2025-WC-01288-COA
Miss. Ct. App.Jun 30, 2026Background
- Thompson, a casino dealer and supervisor, claimed a compensable right-shoulder injury from repetitive dealer movements. 1
- She filed a petition to controvert on July 13, 2024, and Boyd Biloxi asserted the claim was time-barred. 2
- Thompson had treated right-shoulder pain in 2021, with medical records noting no specific injury and pain worsened by overhead work. 3
- In March 2024, Thompson reported ongoing severe shoulder and upper-arm pain to her supervisor and said the pain had persisted for several years. 4
- A February 2024 MRI first revealed a labral tear and biceps tendon involvement, and Dr. Black linked the damage to her repetitive dealer work and recommended surgery. 5
- The AJ and Commission dismissed the claim as untimely, finding Thompson knew the compensable nature of the injury by July 2021. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the two-year limitations period begin? 7 | Thompson said it began after the 2024 MRI showed a disabling tear. | Boyd Biloxi said it began no later than July 2021. | It began after the 2024 MRI and diagnosis. 8 |
| Was substantial evidence lacking for a 2021 accrual date? 9 | Thompson argued earlier pain and treatment did not reveal compensable injury. | Boyd Biloxi relied on 2021 treatment and work-related symptoms. | Yes; the record lacked substantial evidence of 2021 compensability notice. 10 |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. International Paper Co., 420 So. 3d 334 (Miss. Ct. App. 2025) (standard of review; progressive injury accrual rules 11)
- Lovett v. Delta Regional Medical Center, 157 So. 3d 88 (Miss. 2015) (Commission reversed for unsupported, arbitrary, or legally erroneous decisions 12)
- Robinson Property Group Ltd. Partnership v. Newton, 975 So. 2d 256 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (clearly erroneous standard for Commission fact findings 13)
- Quaker Oats Co. v. Miller, 370 So. 2d 1363 (Miss. 1979) (limitations begins when claimant should recognize nature, seriousness, and compensable character of injury 14)
- Baker v. IGA Super Valu Food Store, 990 So. 2d 254 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (defines progressive injury doctrine 15)
- Smith v. Nissan North America, 102 So. 3d 321 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (latent or progressive injury limitations runs when compensability becomes reasonably apparent 16)
- Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Taplin, 586 So. 2d 823 (Miss. 1991) (continuing pain alone does not start limitations before compensability is apparent 17)
- Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. v. Long, 362 So. 2d 182 (Miss. 1978) (limitations does not begin until diagnostic linkage reveals compensable injury 18)
- Struthers Wells-Gulfport Inc. v. Bradford, 304 So. 2d 645 (Miss. 1974) (claim accrues when disability from injury becomes reasonably apparent 19)
- Mississippi State University v. Panuska, 20 So. 3d 717 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (no limitations period until medical confirmation reveals compensable injury 20)
- Tabor Motor Co. v. Garrard, 233 So. 2d 811 (Miss. 1970) (limitations begins when hidden work injury is discovered and linked to symptoms 21)
- Brown v. Illinois Tool Works Inc., 135 So. 3d 160 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (distinguished because claimant's same condition was diagnosed more than two years before filing 22)
- Clear River Construction Co. v. Chandler ex rel. Chandler, 926 So. 2d 273 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (majority-signature Commission order receives deference 23)