Keith Bowdry v. City of Tupelo, Mississippi and Mississippi Municipal Workers' Comp Group

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2021-WC-00390-COA

KEITH BOWDRY APPELLANT

v.

CITY OF TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI AND APPELLEES
MISSISSIPPI MUNICIPAL WORKERS’ COMP
GROUP

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/09/2021
TRIBUNAL FROM WHICH MISSISSIPPI WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
APPEALED: COMMISSION
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: KEITH BOWDRY (PRO SE)
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: GEORGE E. READ
JOSEPH MILES FORKS
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 04/26/2022
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., WESTBROOKS AND LAWRENCE, JJ.

LAWRENCE, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Keith Bowdry (Bowdry) was employed as a patrolman for the City of Tupelo,

Mississippi. On April 21, 2017, Bowdry was injured while in pursuit of a burglary suspect

in Tupelo. He reported his injuries to his supervisor, and his attorney filed a “Workers’

Compensation First Report of Injury or Illness.” Bowdry was treated by multiple doctors and

underwent two surgeries for injuries to his left hand. Those treatments were covered by the

City of Tupelo (Employer) and Mississippi Municipal Workers’ Compensation Group

(Carrier). During this time, Bowdry also sought treatment from Dr. Glenn Crosby (Dr.

Crosby) for pain related to his neck. Bowdry sought to have the Employer pay for his
medical bills for Dr. Crosby, but the Employer refused, stating that Dr. Crosby was not an

authorized physician. On May 10, 2017, Bowdry filed a petition to controvert, seeking

payment for temporary disability related to injuries to his “left hand, left arm and left upper

extremities and back.” On March 6, 2019, Bowdry filed a second amended petition to

controvert, asking for payment for temporary disability related to his “left hand, left arm and

left upper extremities and back.” Bowdry added injuries to his “neck” and “right upper

extremity.” The Employer maintained that Bowdry’s neck claim was not related to his April

21, 2017 injury.

¶2. On June 2, 2020, an administrative judge (AJ) held a hearing on this matter. The AJ

found that Bowdry was not entitled to any additional benefits for his neck claim. Bowdry

filed a petition for review to the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission

(Commission). On March 9, 2021, the Commission affirmed the AJ’s decision. Bowdry

appealed, arguing (1) the AJ erred in finding Bowdry’s neck claims were not related to his

April 21, 2017 injury and by not awarding him additional benefits; and (2) the Commission

erred in concluding that Bowdry did not establish medical causation through expert testimony

about his neck claim. Upon review of the record, we affirm the findings of the Commission.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3. Prior to the April 21, 2017 injury at issue, Bowdry had three other work-related

injuries that the Employer covered. On April 15, 2011, Bowdry injured his head, neck, and

lower back in a motor vehicle accident while on duty. On August 17, 2013, Bowdry injured

his neck, arms, and legs while on duty. On December 23, 2015, Bowdry injured his neck,

2
back, shoulder, and “left upper extremity” while on duty. Then, on April 21, 2017, Bowdry

was injured while pursuing a burglary suspect on foot. Bowdry slipped and fell down a hill

“causing him to hurt his neck and back as well as his left hand.”1 On May 10, 2017, Bowdry

filed a petition to controvert (Petition). In the Petition, Bowdry listed his “[l]eft hand, left

arm and left upper extremities and back” as his injuries and sought damages for the

temporary disability these injuries caused. The Employer responded to Bowdry’s Petition,

stating that Bowdry was temporarily disabled and that Bowdry did sustain a “loss of wage

earning capacity.”

¶4. Between April 21, 2017, and July 27, 2017, Bowdry was treated by Dr. John White Jr.

at Work Clinic in Tupelo, Mississippi, who recommended physical therapy. Bowdry

received additional treatment from Dr. Eric Lewis at North Mississippi Sports Medicine and

Orthopedic Clinic. Bowdry complained of pain in his left hand from the April 21, 2017

injury to Dr. Lewis. An MRI performed on Bowdry’s left hand revealed multiple torn

tendons. On July 27, 2017, Dr. Lewis operated on Bowdry’s hand, performing a “left small

finger and left ring finger trigger finger release.” After the surgery, Bowdry’s hand was

treated with physical therapy and injections. On March 18, 2018, Dr. Lewis performed an

“endoscopic carpal tunnel release left side and a Neuroplasty and transposition, ulnar nerve

of [Bowdry’s] left elbow.”

¶5. While Bowdry was being treated by Dr. Lewis, he began seeking treatment from Dr.

Crosby for neck pain. Bowdry’s first visit was on July 28, 2017. In May 2018, Dr. Crosby

1
The “Workers’ Compensation First Report of Injury or Illness” named all of these
injuries. The report also classified the type of injury as a “strain” to the “upper back.”

3
contacted the Employer to request approval to perform a cervical MRI on Bowdry for

“injuries sustained in the April 21, 2017, work-related injury.” The Employer denied the

MRI request because Dr. Crosby was not an authorized physician.2 On March 6, 2019,

Bowdry filed an amended Petition and added “neck” to his list of “parts of the body involved

or injured.” On the same day, Bowdry filed a second amended Petition and listed his “neck”

and “right upper extremity” as “parts of the body involved or injured.” The Employer filed

an amended answer to Bowdry’s second amended Petition and denied that Bowdry “suffered

an injury to his right upper extremity.”

¶6. On October 18, 2019, Bowdry filed a motion for continuance for the hearing

originally set for November 20, 2019, to determine whether the Employer owed damages to

Bowdry for his alleged neck injury. Bowdry stated that he needed the continuance “due to

the fact that [Bowdry’s] treating physician Dr. Glenn Crosby . . . recently diagnosed

[Bowdry] with Cervical Radiculopathy and ordered that [he] undergo an MRI.”

Additionally, Bowdry stated that he needed the continuance so that he could be re-examined

by Dr. Crosby before having a hearing on the merits. The Employer filed its response on

October 22, 2019, arguing that Bowdry had ample time to pursue a neck claim arising out of

his April 2017 injury. The Employer also stated that if Bowdry has any “problems with his

neck, those relate to his three prior injuries.” The Commission continued the hearing to May

6, 2020, to allow Bowdry the time he needed to depose Dr. Crosby and gather other

2
The Employer claimed that it did not know Bowdry was seeking treatment from Dr.
Crosby until he asked the Employer for approval to perform the MRI.

4
necessary medical documentation.3

¶7. On June 1, 2020, Bowdry filed his pre-hearing statement. He claimed he suffered

injuries to his “neck, back, left hand, left arm, and left upper extremities.” Bowdry did not

attach a work search list, post-maximum-medical-improvement employment, vocational

reports, or stipulations. On June 2, 2020, the AJ held a hearing to determine whether the

Employer owed damages to Bowdry for his alleged neck injury. Throughout the hearing,

Bowdry’s attorney attempted to admit various documents into evidence. However, the

Employer objected to all of these documents claiming it was never shown those documents

prior to the hearing. The AJ marked all of the documents Bowdry presented for

identification only.4

¶8. On October 14, 2020, the AJ issued an order finding that Bowdry was not entitled to

any additional benefits. Specifically, the AJ found Bowdry’s “recent attempts to again link

his neck complaints to his current left-arm claim are simply attempts to turn a

scheduled-member claim into a whole person claim. The admitted evidence makes it clear

that any neck complaint is not related to this claim.” The AJ concluded that “[n]o medical

3
On April 23, 2020, Bowdry moved for an additional continuance because of the
COVID-19 pandemic. On April 24, 2020, the Employer filed its response and opposed
another continuance. Specifically, the Employer noted that the hearing had been set for after
Mississippi’s stay-at-home orders would be lifted. The hearing was ultimately continued to
June 2, 2020.
4
These documents included a letter from PERS approving him for medical
retirement, a history of present illness, multiple documents to show Dr. Crump had
scheduled an additional MRI, a prescription from Dr. Crosby requesting an MRI, proof of
an appointment with Dr. Neil Sloan to review his MRI, proof Bowdry “got [his] MRI done,”
and a document denying Bowdry Social Security benefits.

5
proof of causation on the neck claim was presented” and denied benefits for Bowdry’s neck

injury.

¶9. On October 23, 2020, Bowdry submitted a “Petition for Review of Order by Full

Commission.” He argued that the AJ erred in finding the Employer was not responsible for

his neck complaints and erred in finding that Bowdry failed to meet his burden of proof. He

also claimed that the AJ’s findings were “contrary to the credible evidence, contrary to the

overwhelming weight of the evidence, and contrary to the law.” Finally, Bowdry claimed

that the AJ’s findings were erroneous. On February 22, 2021, the Commission considered

Bowdry’s claim, and on March 9, 2021, the Commission issued an order, affirming the AJ’s

findings.

¶10. In its order, the Commission found that Bowdry “simply failed to prove by competent

evidence that his alleged neck injury was a result of his admitted work injury on April 21,

2017.” The Commission stated Bowdry did not present any “expert testimony or objective

medical evidence that his current complaints are related to his most recent injury.”

Additionally, the Commission found that Bowdry had been given a continuance and chose

not to depose Dr. Crosby or gather medical evidence to support his claim. The Commission

also reviewed the medical records that Bowdry presented at his original hearing, which had

all been marked for identification purposes only. The Commission stated: “Out of an

abundance of caution, the Commission has reviewed the medical records from Dr. Crosby

marked for identification purposes only. After review, we find that these records do not

establish that the Claimant’s current neck complaints are related to his admitted work injury

6
on April 21, 2017.”

¶11. Bowdry appealed the Commission’s findings. On appeal, Bowdry argues: (1) the AJ

erred in finding Bowdry’s neck claims were not related to his April 21, 2017 injury and by

not giving him additional benefits, and (2) the Commission erred in concluding that Bowdry

did not establish medical causation through expert testimony about his neck claim. Upon

review of the record, we affirm the Commission’s findings.

ANALYSIS

¶12. When reviewing a workers’ compensation case, this Court reviews the decision of the

Commission, “not that of the [AJ] . . . .” Sheffield v. S.J. Louis Constr. Inc., 285 So. 3d 614,

618 (¶8) (Miss. 2019) (quoting Short v. Wilson Meat House LLC, 36 So. 3d 1247, 1250 (¶16)

(Miss. 2010)).5 When reviewing the Commission’s decision, this Court employs a

substantial-evidence standard, but if the issue is a question of law and not fact, this Court

reviews the issue de novo. Forrest Gen. Hosp. v. Humphrey, 136 So. 3d 468, 471 (¶14)

(Miss. Ct. App. 2014). “Absent an error of law, we must affirm the Commission’s decision

if there is substantial evidence to support the Commission’s decision.” Gas v. Edmonds, 167

So. 3d 1258, 1262 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Hugh Dancy Co. v. Mooneyham, 68

So. 3d 76, 79 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)). This Court will not “evaluate or re-weigh the

evidence.” Sheffield, 285 So. 3d at 618 (¶8). “It is well-settled law in this State that the

Commission is the ultimate finder of fact in workers’ compensation cases, and where

substantial credible evidence supports the Commission’s decision, then, absent an error of

5
Because we only review the Commission’s findings, we decline to address
Bowdry’s claims about the AJ’s findings.

7
law, the decision must stand without judicial interference.” Eichhorn v. Kroger Co., 325 So.

3d 692, 695 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Hayes v. Howard Indus. Inc., 284 So. 3d

787, 793 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019)). “Substantial evidence consists of sufficient evidence

for reasonable minds to accept as adequate to support the Commission’s conclusion.”

Sheffield, 285 So. 3d at 618 (¶8). If the Commission’s decision is not supported by

substantial evidence, it is considered arbitrary and capricious, and it will not be upheld. Id.

¶13. Here, the Commission affirmed the AJ’s order denying Bowdry additional benefits.

As support, the Commission found: (1) Bowdry failed to “prove by competent evidence that

his alleged neck injury was a result of his admitted work injury on April 21, 2017”; (2)

Bowdry had a “complex medical history” consisting of three prior workers’ compensation

claims involving injuries to his neck, which required him to establish medical causation

through expert testimony and medical findings; (3) Bowdry failed to provide any expert

testimony or medical evidence to prove his neck complaints are related to his April 21, 2017

injury; and (4) Bowdry failed to depose Dr. Crosby or produce additional medical evidence

to support his claims, even though he had been granted continuances to do so. Further, “out

of an abundance of caution,” the Commission reviewed “the medical records from Dr.

Crosby marked for identification purposes only.” The Commission concluded that the

records did not establish that Bowdry’s neck complaints were related to his work-related

injury on April 21, 2017.

¶14. The Commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. Bowdry failed

to provide any admissible evidence of medical records or expert testimony. He testified at

8
the hearing in front of the AJ, but his testimony was not enough to prove his neck injury was

related to his work-related injury on April 21, 2017. “[I]n all but the simple and routine cases

it is necessary to establish medical causation by expert testimony.” Burton v. Nissan N. Am.,

305 So. 3d 1163, 1170 (¶22) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (finding appellant with pre-existing back

pain had to prove by medical evidence or expert testimony that his disability had a causal

connection to his employment). Bowdry had a history of three prior work-related injuries to

his neck, so he had to provide an expert witness or medical evidence. However, Bowdry did

not provide any expert testimony relating his neck injury to the incident before the

Commission. Neither Dr. Crosby nor Dr. Sloan, the doctor who was to review Bowdry’s

MRI, testified. Bowdry also failed to provide any medical evidence. The documents he did

attempt to introduce were marked for identification only. However, the Commission

reviewed those documents and found that those documents, even if admitted, did not

establish that Bowdry’s neck claims were “related to his admitted work injury on April 21,

2017.” Therefore, we find that there is substantial evidence to support the Commission’s

finding that Bowdry “failed to prove by competent evidence that his alleged neck injury was

a result of his admitted work injury on April 21, 2017.”

CONCLUSION

¶15. Upon review of the record, this Court affirms the Commission’s decision that Bowdry

failed to provide substantial evidence that his neck claim was related to his work-related

injury on April 21, 2017.

¶16. AFFIRMED.

9
BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE,
WESTBROOKS, McDONALD, McCARTY, SMITH AND EMFINGER, JJ.,
CONCUR.

10