MS Court Reverses Commission Order Granting Sanctions Against Employer
A Mississippi appellate court held the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission erred when it entered an order that required an employer/carrier to pay attorney’s fees of $4,000 as a sanction for appealing the administrative judge’s order to replace a paraplegic claimant’s septic and HVAC systems; the E/C had presented at least a colorable legal argument in support of its appeal [Gamma Healthcare Inc. v. Estate of Grantham, 2020 Miss. App. LEXIS 666 (Dec. 1, 2020)].
Background
Claimant experienced permanent paraplegia as a result of a work-related automobile accident. Her employer and its workers’ compensation insurance carrier began paying workers’ compensation benefits and providing medical treatment, but disputes later arose regarding the claimant’s requests for modifications to her home and a wheelchair-accessible van. The administrative judge (AJ) ordered the E/C to pay for necessary modifications and a wheelchair-accessible van. As relevant to this appeal, the AJ and the Workers’ Compensation Commission also ordered the E/C to replace the failed or failing septic and HVAC systems at the claimant’s home and to pay for property/collision insurance for the claimant’s van. In a separate order, the Commission also ordered the E/C to pay attorney’s fees of $4,000 as a sanction for appealing the AJ’s order to replace the septic and HVAC systems.
Claimant died after the appeal was filed. Her estate was substituted as the appellee. The estate conceded that the claimant’s death abated the E/C’s obligations to make home repairs and pay for insurance on the van. The appellate court agreed, indicating that the claimant’s death had already abated the Commission-ordered obligations–other than the attorney’s fee order–that the E/C had challenged on appeal.
Attorney’s Fee Order
The court indicated that the one part of the appeal that was not moot was the Employer/Carrier’s appeal from the Commission’s order imposing sanctions. According to the appellate court, the Commission found that the E/C lacked “reasonable grounds” for the appeal because it did not present a “medical opinion” or “medical evidence” disputing the claimant’s need for working septic and HVAC systems.
“Other Apparatus”
The court disagreed, finding that the E/C had a “reasonable ground” for their appeal. The court observed that the E/C argued that septic and HVAC systems were beyond the scope of relief available under the Workers’ Compensation Law because neither was an “other apparatus” that was specially required by the nature of the claimant’s injury [see Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-15(1)]. The E/C pointed out that the claimant’s septic system had failed due to longstanding problems that predated her injury and that her HVAC system was already beyond its expected useful life at the time of her injury and had “numerous other problems …, most of which were attributable to lack of maintenance.” The E/C did not dispute that the claimant should have working septic and HVAC systems. Rather, the they made a legal argument that the Workers’ Compensation Law did not require them to replace such basic components of the claimant’s home.
The court concluded that the E/C made at least a colorable legal argument that a septic system or an HVAC system was not an “other apparatus” specially required by the nature of claimant’s injury that it may be ordered to provide under section 71-3-15(1). There was no clear rule or precedent that foreclosed the Employer/Carrier’s argument. The court stressed that parties should not be sanctioned for making reasonable legal arguments in support of their positions. Accordingly, the court reversed and rendered the Commission’s order imposing sanctions on the E/C.