Wheeler v. Miss. Limestone Corp.

381 So.3d 365

Danny WHEELER, Appellant

v.MISSISSIPPI LIMESTONE CORPORATION and The Phoenix Insurance Company, Appellees

NO. 2022-WC-00534-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

08/15/2023

Rehearing Denied January 16, 2024

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CHRISTOPHER HEDERI NEYLAND, Jackson.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: MILDRED LENA SABBATINI

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., WESTBROOKS AND LAWRENCE, JJ,

WILSON, P.J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Danny Wheeler, a Tennessee resident, was injured while working in Louisiana for a company headquartered in Mississippi. Wheeler filed a petition to controvert with the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission, but the administrative judge dismissed the case, holding that the Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Wheeler was neither hired nor regularly employed in Mississippi. The full Commission affirmed.

¶2. On appeal, Wheeler argues that the Commission erred by dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He also argues that his employer assumed liability for his injury by maintaining workers’ compensation insurance under Mississippi’s Workers’ Compensation Law. For the reasons discussed below, we find no error and affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3. Mississippi Limestone Corporation is headquartered on the Mississippi River in Friars Point, Mississippi. Mississippi Limestone hired Wheeler as a superintendent around 1995. Wheeler resides in Tiptonville, Tennessee, and he was hired at Mississippi Limestone’s office in Collierville, Tennessee. During his employment with Mississippi Limestone, Wheeler has never worked on a job site in Mississippi. Wheeler testified:

Q. [I]n your 25 years of working for Mississippi Limestone, have you ever worked inside the [S]tate of Mississippi for them?

A. No. It’s been in Delta, Louisiana or … Richardson Landing, Tennessee…. [That is] where I done my work.

Wheeler testified that he had received "instructions" by telephone from employees in Friars Point, and he went to Friars Point "sometimes" for "get-togethers" or "to look at equipment" or get equipment. Wheeler stated that there were only about "five or six" employees in the Friars Point office. Wheeler’s out-of-state work crews averaged about 170 employees.

¶4. In September 2020, Wheeler was working on a job site in Madison Parish, Louisiana. While Wheeler was helping a coworker change a tire on a piece of heavy equipment, an air gun struck Wheeler’s right index finger, causing a deep cut. Wheeler reported the injury and received basic first-aid at the office at the job site in Louisiana. Wheeler continued to work for several days, but he developed a serious bacterial infection from "scabbed lesions" on "both hands." He was hospitalized and then underwent physical therapy.

¶5. From September 2020 through March 2021, Mississippi Limestone continued to pay Wheeler his normal salary even though he was not working. Wheeler testified that in January 2021, Mississippi Limestone’s owner said "he thought it was best for me to retire."¹

¶6. In February 2021, Wheeler filed a petition to controvert with the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission. The Commission sent the petition to Mississippi Limestone and its carrier by certified mail, but neither filed an answer. In October 2021, a hearing was held before the AJ. Wheeler was the only witness, and neither Mississippi Limestone nor its carrier appeared. Following the hearing, the AJ dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The AJ held that the Commission lacked jurisdiction because Wheeler was neither hired nor regularly employed in Mississippi. The AJ acknowledged that Mississippi Limestone and its carrier failed to file an answer or appear, but the AJ reasoned that "subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived" and that it is "the duty of the tribunal to dismiss the action" if it lacks jurisdiction. Wheeler filed a petition for review, and the full Commission affirmed. Wheeler then filed a notice of appeal.²

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1, 2] ¶7. Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Walgreen Co., 250 So. 3d 465, 472 (¶20) (Miss. 2018); see also Rollins v. Hinds Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 306 So. 3d 702, 703 (¶6) (Miss. 2020) ("We review questions of law de novo."). We generally afford substantial deference to the Commission’s findings of fact, see, e.g., Sheffield v. S.J. Louis Constr. Co., 285 So. 3d 614, 618 (¶8) (Miss. 2019), but this appeal does not involve any disputed material facts. See Rice v. Burlington Motor Carriers Inc., 839 So. 2d 602, 602 (¶1) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) ("There is no dispute as to the operative facts of the case. The issue of jurisdiction thus becomes a pure question of law.").

ANALYSIS

I. The Commission correctly held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

[3–8] ¶8. "Subject matter jurisdiction relates to the power and authority of a court to entertain and proceed with a case. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, and, if a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action." Bullock v. Roadway Express Inc., 548 So. 2d 1306, 1308 (Miss. 1989). Like a court, the Commission must dismiss any case over which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Id. The "Commission is an administrative agency created by statute and it may exercise only the authority granted to it by the Legislature." Id. (emphasis added). The Commission derives its "jurisdiction" solely from the statutes under which it was created. L. & A. Constr. Co. v. McCharen, 198 So. 2d 240, 242-43 (Miss. 1967) ("It has long been the settled law that a creature of the legislature, in this case the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, must look for its authority and its powers and jurisdiction to the act of its creation .. ").

[9] ¶9. In general, the Commission lacks jurisdiction over injuries that occurred outside this State. In Rice, this Court stated, "Because the injury in this case occurred outside the geographical boundaries of this state, the only manner in which Mississippi’s Compensation Commission could obtain jurisdiction of [the] claim is found in Section 71-3-109(1) of the Mississippi Code." Rice, 839 So. 2d at 603 (¶4) (emphasis added). That statute provides for the extraterritorial application of our Workers’ Compensation Law only in the following circumstances:

If an employee who has been hired or is regularly employed in this state receives personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment while temporarily employed outside of this state, he … shall be entitled to compensation according to the law of this state. This provision shall apply only to those injuries received by the employee within six (6) months after leaving this state unless, prior to the expiration of such six (6) months’ period, the employer has filed with the commission of Mississippi notice that he has elected to extend such coverage a greater period of time.

Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-109(1) (Rev. 2021). Therefore, the Commission cannot exercise jurisdiction over a claim based on an out-of-state injury unless the employee was "hired or is regularly employed in this state." Id. Applying this statute in Rice, we held that the Commission correctly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant was hired in another state and was never "regularly employed" in Mississippi. Rice, 839 So. 2d at 603-05 (¶¶5-10). The Commission lacked jurisdiction over the claim even though the claimant, a truck driver, was a Mississippi resident and was allowed to take his rig home to Mississippi after his work was complete. Id. at 603-04 (¶¶5, 7).

¶10. Similarly, in Stewart v. Dynamic Environmental Services LLC, 245 So. 3d 543 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018), this Court stated, "Because the accident occurred outside of the state of Mississippi, the only manner in which the Commission could possibly obtain jurisdiction over [the] claim is found under Mississippi Code Annotated section 71-3-109(1)." Id. at 546 (¶15) (emphasis added). We held that the Commission properly dismissed that case for lack of jurisdiction because the employee was hired in Texas and was not regularly employed in this State. Id. at 545-47 (¶¶2-4, 9-19).

¶11. This Court’s decisions in Rice and Stewart are consistent with the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in L. & A. Construction. In that case, the Supreme Court applied section 6998-55(a) of the Mississippi Code of 1942, which was identical to section 71-3-109(1) of the current Code. See L. & A. Constr., 198 So. 2d at 242. The Supreme Court clearly stated that the proper application of the statute was "a question of jurisdiction of our Workmen’s Compensation Commission." Id. at 241 (emphasis added); see also id. at 242 ("The only question here involved is whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission of the State of Mississippi had jurisdiction …. "). The Supreme Court also emphasized that as "a creature of the legislature, … the Workmen’s Compensation Commission[ ] must look for its authority and its powers and jurisdiction to the act of its creation." Id. at 242-43. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the Commission properly dismissed the case "for lack of jurisdiction" because the claimant was hired and worked in Tennessee and was never regularly employed in this State. Id. at 241-43. Indeed, the Court held that the Commission lacked jurisdiction even though the claimant was at all times a Mississippi resident and the employer was at all times "domiciled in the State of Mississippi." Id. at 241.

[10] ¶12. Under Rice, Stewart, and L. & A. Construction, the AJ and the Commission clearly were correct to dismiss Wheeler’s claim for lack of jurisdiction. As discussed above, Wheeler admitted that he was hired in Tennessee and that he was never regularly employed in this State. Indeed, Wheeler makes no argument on appeal that he was either hired or regularly employed in Mississippi. Accordingly, we agree with the Commission that it lacked subject matter...