A food maker fought the payout by blaming her job hunt - the court wasn't buying
Packing frozen burritos left a worker with disabling injuries to both hands - and Mississippi's appeals court said her employer must pay.
The Court of Appeals of Mississippi affirmed on July 28, 2026 a workers' compensation award to a former production worker at Ajinomoto Foods North America.
The employee started on an Ajinomoto line in September 2018, stuffing and folding burritos by hand. She later moved to "pack-out," boxing flash-frozen burritos at speed in cotton gloves over latex. The cold product caused hand pain, which she reported to a supervisor. Testimony split on what followed: the supervisor said she handed over extra gloves; the worker said she was refused them.
She saw a doctor, was cleared, and returned to the line. Her last day was September 30, 2019. The next day she left a voicemail with HR saying she could not come in because of arthritis. The HR coordinator asked for a doctor's note. She never called again, and under the company's "no call, no show" policy she was treated as having voluntarily resigned.
Weeks later a physician diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome in both hands and operated on her right. In December 2019 she filed a workplace-injury claim. Over the next few years, her treating doctor also found carpal tunnel in her left hand and arthritis in both, and performed a second surgery.
Both sides' doctors agreed the carpal tunnel came from her work. Her treating physician assigned an 8% impairment to each hand and barred repetitive use and lifting over ten pounds. The employer's expert imposed lighter restrictions and released her left arm to full duty. A vocational expert lined up 34 light-duty job leads within 35 miles of her home.
The Workers' Compensation Commission found a total occupational loss of use in both hands, plus work-related osteoarthritis, and awarded permanent total disability benefits.
Ajinomoto and its insurer appealed. They argued she never ran a serious job search - 66 applications drew a single callback - so she should not get the presumption of total disability. They also said the arthritis was unrelated to her job.
The court rejected both. Under state precedent, a worker can prove total occupational loss two ways: by a failed job search, or by showing she cannot do the substantial acts of her usual work. Once the second is shown, no job-search proof is needed. On the arthritis, the court deferred to the Commission, which had credited the treating physician's view that the work "aggravated or accelerated" it.
