We recognized that "it is a rare day when we will reverse the Commission for an action taken in the implementation and enforcement of its own procedural rules ...." (Internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Pennington v. U.S. Gypsum Co. , 722 So. 2d 162, 165 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) ). We will not do so here.
Moreover, mere denial of receipt is insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.Pennington v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 722 So.2d 162, 165 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App.1998) (citations and quotation marks omitted). ¶ 29.
Moreover, mere denial of receipt is insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.Pennington v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 722 So. 2d 162, 165 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (citations and quotation marks omitted). ¶29.
Further, this Court has stated that "it is a rare day when we will reverse the Commission for an action taken in the implementation and enforcement of its own procedural rules. . . ." Pennington v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 722 So.2d 162, 165 (¶ 17) (Miss. Ct App. 1998) (quoting Delta Drilling Co. v. Cannette, 489 So.2d 1378, 1380-81 (Miss. 1986)).
Moreover, the right to reopen a claim in such a situation is within the discretion of the Commission, and the burden is upon the party alleging a change in the claimant's medical condition to prove that change by a preponderance of the evidence.Pennington v. U.S. Gypsum Co. and USG Interiors, Inc., 722 So.2d 162 (¶ 12) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (from Dunn, Mississippi Workmen's Compensation § 336 (3d ed. 1990)). ¶ 18. Additionally, noted treatises are also cited in Mississippi case law regarding the Commission's authority to reopen a case.