BEFORE ROY NOBLE LEE, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON
ROY NOBLE LEE, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
This appeal comes from an order of the Circuit Court of Winston County denying workmen's compensation benefits to Etta Parrott. The administrative law judge awarded compensation and, upon petition for review, the Full Commission reversed the order of the administrative judge and denied the claim.
Appellant, age 66, was a shift leader at Winston County Community Hospital & Nursing Home. On July 24, 1979, she was standing at a mixer table and caught her toe under a cord, causing her to fall on the floor and fracture her right hip. She was twenty percent (20%) temporarily partially disabled and sustained a ten percent (10%) permanent partial impairment to the right lower extremity.
Answering the motion to controvert, Winston County Community Hospital & Nursing Home affirmatively pled that, by virtue of its status as an agency of the State of Mississippi, it was excluded from the statutory requirement that workmen's compensation coverage be obtained for its employees.
With reference to the affirmative defense, the adminstrative law judge found the following:
(a) That directly across the street from Winston County Nursing Home was a privately owned nursing home that was required to carry workmen's compensation coverage in compliance with the Laws of the State of Mississippi; and
(b) That as a result of the Winston County Community Hospital and Nursing Home relying on their exemption under Mississippi Code Annotated, Section 71-3-5 (1972) of not being required to provide workmen's compensation benefits, placed the defendant in a position of having a competitive advantage over the private nursing home across the street; and
(c) That the employees of the defendant did not have the advantage of having the benefits under the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, as did the employees directly across the street at the private nursing home; and * * * *
(d) That the nursing home is too far removed from governmental functions to rely on the principal [sic] of sovereign immunity; and
(e) That although the defendant's premises were financed by county issued bonds, the defendant made payments from income received for services to retire said bonds; and
(f) That even though the defendant placed the profit in the funded depreciation account, the fact is that a profit was made; therefore, the defendant was not a charitable institution administered solely for charity, but rather acting more in a proprietary rather than governmental capacity.
In view of the above and in the benefit of public policy, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is not applicable and the defendant's reliance on same is without merit; therefore, the defendant is subject to the provisions of the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended.
The appellant contends (1) that the appellee was not engaged in a governmental function and was in direct competition with private enterprise and (2) that sovereign immunity should not be applicable in this cause.
Assuming arguendo that appellee was not engaged in a governmental function and was operating in a proprietary manner, we are not persuaded by appellant's argument and in his reliance ...