Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. v. Edwin Scott
229 So. 3d 736
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Edwin Scott injured his lower back at work and received epidural steroid injections (May 9 and May 29, 2014) as treatment.
- On May 30, 2014, Scott developed an epidural abscess in the lower back caused by MRSA, requiring multiple surgeries.
- Primary factual dispute: causation — whether the epidural injections caused the spinal staph infection.
- Employer/carrier Lowe’s presented neurosurgeon Dr. Eric Amundson, who opined the infection was spontaneous (diabetes, prior staph infections) and not caused by injections.
- Claimant presented infectious disease specialist Dr. Eric McVey, who testified the timing/location made the injections the more likely cause; anesthesiologist Dr. Vivek Barclay disagreed with Lowe’s expert’s certainty.
- The Workers’ Compensation Commission credited McVey’s opinion and found the infection compensable; Lowe’s appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Scott) | Defendant's Argument (Lowe’s) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation: did epidural injections cause the MRSA epidural abscess? | Injections were temporally and anatomically proximate and likely introduced or enabled bacterial seeding; more likely than not caused the infection. | Infection was spontaneous due to diabetes and prior staph infections; injections unlikely to cause such an infection. | Commission reasonably credited claimant’s expert that injections more likely than not caused the infection; causation found. |
| Admissibility/weight of expert opinion: was Dr. McVey’s opinion reliable despite not reviewing certain records/MRI? | McVey relied on exam and radiologist’s report; his methodology was adequate for opinion on causation. | McVey didn’t review injection records or MRI films, undermining his reliability. | Court held lack of direct review did not undermine McVey’s credibility; Commission entitled to credit his judgment. |
| Standard of review: may appellate court reweigh conflicting expert testimony? | N/A (procedural) | N/A (procedural) | Appellate review limited to substantial evidence; cannot reweigh credibility — conflicts of expert evidence are resolved by the Commission. |
| Burden of proof in workers’ compensation causation | Claimant must prove causal connection by fair preponderance of evidence. | Same | Burden applied; claimant met it per Commission’s credibility determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cook v. Home Depot, 81 So. 3d 1041 (Miss. 2012) (standard of appellate review for Workers’ Compensation Commission decisions)
- Ladner v. Zachry Constr., 130 So. 3d 1085 (Miss. 2014) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Harper v. Banks, Finley, White & Co. of Miss., 167 So. 3d 1155 (Miss. 2015) (claimant’s burden to prove causal connection by preponderance)
- Raytheon Aerospace Support Servs. v. Miller, 861 So. 2d 330 (Miss. 2003) (when expert evidence conflicts, appellate court will affirm Commission)
- Hamilton v. Southwire Co., 191 So. 3d 1275 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (Commission’s role in assessing credibility of evidence)