Mabus v. Mueller Industries, Inc.
205 So. 3d 677
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- Barry Mabus injured his back at work on December 1, 2004, underwent L4–L5 hemilaminectomy/discectomy (May 4, 2005), and received post‑op care primarily from Drs. Lovell and Murrell.
- Dr. Lovell found MMI on August 11, 2005 with 8% PPI and a 70‑lb restriction; Dr. Murrell later assessed 13% PPI (2008) but no work restrictions and saw no condition change through 2010.
- Mueller Industries accepted compensability, paid medical and temporary disability through Nov. 2005, then suspended payments; Mabus was later fired and ran a business (2006–2009) with earnings equal to or above pre‑injury levels for several years.
- Mabus filed a petition to controvert (Dec. 2005); after hearings the administrative judge (AJ) denied permanent disability and further medical benefits (Nov. 21, 2013); the Commission affirmed (Aug. 20, 2014). Mabus appealed.
- Key contested procedural points: (1) motion to recuse AJ for alleged bias; (2) sufficiency/weight of medical and vocational evidence supporting permanent disability; (3) whether the Commission improperly denied a later motion for medical treatment and failed to consider evidence excluded at the AJ level.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mabus) | Defendant's Argument (Mueller) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| AJ recusal | AJ manifested bias during a prehearing call and should have been disqualified | No record evidence of bias; presumption of judge impartiality | Denial of recusal not manifest error; no disqualifying bias shown |
| Admissibility of supplemental medical records | Records excluded under Rule 9(1) were timely/possessed by Mueller and should have been considered | Records not properly submitted under Rule 9(1); exclusion proper | AJ correctly excluded evidence that did not comply with Rule 9(1) |
| Permanent disability (medical causation and continuous injury) | Medical and vocational evidence prove continuous pain and permanent impairment linking to wage loss | Medical records, FCE, and vocational report (Stewart) do not show ongoing impairment or restrictions; post‑injury earnings rebut incapacity | Substantial evidence supports AJ: no continuous impairment after 2006, medical evidence insufficient for permanent disability; denial affirmed |
| Motion for further medical treatment before Commission | Commission failed to review all evidence (including items marked for identification) and issued decision without awaiting Mueller’s response | Mabus could have submitted excluded evidence to Commission under Rule 9; Commission reviewed the record and acted within discretion | Commission did not err; Mabus failed to use Rule 9 to present additional evidence and Commission’s denial was supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. Maddox, 122 So.3d 75 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (manifest‑error standard for reviewing recusal denials)
- Bredemeier v. Jackson, 689 So.2d 770 (Miss. 1997) (recusal standards)
- Wash. Mut. Fin. Grp., LLC v. Blackmon, 925 So.2d 780 (Miss. 2004) (presumption of judge impartiality and burden to overcome it)
- Concert Sys. USA, Inc. v. Weaver, 33 So.3d 1186 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (standard for reversing Commission decisions)
- Robinson Prop. Grp., Ltd. P’ship v. Newton, 975 So.2d 256 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (requirement to follow Rule 9 for medical record admission)
- Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Smith, 909 So.2d 1209 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (post‑injury earnings presumption of no loss of wage‑earning capacity)
- Cox v. Int’l Harvester Co., 221 So.2d 924 (Miss. 1969) (when post‑injury earnings are unreliable as a measure of capacity)