Harper Ex Rel. Harper v. Banks, Finley, White & Co. of Mississippi, 167 So. 3d 1155

Background

Milton Harper, managing partner and president of Banks, Finley, White & Co. (Banks), suffered strokes in Aug. 2000 and July 2001 and died from the latter; his widow and daughter sought workers’ compensation benefits.
The Administrative Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Commission found the strokes arose out of employment stress and awarded benefits (with 65% apportionment for preexisting condition).
The Hinds County Circuit Court affirmed compensability but held Harper’s dependents barred because Harper (as officer) failed to obtain workers’ compensation insurance for the firm.
The Court of Appeals reversed that portion, relying on Miss. Code § 71-3-79 (officers may reject coverage in writing), because Harper had not given written notice to opt out.
The Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari and held § 71-3-79 inapplicable because Banks had no workers’ compensation policy for anyone to opt out of; instead § 71-3-5 (mandatory coverage for employers with five or more employees and written-exemption mechanism) governs.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s finding of compensability based on substantial evidence linking work stress → labile hypertension → stroke, and ruled Banks must provide benefits despite lack of insurance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 71-3-79 (officer written rejection of coverage) applies when employer purchased no policy	Harper’s dependents: § 71-3-79 shows an officer can only be excluded if he gave written notice to the carrier; Harper never gave such notice, so he didn’t waive coverage	Banks: Harper’s failure to procure insurance (and decision not to buy coverage) precludes recovery; officer waived benefits by inaction	§ 71-3-79 does not apply because no carrier/policy existed; an officer cannot reject coverage that does not exist; § 71-3-5 controls and Banks (≥5 employees) was subject to the Act and liable for benefits
Whether employer was subject to mandatory coverage (five-employee rule)	Dependents: Banks employed at least five people, so mandatory coverage applied and firm owed benefits	Banks: argued waiver/forfeiture because officer failed to obtain insurance	Court: Banks had ≥5 employees under § 71-3-5 and thus was subject to the Workers’ Compensation Act and liable for benefits
Whether failure to procure insurance by corporate officer bars dependents from recovery	Banks/Chief Justice dissent: officer’s deliberate failure to secure coverage is a waiver/forfeiture; analogies to other jurisdictions (Maryland) support barring recovery	Dependents: waiver requires statutory mechanism (written exemption); inaction is not an authorized waiver under Mississippi law	Court: statutory framework prescribes express written mechanisms for exemption; inaction does not equal waiver; dependents not barred
Whether Commission’s finding of compensable injury (causation) is supported by substantial evidence	Dependents: medical and lay testimony show work stress caused labile hypertension which caused the strokes and death	Banks/dissent: medical testimony was speculative; no competent expert proof establishing causation to a reasonable medical probability	Court: substantial evidence supports the Commission — multiple physicians and lay witnesses linked work stress → hypertension → stroke; Commission’s factual findings affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Natchez Equip. Co., Inc. v. Gibbs, 623 So.2d 270 (Miss. 1993) (de novo review for legal questions)
Miss. Dep’t of Transp. v. Allred, 928 So.2d 152 (Miss. 2006) (statutory interpretation—apply plain meaning when unambiguous)
Vance v. Twin River Homes, Inc., 641 So.2d 1176 (Miss. 1994) (Commission findings binding if supported by substantial evidence)
Hedge v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 641 So.2d 9 (Miss. 1994) (elements and burden in workers’ compensation claims)
R.C. Petroleum, Inc. v. Hernandez, 555 So.2d 1017 (Miss. 1990) (circumstantial evidence may establish workers’ comp elements)
Bechtel Corp. v. Phillips, 591 So.2d 814 (Miss. 1991) (medical evidence required to prove causation in certain contexts)
Sonford Prods. Corp. v. Freels, 495 So.2d 468 (Miss. 1986) (expert medical proof required where causation not obvious to laymen)
Barnes v. Jones Lumber Co., 637 So.2d 867 (Miss. 1994) (deference to Commission fact-finding)