Mayfield v. Advanced Disposal Services Mississippi, LLCMayfield v. Advanced Disposal Services Mississippi, LLC
for the Court:
¶ 1. On January 6, 2011, Floyd Mayfield filed a petition to controvert with the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) alleging that hе had suffered a compensable injury to his “neck, back, legs, knees, and feet” while working as a truck driver for Advanced Disрosal Services Mississippi, LLC. Advanced Disposal and Arch Insurance Company, its carrier, admitted compensability аs to Mayfield’s left knee, but denied that May-field suffered a work-related compensable injury to his lower back on that same date. A hearing commenced before the administrative judge (AJ). Following the hearing, the AJ entered an order that recognized Advanced Disposal admitted compensability to the left knee and stated that the sole issue for detеrmination at the hearing was whether or not Mayfield sustained a com-pensable work-related injury to his back on the dаte in question. The AJ concluded that Mayfield sustained a compensable work-related injury to his back. However, no findings wеre made as to compensation for the left knee injury.
¶ 2. Advanced Disposal appealed the AJ’s decisiоn to the Commission regarding compensability as to Mayfield’s back injury. The Commission reversed the AJ’s grant of benefits for Mayfield’s lower back injury and remanded the case to the AJ for additional proceedings consistent with its opinion.
¶ 3. Feeling aggriеved, Mayfield appeals, arguing that the Commission’s decision is arbitrary and capricious, not supported by substantial evidence, and contrary to the law. Subsequent to the filing of Mayfield’s appeal, Advanced Disposal filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that Mayfield’s appeal is interlocutory. After reviewing the record, this Court concludes that Mayfield has nоt appealed from a final judgment by the Commission. The Commission did not make a final adjudication as to all issues surrounding Mayfiеld’s alleged work-related incident. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to address the merits of this appeal and dismiss.
FACTS
¶4. On Seрtember 30, 2010, Mayfield suffered an injury while working as a truck driver for Advanced Disposal. May-field testified that while standing on top of thе tire and fender of his truck attempting to remove a tangled tarp, he slipped and fell approximately four feet to the ground. Mayfield stated that he landed on his left leg and then fell onto his buttocks. He testified that he felt pain in his left knеe and upper and lower back immediately following the fall. Mayfield claimed that
¶ 5. Mayfield testified that he saw Dr. Ricky Chаnce the day after the fall with complaints of pain in his left knee and back. The medical records reflect that Mayfield reported to Dr. Chance with complaints of left knee pain and upper back pain. Dr. Chance рrescribed pain medication and ordered a MRI of May-field’s left knee. Following the MRI, Dr. Chance referred Mayfield to Dr. Ronald Graham, an orthopedic surgeon, for an evaluation of his left knee. Mayfield was diagnosed with a tear оf the medial meniscus. Mayfield testified that Dr. Graham performed arthroscopic surgery of his left knee in November 2010. Following surgery, Dr. Graham prescribed physical therapy. Mayfield testified that because of the continued pain in his leg and bаck, his physical therapy was limited. May-field continued to complain of lower back pain thereafter.
¶ 6. Dr. Grahаm ordered a MRI of May-field’s lumbar spine. The MRI revealed degenerative changes and a protrusion at the L5-S1 disc, with nо displacement of the thecal sac or nerve roots. The MRI revealed some spurring and facet degenerative joint disease along with moderate to severe stenosis. Dr. Graham opined that the results of the MRI revealed a disc herniation at L5-S1. He referred Mayfield to a neurosurgeon, Dr. Eric Wolfson. Mayfield testified that Dr. Wolfson prescribеd conservative treatment that included epidural injections and physical therapy, neither of which provided аny relief. Dr. Wolfson recommended lumbar surgery for Mayfield. Mayfield underwent two back surgeries, the first in March 2011, and the second in May 2011. The additional surgeries and testing failed to reveal a disc herniation or other medical cause of Mayfield’s lоwer back pain. Mayfield’s medical testing showed moderate degenerative changes at L4-5 and mild L3^4 and L4-5 facet аrthropathy, but no medical cause of the pain resulting from the work-related accident. Mayfield testified that he still suffеrs pain and discomfort and cannot work. He stated that Dr. Wolfson recommends further treatment.
¶7. Mayfield testified that Advanсed Disposal had paid for all of the treatment for his knee, but it denied coverage of treatment for his back. Mayfield stated that he paid for the treatment using his personal health insurance.
DISCUSSION
¶ 8. The Commission issued no final judgment or order in this case. Even though the Commission reversed the AJ’s finding of compensability as to the lower back injury, Mayfield has not yet reached maximum medical improvement (MMI), and the AJ must still assign benefits relative to his knee injury. In Superior Manufacturing Group, Inc. v. Crabtree,
¶ 9. Similarly, in this case, the order entered fails to constitute a final judgment of the Commission; therefore, Mаyfield’s appeal is interlocutory. The record shows that the AJ failed to make any rulings as to the remainder of the issuеs for the
¶ 10. Because no final order has been issued, we dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
¶ 11. THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.