Pennington v. U.S. Gypsum Co.

5 Citing cases

  1. Darty v. Gulfport-Biloxi Reg'l Airport Auth.

    345 So. 3d 1214 (Miss. Ct. App. 2022)

    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.

  2. Leggett & Platt v. Brinkley

    150 So. 3d 106 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that proper filing of a Form B–31 triggers the statute of limitations (citing McCrimon v. Red Arrow Car Wash, 859 So.2d 395, 398 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2003); McLemore v. Jackson Tile Mfg. Co., 252 So.2d 781, 783 (Miss.1971))

    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.

  3. Leggett & Platt v. Brinkley

    NO. 2014-WC-00051-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2013)

    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.

  4. Garcia v. Super

    975 So. 2d 267 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 5 times

    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)).

  5. J.R. Logging v. Halford

    765 So. 2d 580 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that a circuit court judgment that holds that an agency definitely erred, and that remands the case back to the agency for further proceedings, is "a final judgment subject to further review at the Supreme Court"

    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.