The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down five opinions today, all civil cases. There is a divorce case, a grandparent visitation case, a wrongful death summary judgment case, a workers’ comp case, and the obligatory PCR case.
Brownlee v. Brownlee, 2023-CA-01044-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations) Affirming grant of divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, holding that divorce on this ground does not have to be supported by corroborating evidence. (10-0)
McDonald v. Pruwitt, 2023-CA-01312-COA (Civil – Custody) Affirming in part and reversing in part the chancellor’s grant of grandparent visitation, holding that the chancellor did not err in finding that the grandmother proved the statutory elements but that the chancellor erred in failing to analyze the Martin factors. (10-0)
Fisher v. All About Painting and Cleaning, Inc., 2023-CA-01289-COA (Civil – Wrongful Death) Affirming summary judgment in favor of the employer of a man who ingested kratom and oxycodone laced with fentanyl on an unpaid lunch break and then struck four airmen with his vehicle on a walking path killing one and injuring three others, holding that the employer was not vicariously liable because the employee was not in the course and scope of employment or performing any act in furtherance of his employment at the time of the collision. (10-0)
Thomas v. Nissan North America, Inc., 2024-WC-00553-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp) Affirming the MWCC’s decision that the claimant did not sustain an industrial loss of use that was greater than his 5% medical impairment, holding that the Commission’s decision was based on substantial evidence where the claimant was able to continue his pre-injury job with some modified duties. (7-3-0: Westbrooks, McDonald, and Mccarty concurred in the result and conclusion without writing)
Nelson v. State, 2023-CP-00647-COA (Civil – PCR) Affirming denial of PCR motion after a hearing, holding that the trial court did not err in finding no merit to arguments about the sufficiency of the indictment, sufficiency of the evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel. (10-0)
Other Orders
Wilson v. State, 2023-CP-01050-COA (rehearing denied)
Baker v. State, 2023-KA-01111-COA (denying rehearing)
Walker v. State, 2025-TS-00079-COA (dismissing appeal as untimely)
Fortune v. State, 2025-TS-00392-COA (granting motion for leave to proceed with untimely direct appeal)
The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions between last week and this week. One of today’s cases reversed the 12(b)(6) dismissal of a third-party-assault premises case in the face of the Landowners Protection Act that just might end up stirring the premises liability pot.There is also an interesting champerty decision answering a certified question from the Fifth Circuit.
May 15, 2025
Crabtree v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 2024-FC-00827-SCT (Civil – Federally Certified Question) Answering a certified quest from the Fifth Circuit, holding that Miss. Code Ann. § 97-9-11 (Rev. 2020) prohibits a disinterested third party engaged by a bankruptcy creditor from purchasing a cause of action from a debtor’s estate. (5-4)
Other Orders
In Re: The Rules of Civil Procedure, 89-R-99001-SCT (granting rules committee’s motion to withdraw motion to amend Rule 7)
Chamberlin v. State, 2022-DR-00546-SCT (denying successor petition for PCR)
Short v. The Break Land Company, LLC, 2022-CT-01180-SCT (denying cert)
Carr v. State, 2023-DR-00503-SCT (directing Anthony Carr to notify the Court within 30 days of the federal district court’s ruling on the State’s motion; and that, until the federal district court rules on the motion to lift stay, Carr is directed to submit every 90 days from the entry of this order a status report on the posture of the federal case)
In the Matter of the Estate of Tatum: Haynie v. Estate of Tatum, 2023-CA-01366-SCT (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates) Dismissing appeal as moot, holding that a decision on the chancery court’s rulings involving the public sale of a one-half interest in a land and cattle company would be of no practical benefit to the appellant because the United States will receive any additional funds over and above what the appellant has already received. (9-0)
Doby v. South Park Village Apartments, 2023-CA-01094-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury) Affirming in part and reversing in part the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of a personal injury, holding that under the state’s notice pleading standard the complaint sufficiently pleaded a negligence claim against an apartment complex after one of the plaintiffs was shot on the premises, but affirming dismissal as to the other plaintiff because the complaint contained no allegations as to him. (9-0)
Practice Point – This is an fascinating result in an area of premises liability seems to have been gutted by the Landowners Protection Act that became law in 2019:
Other Orders
Harris v. State, 2023-CT-00460-SCT (denying cert)
Dollar General Corporation v. Dobbs, 2023-IA-00617-SCT (denying rehearing)
Lenoir v. State, 2023-IA-01181-SCT (denying rehearing)
Doukas v. Kiln Self Storage, 2023-CT-01195-SCT (denying cert)
The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions yesterday. There is just one criminal case and the rest are civil cases that run the gamut of practice areas from the statute of frauds to a hunting club dispute.
Smith v. Estate of Watson, 2023-CA-00761-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates) Reversing the chancellor’s judgment ordering the payment of creditor’s claims, disbursement of remaining assets, and closing the estate, holding that the chancellor failed to follow the statutory procedure for administering the insolvent estate. (8-0: Lawrence did not participate)
Lowe v. Wall Doxey State Park, 2023-CA-00828-COA (Civil – Personal Injury) Affirming dismissal of an MTCA personal injury case, holding that the trial court properly found that the State was not properly served with presuit notice because Plaintiff did not sent notice to the correct state entity. (9-0)
Stallworth v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security, 2022-CC-01300-COA (Civil – State Boards & Agencies) Affirming MDES Board of Review’s decision finding that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, holding that the Board’s decision was substantial evidence and was neither arbitrary nor capricious where evidence showed that the claimant voluntarily left work without good cause. (7-2-0: Westbrooks and McDonald concurred in result only without writing)
Mazie v. Boozier-Mazie, 2023-CA-00470-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations) Affirming order granting a motion to enforce a judgment of divorce and finding the ex-husband in contempt and denying a new trial, holding that the chancellor acted within her discretion to find the ex-husband in contempt for not complying with the court’s judgment. (8-0: Westbrooks did not participate)
Walker v. Hasty, 2023-CA-00675-COA (Civil – Custody) Affirming the chancery court’s judgment modifying visitation and increasing child support obligation, holding that arguments that the trial was unfair were waived and without merit, that modifying visitation was not a change in custody, that there was substantial evidence to support the chancery court’s findings, and that the court did not prohibit one party from making a proffer and that party failed to make a proffer. (8-0: Westbrooks did not participate)
Howard v. Nelson, 2023-CA-00947-COA (Civil – Contract) Affirming dismissal of a case seeking specific performance enforcing an oral contract to sell land, holding that the statute of frauds applied. (9-0)
Gandy v. State, 2023-KA-01017-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of two counts of sexual battery and two counts of gratification of lust, holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. (9-0)
Short v. The Break Land Company, LLC, 2022-CA-01180-COA (Civil – Torts) Affirming judgment on the pleadings in a dispute between landowners and an LLC that owned adjacent property for a hunting club of which the landowners were members that arose from the landowners wanting to shoot deer that were damaging their crops and the hunting club’s apparent retaliatory rule adoption and ultimate revocation of the landowner’s membership, holding that the landowners failed to state a claim for any causes of action, that the operating agreement barred the landowners’ claims, and that the trial court did not err not allowing the landowners to amend their complaint where they made no request of the trial court. (8-0: Lawrence did not participate)
Long v. State, 2023-KA-00351-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, holding that the claim trial counsel committed a Batson violation was procedurally barred and without merit, that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for directed verdict, and that the spoliation argument that the State lost photographs of the crime scene was procedurally barred and without merit, and declined to address Plaintiff’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal. (7-2: Wilson and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without writing)
Other Orders
Clemmons v. State, 2022-CA-00700-COA (denying rehearing)
Designer Custom Homes, LLC v. U.S. Coating Specialties & Supplies, LLC, 2023-CA-00207 (denying rehearing)
The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today. There is a breach of contract case, a direct criminal appeal, and a utility rate case.
ACE American Insurance Company v. Hetsco, Inc., 2023-CA-00127-SCT (Civil – Contract) Reversing summary judgment in a negligence action stemming from an explosion at a plant where the defendant argued that the suit was barred by a contract, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the person who signed the agreement had apparent authority to bind the former plant owner to the agreement and whether the former plant owner had ratified the agreement, and that the contractually shortened statute of limitations provisions was not enforceable. (9-0)
Howard v. State, 2022-KA-00430-SCT (Criminal – Felony) Affirming convictions of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to sell, holding that evidence was sufficient to support both convictions, that there was no Confrontation Clause violation when the trial court limited cross-examination, that acquittal on prior charges did not create a double jeopardy violation, that it was not plain error to allow testimony that a co-conspirator pleaded guilty, that there was no prosecutorial misconduct, that trial counsel was not ineffective for not seeking to remove a sleeping juror, that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and that no error mean that the cumulative-error doctrine did not apply. (9-0)
Rankin County, Mississippi v. Mississippi Public Service Commission, 2022-UR-00803-SCT (Civil – Utility Rate) Affirming the Commission’s order authorizing a rate increase for Entergy, holding that the County did not show that the Commission’s formula rate plan regulatory scheme resulted in unfair or unjust rates and that the Commission’s order was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious. (9-0)
Other Orders
White v. White, 2022-CT-00823-SCT (denying cert)
Tepikian v. The Mississippi Bar, 2024-BD-00588-SCT (granting leave to resign in good standing)
The Mississippi Supreme Court served up some orders, but no opinions this week.
Other Orders
Morton v. State, 2018-M-00541 (denying Application for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court, finding the filing frivolous, and warning that future frivolous filings could result in sanctions)
Parks v. State, 2018-M-00739 (denying Application for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court, finding the filing frivolous, and warning that future frivolous filings could result in sanctions)
Litton v. Litton, 2022-CT-00712-SCT (denying cert)
Bumpous v. Tishomingo County School District, 2022-CT-01010-SCT (denying cert)
Gibson v. McNatt, 2023-CA-00007-SCT (denying cert)
Smith v. The Mississippi Bar, 2023-BD-01321-SCT (granting leave to resign from the practice of law in good standing)
The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down one opinion today. It is a civil statute-of-limitations case that split the Court 6-3 on whether a subrogation claim accrued on the date a fire started or the date it was extinguished and the cause could be assessed.
Western World Ins. Group v. KC Welding, LLC, 2022-CA-00527-SCT (Civil – Contract) Affirming the circuit court’s decision granting a motion to dismiss a subrogation claim on statute of limitations grounds, holding that where a fire at an industrial woodchip manufacturer started on July 12 after welding was done to repair the door of a box containing woodchips, and was extinguished five to six hours later on July 13, the cause of action accrued on July 12 because the fire was not a latent injury . (6-3: Kitchens dissented, joined by King and Griffis)
Other Orders
In Re: Rules Governing Admission to The Mississippi Bar, 89-R-99012-SCT (reappointing Anthony R. Simon, Kristopher A. Powell, and Joseph D. Neyman, Jr. to three-year terms (11/1/23 through 10/31/26) as members of the Mississippi Board of Bar Admissions)
In Re: Judicial Election Oversight Committee,2021-M-01306-SCT (reappointing Hon. Edward E. Patten, Jr., Paul P. Blake, and Thomas A. Wicker as members of the Judicial Election Oversight Committee for new four-year terms)
Hope v. State, 2022-CT-00031-SCT (denying cert)
Arlington Properties, Inc. v. Rudd, 2023-M-00382-SCT (denying petition for interlocutory appeal)
I was out of town last Tuesday, so I am circling back to last week’s decisions from the Mississippi Court of Appeals. The Court handed down three opinions on Tuesday. Two are direct criminal appeals and the other one is a child custody case.
Goode v. State, 2021-KA-01310-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of murder and denial of post trial motions, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting photographs of the victim and his injuries or in denying the motion for directed verdict where there was testimony from three eyewitnesses and a medical examiner, that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and that the trial court did not err in refusing five of the defendant’s proposed jury instructions. (8-2-0: Wilson and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result sub silentio)
NOTE – The first refused instructions was a peremptory instruction. The second was a definition of “reasonable doubt.” The third was a lesser-included instruction of heat-of-passion manslaughter which the trial court deemed forfeited when the defendant took the stand and denied shooting the victim. The fourth and fifth refused instructions were on eyewitness identifications which were properly refused because there were multiple eyewitnesses.
Urban v. Urban, 2022-CP-00195-COA (Civil – Custody) Affirming judgment denying petition for modification of custody leaving the mother with full legal and physical custody, holding that the father received sufficient service for the Rule 59(e) motion which did not require a Rule 81 summons, that the chancellor did not err in finding that the mother showed a need to correct a clear legal error which the chancellor properly did, that claims of fraud by the mother and bias of the chancellor were procedurally barred, that there was no basis for the father’s claim that the chancellor admitted hearsay, that the equitable estoppel argument was procedurally barred, and that the issue of whether the chancellor should have adopted the GAL’s recommendations could not be addressed because the GAL report was not in the record on appeal. (9-1: Barnes concurred in the result only sub silentio)
Kilcrease v. City of Tupelo, 2022-KM-00194-COA (Criminal – Misdemeanor) Affirming the dismissal of an appeal from municipal court for lack of jurisdiction, holding that it lacked jurisdiction where the appellant failed to timely file an appearance bond to perfect her appeal to the county court. (5-5: McDonald dissented, joined by Carlton, Greenlee, Westbrooks, and McCarty)
NOTE – The dissent first took issue with questions about whether the municipal court violated statutory and constitutional rights:
The dissent’s discussion of the timeliness of the appeal was interesting:
Other Orders
In the Matter of the Last Will and Testament of Mamie Elizabeth Pearson Bray, 2022-CA-00011-COA (denying rehearing)
Parker v. Canton Manor, 2022-WC-00206-COA (denying rehearing)
Applewhite v. State, 2022-KA-00290-COA (denying rehearing)
The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today. These decisions cover a wide range of areas including wills, felonies, personal injury, defamation, and adoption. One of the more interesting and potentially useful decisions analyzes the admissibility of images from Google Earth and measurements generated by Google Earth.
Perrigin v. State, 2021-KA-00858-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of sexual battery of a minor, holding that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, that the Confrontation Clause was not violated since the victim did testify at trial, and that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be raised on a PCR petition. (9-1-0: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)
Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 2021-CA-01208-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates) Affirming the chancellor’s ruling in a will contest, holding that the word “should” was permissive and that, in any event, even if there was a mandatory requirement that one son have an opportunity to purchase a property there was sufficient evidence to support the chancellor’s finding that he did have such a chance. (10-0)
Bolton v. Lee, 2020-CA-00344-COA (Civil – Other) Affirming a dismissal for failure to state a claim in favor of a banker and a bank and affirming summary judgment in favor of a lawyer and law firm, holding that collateral estoppel barred the plaintiff from recovering in a civil action on the same facts that formed the basis of their criminal convictions of tax evasion and filing false tax returns. (8-2-0: Judge Wilson and Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)
Pope v. Martin, 2021-CA-00367-COA (Civil – Torts) Affirming in part and reversing in part summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant in a defamation and wiretapping suit, holding that there was no error in granting summary judgment without a hearing or without issuing findings of fact or conclusions of law, and that summary judgment on the defamation claim was proper but that there were genuine fact issues on the wiretapping claim. (9-1-0: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)
NOTE – Summary judgment rulings made without any accompanying findings of fact and conclusions of law to explain the basis for the decision are frustrating for litigants and parties. This is especially true when no hearing was given. There are certainly cases where such rulings make sense, but when the parties have spent considerable time and energy in briefing issues it is helpful to know why you won or lost. Without an explanation of why summary judgment was granted or denied, litigants do not have an opportunity to see where they went wrong and hone their craft. It also does not help the parties focus the issues on appeal. It is clear that Rule 52 does not apply to summary judgments but rules can always be amended.
Evilsizer v. Beau Rivage Resorts, LLC, 2021-CA-01222-COA (Civil – Personal injury) Affirming summary judgment in favor of the owner of a cooking trailer who was sued by an 18-wheeler driver who struck the awning of the cooking trailer, holding that the there were no genuine fact issues where the evidence showed that the awning was closed approximately one hour before the collision and there was no evidence that the trailer owner opened the awning before the accident or had actual or constructive notice that the awning was open and extending into the roadway. (8-1-0: Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion; Judge Westbrooks did not participate)
Boutwell v. Fairchild, 2021-CA-01046-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations) Affirming termination of parent rights and allowing adoption, holding that the court had subject matter jurisdiction, that the child was eligible for adoption because the chancery court had properly assumed original and exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, and that the chancellor did not err in finding that parental rights should be terminated. (8-2-0: Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McCarty concurred in result only without separate written opinion)
Green v. State, 2021-KA-00613-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of aggravated domestic violence, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing the defendant’s lesser-included instruction for simple domestic violence because the evidence did not support that instruction. (10-0)
Taylor v. State, 2021-KA-00721-COA (Criminal – Felony) Reversing conviction of violating state law by living within 3,000 feet of a playground as a registered sex offender, holding that the sex-offender-registry law is not unconstitutionally vague by what is meant by “playground” or how 3,000 feet should be measured and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, but reversing because the Google Earth map used to calculate the distance was not properly authenticated and contained hearsay. (6-2-2: Judge Greenlee and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson concurred in the result and dissented in part, joined by Judge Greenlee and joined in part by Judge McDonald and Judge McCarty)
NOTES – The majority and the partial dissent engage in a collegial discussion of whether the term “playground” encompasses the property on which a playground sits or just the playground itself, the dissent arguing for the narrow construction. Both the majority and the partial dissent have interesting analyses of the admissibility of Google Earth images and measurements generated by it (without much disagreement on this issue).
Colburn v. State, 2021-KA-00865-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction for sale of meth within 1,500 feet of a church, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the defendant’s prior conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to sell. (5-1-4: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McCarty dissented, joined by Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald, and joined in part by Judge Lawrence)
Today was a lean day from the Mississippi Supreme Court. No opinions were handed down, but four orders were listed on the hand-down page.I have reposted the summary of one decision from last week about pleading affirmative defenses because I do not think the importance of heeding that decision can be overstated.
Other Orders
Booker v. State, 2018-CT-00664-SCT (denying cert in PCR case)
Porras v. State, 2021-CT-00052-SCT (dismissing cert petition in PCR case as untimely filed)
Carter v. Total Foot Care, 2021-CT-00610-SCT (denying cert where the COA affirmed summary judgment that was based RFAs deemed admitted because the plaintiff failed to respond to them)
In Re: Administrative Orders of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, 2022-AD-00001-SCT (directing the disbursement of $156,119.26 in civil legal assistance funds among the MS Volunteer Lawyers Project, North MS Rural Legal Services, and MS Center for Legal Services)
Reposting from last week to save a life:
Pruitt v. Sargent, 2021-CA-00511-SCT (Civil – Personal injury) Reversing the circuit court’s decision granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the running of the statute of limitations, holding that the defendants waived the statute of limitations defense by failing to adequately plead it in their answer. (6-2-0: Justice Coleman concurred in part and in the result, joined by Justice Griffis; Justice Beam concurred in the result only without separate written opinion)
PRACTICE POINT – The Supreme Court laid down some black-letter law today on pleading the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense and its reasoning probably applies to other affirmative defenses. The Court took a look at the defenses that were pleaded and found they fell short of the standard:
Then, the Court said flatly that et seq. didn’t cut it:
In case the message has not been received, consider:
A deposition took me out of blogging service for most of the afternoon, so a little later than usual I give you summaries of the nine opinions handed down by the Mississippi Court of Appeals. These opinions cover the statute of frauds, trusts, appellate jurisdiction, youth court, authentication of text messages, equitable division and alimony in a divorce case, workers’ comp, PCR, and more.
SEL Business Services, LLC v. Lord, 2021-CA-00368-COA (Civil – Real Property/Statute of Frauds) Affirming the chancery court’s dismissal of a suit to reclaim property or alternatively for unjust enrichment, holding that a “handshake deal” for the purchase of a building that was sold before that deal came to fruition was subject to the statute of frauds, that the statute of frauds was not satisfied, and that the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment was therefore unavailable. (All judges concurred.)
Lennon v. Lowrey & Fortner, P.A., 2021-CA-00426-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates/Appellate Procedure/Appellate Jurisdiction) Granting a motion to dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction in a case of first impression, holding that the 30-day time period for perfecting an appeal began to run upon the entry of an order adjudicating a claim for attorney’s fees against a trust–not the final judgment terminating the trust. (All judges concurred.)
Smith v. Adams County Youth Court, 2021-CP-00196-COA (Civil – Juvenile Justice) Dismissing an appeal of the denial of a minor’s post-disposition motion for modification arguing that his guilty plea was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that the notice of appeal was prematurely filed because the youth court had not been given an opportunity to consider these arguments and any supporting evidence. (Judge Wilson concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)
Warner v. Warner, 2020-CA-01098-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Divorce/Valuation/Equitable Division/Alimony/Contempt) Reversing the chancellor’s judgment in a divorce case, holding that the chancellor erred in valuation and equitable division of marital assets, in the award of alimony, and in finding the ex-husband in contempt and awarding attorney’s fees as a result. (Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)
Simpson v. State, 2021-KA-00075-COA (Civil – Felony/Authentication) Affirming convictions of two counts of first-degree murder, first-degree arson, and possession of a deadly weapon by a felon, holding that there was no plain error with regard to the authentication of text messages and that there was no merit to the claim of ineffective assistance for not objecting to the properly-authenticated text messages. (Judge Emfinger did not participate.)
Carson v. State, 2021-KA-00436-COA (Criminal – Felony/Weight and Sufficiency) Affirming conviction of possession of cocaine, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying a motion for new trial challenging the weight and sufficiency of the evidence and finding no merit to the defendant’s pro se arguments that his rights under the Fourth Amendment and the Confrontation Clause were violated, that the State’s case hinged on “racial profiling,” that he had ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the circuit judge failed to comply with Sharplin. (All judges concurred.)
Ellis v. State, 2020-CP-00770-COA (Civil – PCR) Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the motion was time-barred and that the plaintiff failed to raise any claims resulting in the deprivation of his fundamental constitutional rights that would defeat the time bar. (Judge Wilson and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge McDonald concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)
Reardon v. State, 2020-CP-01259-COA (Civil – PCR) Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the motion was procedurally barred and that his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, deprivation of fundamental rights, and failure to recuse were without merit. (Chief Judge Barnes and Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge McDonald concurred in the result only without separate written opinion. Judge Greenlee and Judge McCarty did not participate.)
Duren v. Effex Management Solutions, LLC, 2021-WC-00337-COA (Civil – Workers’ Compensation) Affirming the Commission’s ruling, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s decision that the claimant failed to prove that he suffered a permanent disability and the decision to award TTD through the date of MMI, but denying post-MMI medical treatment, prescription, and mileage reimbursements. (Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)
DEEPER DIVE: This case had an interesting post-MMI fact pattern where the claimant was released to return to work without restrictions, was offered to return to work for the Employer at his pre-injury wages, and returned to work there, but then quit working for the Employer due to complaints of pain. Under these facts, the Court of Appeals noted that there was a presumption of no loss of wage-earning capacity and held that the claimant did not overcome it:
Other Orders
Hammer v. State, 2019-KA-01633-COA (denying rehearing) Shannon v. Shannon, 2020-CA-00847-COA (denying rehearing)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 