Indeed, once the Commission has ruled, the AJ's “decision becomes moot.” Sterling v. Eaton Corp., 109 So.3d 1096, 1101 (¶ 16) (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (quoting Kitchens v. Jerry Vowell Logging, 874 So.2d 456, 462 (¶ 16) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) ) (brackets omitted). The AJ's decision is relevant at this stage only insofar as it was adopted by the Commission.
When a workers' compensation case is appealed to the Commission, the decision of the AJ becomes moot. Id. at (¶ 10) (citing Kitchens v. Jerry Vowell Logging, 874 So.2d 456, 462 (¶ 16) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)). “There may be substantial evidence to support the [AJ's] findings, but so long as there is also substantial evidence to support the Commission's contrary findings, the latter will be upheld.”
This Court has recognized that “[w]hen [administrative] judges are ‘conducting such hearings and making decisions upon claims,’ they ‘shall have the authority of a commissioner.’ ” Kitchens v. Jerry Vowell Logging, 874 So.2d 456, 462 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (quoting Miss.Code Ann. § 71–3–93 (Rev.2000)). According to Mississippi Code Annotated section 71–3–47 (Rev.2000): “The commission shall have full power and authority to determine all questions relating to the payment of claims for compensation.”
“[T]he workers' compensation rules examine ... the likelihood that the marketplace would provide someone in the claimant's physical condition with the same wages as [s]he had been making before the injury.” Kitchens v. Jerry Vowell Logging, 874 So.2d 456, 468 (¶ 44) (Miss.Ct.App.2004). “If the claimant has been rehired at wages at least as high as before the injury, there is a rebuttable presumption that there is no loss of wage-earning capacity.”
¶ 10. Furthermore, "[w]hen an appeal is resolved by the Commission, the administrative judge's decision become[s] moot." Kitchens v. Jerry Vowell Logging, 874 So.2d 456, 462 (¶ 16) (Miss.Ct.App. 2004). "The administrative judge is not an independent arbiter entitled to deferential review by the Commission, as a trial judge is independent of her reviewing appellate court.
Fundamentally, it is not the role of the appellate courts to probe the thought processes behind the decisions made by the finder of fact. Kitchens v. Jerry Vowell Logging, 874 So.2d 456, 461 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 2004). Pragmatically, as our supreme court has commented, the overwhelming case loads facing our trial judges and administrative judges alike, with the intricate complexities that often accompany each, may "necessitate substantial reliance upon the submissions of trial counsel."
¶ 41. "Courts err when they insist on agency procedures modeling themselves on the traditional view of the separation of powers." Kitchens v. Jerry Vowell Logging, 874 So.2d 456, 462 (¶ 19) (Miss.Ct.App. 2004). "[T]here is a presumption that the officers conducting the hearing and the members of the Board behave honestly and fairly in the conduct of the hearings and in the decision-making process."
Id. at 1265. This rule has been applied to administrative agencies as well. Kitchens v. Jerry Vowell Logging, 874 So.2d 456, 461 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App. 2005); Greenwood Utils. v. Williams, 801 So.2d 783, 788(1114) (Miss.Ct.App. 2001). ANALYSIS I. Did the Department award the certificate of need based upon incorrect information?
The disability inquiry focuses on whether a work-related injury caused the claimant to lose wage-earning capacity, meaning that the claimant's physical condition prevents her from commanding the pre-injury wage in the job market. Kitchens v. Jerry Vowell Logging, 874 So.2d 456, 468 (¶ 44) (Miss.Ct.App. 2004). An injured employee may establish a prima facie case of permanent, total disability by proving that, after a reasonable job search, she cannot secure work in the same or other employment. Pontotoc Wire Products Co. v. Ferguson, 384 So.2d 601, 603 (Miss. 1980).