Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Kenneth Nixon v. Howard Industries, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

Decided June 19, 2018No. 2017–WC–01478–COAPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CARLTON, J., CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART:

¶ 24. I concur in part because I, like the majority, would reverse the judgment of the Commission. I, however, would reverse the Commission's findings and render judgment in favor of Howard Industries because the record reflects that Nixon failed to show that he suffered a loss of wage-earning capacity and permanent disability. Precedent reflects that the degree of disability is determined by (1) actual physical injury; and (2) loss of wage earning capacity. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. McKinnon , 507 So.2d 363 , 365 (Miss. 1987) ; Wilcher v. D.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. General Elec. Co. v. McKinnonMississippi Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Dunn v. DunnMississippi Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Agee v. Bay Springs Forest Products, Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Brock v. Hankins Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Mississippi · 2000
  5. Weathersby v. Mississippi Baptist Health Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of Mississippi · 2016

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API