History
  • No items yet
midpage
327 So.3d 678
Miss. Ct. App.
2021
Read the full case

Background

  • On May 26, 2015 Kathy Pybus, a Kroger grocery clerk, suffered a pelvic fracture at work, underwent surgery, and reached MMI on May 23, 2017.
  • Functional capacity evaluations (May and Nov 2017/2018) and Dr. Russell’s opinions limited Pybus to light-duty work with some occasional medium-level tasks; Kroger allowed her to return as a clerk on August 21, 2017.
  • Administrative Judge (AJ) initially denied permanent disability and found post-injury wages exceeded pre-injury wages (creating a presumption of no loss of wage-earning capacity).
  • The Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed, found Pybus rebutted the presumption (citing age, restrictions, pain, and employer accommodations), remanded for loss-of-wage-earning-capacity analysis, and ultimately awarded permanent partial disability: loss of capacity to earn $349.20/week on the open market, producing a $142.14/week benefit for 450 weeks.
  • Kroger appealed, arguing the Commission relied improperly on “loss of access” alone and failed to make adequate factual/legal findings; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the Commission’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Issues

Issue Pybus (Plaintiff) argument Kroger (Defendant) argument Held
Did the Commission make adequate findings to support loss-of-wage-earning-capacity? Commission’s prior and final orders together supplied sufficient factual and vocational analysis supporting the award. Commission failed to provide detailed analysis or correct method for calculating wage-earning capacity. Affirmed: Court found the record and Commission orders (including remand work) provided substantial evidence and adequate analysis.
Was reliance on "loss of access" improper or exclusive? Loss of access was supported by vocational testimony and was considered alongside age, restrictions, pain, and accommodations. Commission impermissibly relied solely on loss of access and ignored contrary evidence (e.g., employer testimony, higher post-injury wages). Affirmed: Court held loss of access was a valid factor and the Commission considered the evidence as a whole; loss of access was emphasized because the presumption had been rebutted.
Was there substantial evidence to support the Commission’s wage-capacity finding and calculation? Vocational expert testimony supported a post-injury open-market capacity of $8.73/hr ($349.20/wk); statute yields $142.14/wk benefit. Employer disputed the vocational conclusions and argued post-injury wages and collective-bargaining raises rebut a loss. Affirmed: Court concluded substantial evidence supported the Commission’s computation and award.

Key Cases Cited

  • Gregg v. Natchez Trace Elec. Power Ass’n, 64 So. 3d 473 (Miss. 2011) (defines disability as physical injury plus loss of wage-earning capacity)
  • Gen. Elec. Co. v. McKinnon, 507 So. 2d 363 (Miss. 1987) (lists nonexclusive factors for when post-injury earnings are unreliable)
  • Neshoba Cnty. Gen. Hosp. v. Howell, 999 So. 2d 1295 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (loss-of-wage-earning-capacity is largely a factual determination for the Commission)
  • Seals v. Pearl River Resort, 301 So. 3d 585 (Miss. 2020) (substantial-evidence standard for Commission findings)
  • Pruitt v. Howard Indus. Inc., 232 So. 3d 822 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (presumption of no loss when claimant returns to same job earning same/higher wages)
  • Guardian Fiberglass Inc. v. LeSueur, 751 So. 2d 1201 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (enumerates factors to evaluate wage-earning capacity)
  • Spann v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 700 So. 2d 308 (Miss. 1997) (Commission’s legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
  • Imperial Palace Casino v. Wilson, 960 So. 2d 549 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (Commission is ultimate fact-finder in workers’ comp)
  • Barber Seafood Inc. v. Smith, 911 So. 2d 454 (Miss. 2005) (standard for clearly erroneous factual findings)
  • Weathersby v. Miss. Baptist Health Sys. Inc., 195 So. 3d 877 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (loss of access and continuing pain are relevant to rebutting the presumption)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: The Kroger Company and Kroger Limited Partnership I v. Kathy Pybus
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Mississippi
Date Published: Sep 28, 2021
Citations: 327 So.3d 678; 2020-WC-01041-COA
Docket Number: 2020-WC-01041-COA
Court Abbreviation: Miss. Ct. App.
Log In
    The Kroger Company and Kroger Limited Partnership I v. Kathy Pybus, 327 So.3d 678