Opinion
2022-SA-00529-COA
06-27-2023
LEVERNE BRENT AND LENARD BRENT APPELLANTS v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND MISSISSIPPI STATE AGENCIES WORKERS' COMPENSATION TRUST APPELLEES
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: JOHN HUNTER STEVENS ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: ALAN M. PURDIE DION JEFFERY SHANLEY MICHAEL EDWIN D'ANTONIO JR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/03/2021
HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT HON. ELEANOR JOHNSON PETERSON TRIAL JUDGE:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: JOHN HUNTER STEVENS
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: ALAN M. PURDIE DION JEFFERY SHANLEY MICHAEL EDWIN D'ANTONIO JR
BEFORE BARNES, C.J., WESTBROOKS AND McDONALD, JJ
McDONALD, J.
¶1. Leverne Brent, who worked for the Mississippi Department of Human Services (MDHS), was injured on the job in 2009 while she was visiting a building owned by a third party, Madated LLC. MDHS and the Mississippi State Agencies Workers' Compensation Trust (collectively "employer/insurer") paid Brent benefits, including payments for her bills for medical treatment. Brent and her husband, Lenard, filed a negligence suit against Madated in the Hinds County Circuit Court, and the employer/insurer was granted permission to intervene to recover compensation benefits that had been paid. Brent ultimately settled with Madated for $750,000. The employer/insurer sought reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $358,000, which included $3,137.50 for experts who performed employer medical evaluations (EME) used in Brent's litigation on the workers' compensation claim. The parties agreed to a reduction of the reimbursable medical expenses to a maximum of $335,000, but a controversy continued over the EME expense. The circuit court ultimately ordered Brent to reimburse the employer/insurer the $3,137.50 EME expense. Brent appeals from the circuit court's order. After considering the arguments of the parties and relevant precedent, we find no error in the circuit court's ruling, and we affirm.
Facts
¶2. On July 22, 2009, Brent, a branch director for MDHS, sustained a work-related injury when she slipped and fell at a building owned by Madated. The employer/insurer paid Brent workers' compensation benefits and paid for her medical treatment. What was initially diagnosed as a left-wrist sprain turned out to be a more extensive injury. Brent's medical treatment over the years included two vertebral fusion surgeries and rotator cuff surgery. In addition, she suffered considerable pain and depression from the accident.
¶3. At some point, Dr. Sheila Lindley, who treated Brent for carpal tunnel syndrome, referred Brent to Dr. David Collip of NewSouth NeuroSpine for a physiatric (rehab) consultation. In his notes, he specifically said Brent was not there for an independent medical evaluation. He determined that Brent had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) with respect to her rotator cuff injury and provided impairment ratings.
¶4. Dr. Lindley assessed Brent's limitations based on Brent's hand injury, stating:
Based on the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 6th Edition, she is assigned 5% impairment to the right upper extremity. This is based on her EMG nerve conduction studies which have confirmed carpal tunnel syndrome. It is my opinion that due to the injury to the left upper extremity there could be a component of overuse right upper extremity which could have precipitated carpal tunnel symptomology related to her increased use of the uninjured side. Also, she had a component of tendinitis at the level of the elbow.... It is also my opinion that she would do no overhead work or lifting, pulling or pushing on a repetitive basis greater than 10 pounds with either upper extremity.
¶5. After receiving treatment for depression, Brent's case manager referred her to Dr. Angela Koestler, a clinical psychologist, to determine if further treatment was needed. The case manager wrote Dr. Koestler on May 28, 2013, requesting a "Behavioral Psychological Evaluation," and specifically stated:
Ms. Brent was referred to Restorative and Behavioral Services of Jackson, Mississippi by Dr. McGuire for Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Program (IDPRP) in 2012. Upon completion of the initial sessions, an additional 18 sessions were requested, of which only 10 sessions was [sic] authorized. Additional sessions are being requested at this time.
Based on your medical expertise and evaluation of Ms. Brent, please provide your medical opine [sic] as to the medical necessity of additional behavioral sessions and whether they are benefitting Ms. Brent. Please address whether you would recommend additional sessions or not. Why or Why not.
Dr. Koestler saw Brent on May 30, 2013, and performed a mental evaluation, which included her interview with Brent, extensive testing, and a review of Brent's treatment as reflected in her medical records. Tests included the Function Pain Questionnaire, McGill Adjective Checklist, the Millon Behavioral Medicine Diagnostic, and the Personality Assessment Inventory. Dr. Koestler rendered an opinion that Brent's work injury exacerbated her preexisting depression and anxiety but that Brent did not need any further mental health treatment.
¶6. The employer/insurer paid $200 for Dr. Lindley's assessment, $50 for Dr. Collip's report, and $2,887.50 for Dr. Koestler's evaluation.
¶7. On July 13, 2012, Brent filed suit in the Hinds County Circuit Court against Madated, alleging negligence for a dangerous condition at the entrance of the building that caused her to fall. During the litigation, on May 2, 2014, the employer/insurer filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 71-3-71 (Rev. 2021)