc.
¶9.
The Commission, taking into consideration a number of factors, including (a) inconsistencies in the
claimant’s evidence, (b) the fact that her treating physician’s original opinion regarding the relationship
between the fall and the disc injury was based in part on an incorrect patient history, (c) the fact that the
period between the fall and the claimant’s assertion of when she began to experience pain was inconsistent
4
with her claim based on the professional opinion of two doctors, and (d) the extended period of time
between the fall and Thomas’s first assertion that the fall caused her back problems, determined that
Thomas had failed to carry her burden of proof of showing by a preponderance of the evidence the
necessary causative link between her fall at work and her back problems.
¶10.
We undertake only a limited review of the Commission's actions in regard to resolving disputed
issues of fact and are not to interfere if we are satisfied that there is substantial evidence in the record to
support the Commission's determination. Marshall Durbin Co. v. Warren, 633 So. 2d 1006, 1010-11
(Miss. 1994). We do not re-weigh the evidence and are not authorized to substitute our own judgment
of where the more persuasive weight of the evidence might lie. Lanterman v. Roadway Exp. Inc., 608
So. 2d 1340, 1345 (Miss. 1992). Generally, the issue of establishing the necessary link between an
occurrence at work and a later-ensuing disability must be supplied by the expert testimony of a health care
provider. Davis v. Scotch Plywood Co. of Miss., 505 So. 2d 1192, 1196 (Miss.1987). In this case, the
expert evidence showing a connection between Thomas's fall at work and her herniated disc was, when
viewed in its entirety, not particularly persuasive. On the other hand, the Commission heard competent
opinion evidence that Thomas’s disc injury was not caused by a work-related accident. In this situation,
we are satisfied that there is substantial evidentiary support for the proposition that Thomas did not carry
her burden of showing that her back injury arose out of an incident connected with her employment. In that
situation, based on our limited scope of review, our obligation is to uphold the decision of the administrative
body charged by law with making such determinations.
¶11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS,
CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.
5
6
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.
