Britton & Koontz Bank, N.A. v. Florence Townsend
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2010-WC-00535-COA
BRITTON & KOONTZ BANK, N.A. AND
AMFED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
APPELLANTS
v.
FLORENCE TOWNSEND
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
08/24/2009
HON. LILLIE BLACKMON SANDERS
ADAMS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
DANIEL PAUL CULPEPPER
JAMES M. ANDERSON
JOHN T. BALL
CIVIL - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
HELD THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION COULD ASSESS INTEREST
ON PAYMENTS FOR WORKERS’
COMPENSATION BENEFITS
APPEAL DISMISSED: 03/01/2011
BEFORE KING, C.J., GRIFFIS AND ISHEE, JJ.
KING, C.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
The Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) ordered Britton
& Koontz Bank (Employer) and its workers’ compensation carrier, AmFed National
Insurance Company (Carrier), to pay Florence Townsend (Claimant) a lump-sum award of
$90,891.47 and interest in the amount of $3,882.15. The Employer/Carrier refused to pay
the interest, and the Claimant filed a motion with the Commission seeking to compel
payment. The Commission ordered the payment of interest, and the Employer/Carrier
appealed to the Adams County Circuit Court. The circuit court affirmed the award of
interest, and the Employer/Carrier appeals raising the following issues: (1) whether the
Commission has authority to assess the Employer/Carrier with interest and (2) if so, whether
the Commission erred in assessing interest to the Employer/Carrier in this matter without an
award constituting a final judgment.
¶2.
Finding the Employer/Carrier did not timely appeal, we dismiss this appeal for lack
of jurisdiction.
FACTS
¶3.
On April 29, 2002, the Claimant, while employed as a bank teller, tripped over a bag
of nickels and injured her knee and shoulder. As a result of the injuries, the Claimant
required medical attention, including surgery.
¶4.
On November 12, 2003, Dr. Robert Haimson stated that the Claimant was at
maximum medical improvement, but she would still need future care. As a result, a
functional-capacity evaluation was conducted on December 16-17, 2003, which resulted in
permanent impairment ratings of 0% to the left leg and 12% to the right arm. Because of the
Claimant’s impairment ratings to the scheduled members, the Employer/Carrier accepted
liability and voluntarily made compensation payments until December 3, 2004, when it
unilaterally ceased making payments.
¶5.
Subsequently, the Claimant’s condition further deteriorated, and on August 16, 2006,
Dr. Haimson determined that the Claimant would be limited in returning to work because of
the constant pain in her knee and shoulder. Following Dr. Haimson’s determination, the
parties agreed to attempt to resolve the liability on a discounted permanent total disability
2
lump-sum settlement.
¶6.
On June 7, 2007, the Commission directed the Employer/Carrier to make a lump-sum
payment to the Claimant representing the total compensation due to the Claimant for
permanent total disability. The Claimant was awarded $90,891.47 in award and $3,882.15
in interest. The Commission found that the Claimant was entitled to interest at the legal rate
on compensation payments due from December 2004 until the lump-sum settlement was
paid.
¶7.
The Employer/Carrier paid the Claimant $90,891.47, and on August 3, 2007, counsel
for the Employer/Carrier mailed a letter informing the Claimant that there would not be
another payment for the amount of interest due. Counsel for the Employer/Carrier explained:
“Since this case never went to order, it is our position that the imposition of interest is the
equivalent to paying interest on a judgment which does not exist in this particular case.” In
response, on May 30, 2008, the Claimant filed a motion to compel payment. On June 24,
2008, a notice of final payment was filed with the Commission, showing the total settlement
payments to be $90,891.47. On October 23, 2008, the Commission granted the Claimant’s
motion to compel payment. On November 21, 2008, the Employer/Carrier appealed the
Commission’s decision to the circuit court. The Commission’s decision was affirmed, and
the Employer/Carrier appeals.
ANALYSIS
¶8.
We need address only one issue, the Employer/Carrier’s failure to file timely an
appeal of the Commission’s approval of the lump-sum settlement, which provided the
Claimant was entitled to compensation for permanent total disability and interest on those
3
compensation payments. “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional.” Miss.
Dep't of Mental Health v. Hall, 936 So. 2d 917, 929 (Miss. 2006) (internal quotations
omitted). This case arises from an order issued by the Commission on June 7, 2007. An
order of the Commission will be conclusive and binding unless, within thirty days of the date
it is entered, a party files a notice of appeal to the circuit court of the county in which the
injury occurred. Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-51 (Rev. 2000). Neither party timely appealed the
Commission’s order approving the lump-sum settlement. Instead, the Employer/Carrier
merely paid the Claimant $90,891.47 and informed her it would not pay the interest assessed.
¶9.
Because the issue of whether the assessment of interest was proper or not is not timely
raised on appeal, neither the circuit court nor this Court has jurisdiction to consider the merits
of this case. Therefore, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Busby v.
Anderson, 978 So. 2d 637 (Miss. 2008); Leake County Coop. v. Barrett’s Dependents, 226
So. 2d 608 (Miss. 1969); Dudley v. Harris, 979 So. 2d 692 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).
¶10. THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANTS.
ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS,
CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
4
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.