The rest of the Mississippi Supreme Court decision list today does not inspire me– a case involving workers comp, reporting injuries, and statute of limitations; a case reversing (on the facts) the termination of parental rights; a reversal of dispute between two insurers as to who had primary coverage; an interlocutory appeal over the exclusion of a CPA’s testimony, largely because she’d let her license lapse; and an appeal of a summary judgment for the lawyer/defendants in a legal malpractice case arising out of Phen-Fen litigation. Except for a concurrance by Kitchens (joined by Waller and, in unspecified part, Graves), disagreeing with the reasoning but not the result in the workers comp case, there’s only minor quibbling by way of disagreeing (a couple of join-in-result-onlys, no separate opinions).
I don’t know NMC, those worker’s comp decisions are pretty exciting stuff — they often give me goosebumps. Ha.
Workers’ comp cases remind me that we need to eliminate the stupid circuit/chancery appeal from admin decisions.
Whatever rationale they ever had, vanished w/ the creation of the intermediate court of appeals.
In W/C cases especially, it just creates another layer of delay and expense for claimants who, at best, ain’t collecting much regardless.
I haven’t read an interesting w/c case since WATTS v. BROOKHAVEN STEAM LAUNDRY.
I think the worker’s comp case is pretty…um… interesting factually. The facts surrounding the injury sound like something taken from a Tom & Jerry cartoon.
In oral arguments June 9 regarding application of anticoncurrent causation clauses, Nationwide’s counsel said that even if a house was 95% destroyed by wind before any flooding Nationwide would owe nothing if they could prove that the surge would have destroyed it anyway. That is pretty much the way State Farm interpreted ACC also.