Fresenius Medical Care Co. v. Woolfolk

3 Citing cases

  1. Howard Indus., Inc. v. Hardaway

    191 So. 3d 1257 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 8 times

    Howard Industries argues that this evidence proves that Hardaway did not engage in repetitive movements, nor did he have to hyperextend his hands forcefully to push the units. Relying on Fresenius Medical Care v. Woolfolk ex rel Woolfolk, 920 So.2d 1024 (Miss.Ct.App.2005), Howard Industries also argues that the Commission should not have relied on other physicians' medical opinions linking Hardaway's carpal tunnel syndrome to his job duties because those opinions were based on inaccurate and flawed information concerning the nature of those duties. Our workers' compensation law provides compensation for injuries “arising out of and in the course of employment without regard to fault which results from an untoward event or events, if contributed to or aggravated or accelerated by the employment in a significant manner.”

  2. McMullen-Anthony v. Tecumseh Prods. Co.

    203 So. 3d 1185 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)

    ¶ 18. The record supports the Commission's decision. Dr. Bassett did not have a clear understanding of McMullen–Anthony's work history and, therefore, could not offer a valid opinion on a causal connection between McMullen–Anthony's neck complaint and work. See Fresenius Med. Care v. Woolfolk, 920 So.2d 1024, 1032 (¶ 33) (Miss.Ct.App.2005). Dr. Bassett's flawed opinion combined with Dr. Muller's negative opinion supports the finding that McMullen–Anthony did not meet her burden of proof.

  3. Sanderson Farms, Inc. v. Johnson

    68 So. 3d 67 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 1 times

    Therefore, the Commission was entitled to find the testimonies of Drs. Passman and Haimson more compelling than Dr. Hadler's. ¶ 21. Sanderson Farms also asserts that the deposition testimonies of Drs. Passman and Haimson should have been excluded pursuant to the standard announced in Daubert and filed a motion to exclude their testimonies pursuant to Rule 702 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. Additionally, in support of its contention, Sanderson Farms seems to suggest that our decision in Fresenius Medical Care and Continental Casualty Co. v. Woolfolk ex rel. Woolfolk, 920 So.2d 1024 (Miss.Ct. App. 2005) stands for the proposition that experts testifying before the Commission must meet the Daubert standard. It is clear that we made no such finding in Fresenius. There we said: