Forrest General Hospital v. Humphrey, 136 So. 3d 468

Humphrey, a hospital security officer, alleged he pulled a lower-back muscle on May 14, 2008 while restraining a violent psychiatric patient; hospital surveillance video of the incident was admitted.
Humphrey delayed seeking treatment for ~7 months due to concerns about workplace repercussions; he first saw Dr. Campbell (GP) in January 2009 and was referred to neurosurgeon Dr. David Lee.
The hospital prepared an occurrence report and voluntarily paid medical and indemnity benefits until employer-ordered medical evaluations were performed. Humphrey filed a petition to controvert on April 2, 2009.
Employer-requested physicians (Drs. Amundson and Collipp) opined no causal connection between the May 14 incident and Humphrey’s back, while Dr. Lee testified the incident could have aggravated degenerative-disc disease.
An administrative judge found the injury compensable, citing lay witness testimony and the employer’s initial payments; the Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed; Forrest General Hospital appealed.

Issue	Humphrey’s Argument	Forrest General’s Argument	Held
Whether the Commission improperly relied on employer’s voluntary payments as evidence of compensability	Employer’s initial payments, combined with witness testimony and medical opinion, support compensability	Voluntary payments are protected by statute and Rule 409; employer may pay without prejudicing its right to contest compensability, so payments shouldn’t be used to prove liability	Payments may be considered by the Commission but cannot be the sole basis; here payments were considered along with other substantial evidence, so no error
Whether substantial evidence supported compensability finding	Lay witness testimony, occurrence report, voluntary payments, and Dr. Lee’s opinion establish causation	Surveillance video, delay in reporting and treatment, and employer physicians’ opinions undermine causation	Commission is the factfinder; record contained credible evidence (lay testimony, occurrence report, and a treating physician’s causal opinion), so decision supported by substantial evidence

Hugh Dancy Co. v. Mooneyham, 68 So.3d 76 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (standard of review and deference to Commission on factual findings)
Shelby v. Peavey Elecs. Corp., 724 So.2d 504 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (affirming Commission deference absent legal error)
Radford v. CCA-Delta Corr. Facility, 5 So.3d 1158 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (Commission as trier of fact)
Sanderson Farms Inc. v. Johnson, 68 So.3d 67 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (Commission not strictly bound by Mississippi Rules of Evidence)
Rankin v. Averitt Express, Inc., 115 So.3d 874 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (example where employer’s voluntary payments did not dictate compensability outcome)
Daniels v. Peco Foods of Miss. Inc., 980 So.2d 360 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (Commission’s role in evaluating and weighing evidence)
Short v. Wilson Meat House LLC, 36 So.3d 1247 (Miss. 2010) (appellate court should not reweigh Commission’s factual findings)
McCarty Farms, Inc. v. Banks, 773 So.2d 380 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (credible evidence standard for affirming Commission)