Cook v. Home Depot, 2012 Miss. LEXIS 70

Cook's workers' compensation claim was dismissed on July 27, 2006 for failure to file a completed prehearing statement under Procedural Rule 5.
Cook moved to reinstate the claim; the Administrative Judge denied on December 6, 2006 for lack of a properly completed prehearing statement attached to the motion.
Cook filed amended prehearing statements on December 13, 2006 and January 8, 2007, but no proper Motion to Reinstate accompanied them.
Cook's 2007 filings were not treated as tolling because the claim was not pending; the one-year statute of limitations began December 26, 2006 and ran to December 26, 2007.
Cook asserted in 2008 that he had delivered a second amended petition and prehearing statement on July 21, 2007, though the Commission stamp dated the documents June 17, 2008; the AJ had dismissed as time-barred.
The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court and Court of Appeals’ dismissal as time-barred, holding that failure to attach a proper prehearing statement to a reinstatement motion prevented tolling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do post-dismissal filings toll the statute of limitations?	Cook tolls by subsequent amendments and deposition notices.	No tolling without a proper reinstatement motion with a complete prehearing statement.	No tolling; claim barred by statute.
Are amended prehearing statements and deposition notices sufficient to toll under Harper/Doyle?	Such actions constitute sufficient request for payment tolling the period.	They did not accompany a proper Motion to Reinstate and thus do not toll the statute.	Insufficient; tolling not established.
Was the claim properly dismissed as time-barred under Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-53?	The tolling actions should have kept the claim alive.	Procedural rule violations and lack of timely petition void tolling and support dismissal.	Dismissal affirmed as time-barred.

Harper v. North Mississippi Medical Center, 601 So.2d 395 (Miss. 1992) (tolling by nonformal actions when remedial purposes apply)
Doyle v. Schindler Elevator Co., 749 So.2d 43 (Miss. 1999) (informal actions tolling statute of limitations)
Metal Trims Indus., Inc. v. Stovall, 562 So.2d 1293 (Miss. 1990) (liberal construction of workers' compensation acts)
Allen v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 934 So.2d 1006 (Miss. 2006) (deference to agency's rules; due process implications)
Miller Transporters, Inc. v. Guthrie, 554 So.2d 917 (Miss. 1989) (beneficent purposes of the Act and close-calls rule)
Harper v. North Mississippi Medical Ctr, 601 So.2d 395 (Miss. 1992) (tolling based on remedial purpose and actions signaling continued pursuit)
Doyle v. Schindler Elevator Co. (duplicate for emphasis), 749 So.2d 43 (Miss. 1999) (informal tolling recognized; petition to controvert not strictly required)