For an injury that is unaccompanied by physical trauma, the claimant “must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he or she suffered from a disabling mental injury which was either caused, contributed to or aggravated by some unusual occurrence or untoward event in order to be compensable.” Daniels v. Peco Foods of Miss. Inc., 980 So.2d 360, 363 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (quoting Kirk v. K–Mart Corp., 838 So.2d 1007, 1010 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2003)). Stated another way, the claimant “must show [that] something more than the ordinary incidents of employment occurred.”
"It is well settled that proof of causal connection must rise above mere possibility." Kirk v. K-Mart Corp., 838 So.2d 1007 (Miss.App. 2003); DUNN, MISSISSIPPI WORKERS' COMPENSATION, § 273 (3d ed. 1992). ¶ 68.
"It is well settled that proof of causal connection must rise above mere possibility." Kirk v. K-Mart Corp., 838 So. 2d 1007 (Miss.App. 2003); DUNN, MISSISSIPPI WORKERS' COMPENSATION, § 273 (3d ed. 1992). ¶ 68.
See Jackson, 244 Miss. 117, 140 So.2d 555, 555; Dennis v. Prisock, 254 Miss. 574, 181 So.2d 125, 126 (Miss. 1965); Scott County Coop, 187 So.2d at 322; Garrett, 259 So.2d at 477; Deas, 411 So.2d at 1287; Black v. Food Lion, Inc., 171 F.3d 308, 309 (5th Cir. 1999); Kirk v. K-Mart Corp., 838 So.2d 1007, 1010 (Miss.Ct.App. 2003); and Sutherlands Lumber Home Ctr., Inc. v. Whittington, 878 So.2d 80, 81 (Miss.Ct.App. 2003). * * *
The parties agree that medical expert testimony must be expressed in terms of reasonable medical probability, not mere possibility. Kirk v. K-Mart Corporation, 838 So.2d 1007, 1011 (Miss.App. 2003). The plaintiff is alleging that her carpal tunnel syndrome in her right hand was caused or aggravated when she broke her fall with her left hand.
In other words, "[i]t is well settled that proof of causal connection must rise above mere possibility." Kirk v. K-Mart Corp., 838 So. 2d 1007, 1101 (Miss.App. 2003). The plaintiff's treating physicians have conceded that they cannot state in terms of medical probability their opinion regarding the cause of the plaintiff's injuries, which include a hole in his dura.
¶56. In addition, "[t]o recover benefits for a mental injury suffered after a physical injury, a claimant must prove that the disabling mental injury 'was caused, contributed to, or aggravated by a work-related physical injury.'" Daniels v. Peco Foods of Miss. Inc., 980 So.2d 360, 363 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Kirk v. K-Mart Corp., 838 So.2d 1007, 1010 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003)). Indeed, "when a claimant seeks compensation benefits for disability resulting from a mental or psychological injury, the claimant has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the connection between the employment and the injury."
But when the claim involves a mental injury, there is an additional requirement. To recover for “a mental injury after a physical injury, a claimant must prove that the disabling mental injury ‘was caused, contributed to, or aggravated by a work-related physical injury.’ ” Daniels, 980 So.2d at 363 (¶ 10) (quoting Kirk v. K–Mart Corp., 838 So.2d 1007, 1010 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2003)). This requires that the claimant prove, by clear evidence, a causal connection between the mental injury and the physical work injury.
But when the claim involves a mental injury, there is an additional requirement. To recover for “a mental injury after a physical injury, a claimant must prove that the disabling mental injury ‘was caused, contributed to, or aggravated by a work-related physical injury.’ ” Daniels, 980 So.2d at 363 ( ¶ 10) (quoting Kirk v. K–Mart Corp., 838 So.2d 1007, 1010 ( ¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2003)). This requires that the claimant prove, by clear evidence, a causal connection between the mental injury and the physical work injury.
When alleged mental injury is unaccompanied by physical trauma, the employee “must prove by clear and convincing evidence that she suffers from a disabling mental injury which was either caused, contributed to or aggravated by some unusual occurrence or untoward event in order [for the mental injury] to be compensable.” Kirk v. K–Mart Corp., 838 So.2d 1007, 1010 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2003); Miss.Code Ann. § 71–3–3(b) (Rev.2011); see Fought v. Stuart C. Irby Co., 523 So.2d 314, 317 (Miss.1988). “The causal connection between the claimant's injury and disability must be proven with competent medical proof and based upon a reasonable degree of medical probability.”