Background
Sandra Thompson worked for Boyd Biloxi, LLC as a casino dealer and supervisor since 2012. Beginning in 2021, she experienced right shoulder pain from the repetitive movements required by her job—dealing cards and spinning roulette wheels. She sought medical treatment in April 2021 and was diagnosed with right shoulder impingement syndrome, which physicians treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and periodic cortisone injections that initially provided relief.
In February 2024, after exhausting injection treatments, Thompson underwent an MRI that revealed structural damage: a labral tear and biceps tendon tear. On March 5, 2024, she reported her injury to her supervisor. On July 13, 2024—over three years after first seeking treatment—Thompson filed a petition for workers’ compensation benefits. Boyd Biloxi moved to dismiss the claim as barred by Mississippi’s two-year statute of limitations, arguing that Thompson was on notice of a compensable injury when she saw an orthopedic specialist in July 2021.
The Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed the dismissal, finding that a reasonable person in Thompson’s position would have recognized the compensable character of her injury by July 2021, when she described progressive worsening and noted that work duties exacerbated her pain. Thompson appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed, holding that for progressive work-related injuries, the statute of limitations does not begin running until the claimant becomes aware of a “disabling injury”—not merely work-related pain or symptoms. The court emphasized that Mississippi law requires a compensable injury to be a “disabling injury” that actually incapacitates the worker from employment, and the limitations period runs only from the time such a disabling injury becomes reasonably apparent.
The court distinguished between knowledge of symptoms and knowledge of a disabling injury. Thompson knew she had shoulder pain linked to work, but her medical providers did not diagnose the structural damage—the labral and biceps tendon tears—until the February 2024 MRI. Prior to that diagnosis, her only condition was impingement syndrome, which responded to conservative treatment with injections; she missed no work and received treatment that “gave her significant improvement.” Only after the MRI and Dr. Salloum’s recommendation for surgery did Thompson learn of the actual disabling injury requiring intervention.
The court rejected the Commission’s reliance on Thompson’s 2021 medical records noting that work activities exacerbated her pain, finding that neither Thompson nor her physicians understood at that time that she had suffered a structural tear. As the court noted: “Prior to filing a motion to controvert, [she] never had reason to foresee or ascertain that she was likely to be incapacitated from work.” The court applied precedent from cases like *Taplin* (degenerative disc condition) and *Panuska* (labyrinthine concussion), where the statute did not begin running until the specific disabling injury was diagnosed, even though the claimant experienced symptoms earlier.
Key Takeaways
- For progressive work-related injuries, the statute of limitations runs from the time a “disabling injury” becomes reasonably apparent, not from when symptoms begin or when work-relatedness is suspected.
- Medical documentation that work exacerbates pain does not start the statute of limitations clock if the actual disabling injury has not yet been diagnosed.
- A claimant’s awareness of work-related symptoms—even those requiring medical treatment—does not constitute notice of compensability if physicians cannot yet identify structural damage or permanent incapacity.
- Mississippi law does not penalize workers when they and their physicians cannot confirm the specific nature of a compensable injury through timely diagnosis.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly protects workers with progressive or latent occupational injuries. Many work-related conditions—repetitive stress injuries, degenerative conditions, structural damage from chronic strain—may cause symptoms for months or years before imaging or specialist evaluation reveals the underlying disabling injury. The court’s holding prevents employers from using symptomatic early treatment as evidence that the statute has begun, forcing workers to guess at the two-year deadline based on pain rather than diagnosis. This is particularly important in occupational health, where the distinction between “wear and tear” and “disabling injury” may depend on diagnostic technology or specialist evaluation.
The ruling clarifies Mississippi’s approach to compensability in workers’ compensation claims: mere awareness of work-related symptoms does not trigger filing obligations. Instead, workers and their counsel must focus on when medical providers actually diagnose a disabling injury—the labral tear, the structural defect, the permanent limitation—not when pain began. This standard aligns Mississippi law with the principle that the statute should not penalize workers for the timeline of medical discovery, provided they act diligently once the injury is properly diagnosed.