 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stone County v. Jason9/1/2004
major cause of Sheriff Jason's back pain is, in fact, the injury of March 13, 1999. Of course, this assumes that there was no recent back problem shortly preceding that time." He noted that the annular tear at L5-S1 appeared to be a more acute problem, the disc not being significantly disrupted internally and there being a discrete tear present. He believed this finding to be more compatible with a shorter term problem than a more degenerated disrupted disc would be. Regarding objective findings, Dr. Valentine noted the following: (1) a disc protrusion present at L4-5 and L5-S1, as indicated by the MRI; (2) an extremely obvious annular tear in the disc at L5-S1 with high intensity zone present; (3) the disc disruption and annular tear as indicated by the discogram. Dr. Valentine stated that the medical evidence strongly suggested that appellee's problems were primarily a result of his accident in 1999.
Appellee contended that he was entitled to compensation for the IDET procedure and to continuing medical treatment. Appellants contended that further medical treatment, including the IDET procedure, was not reasonably necessary in connection with appellee's compensable injury .
Appellee's medical records were also reviewed by Dr. Jim Moore, who wrote to appellants' attorney on April 16, 2002: "It is not my opinion that IDET is an appropriate procedure to recommend for disk degeneration . . . . I am not a [believer] in high intensity zone . . . . There can be tears in the annulus but I feel that the reports that I reviewed tend to exaggerate the importance of such a radiographic finding."
The Commission found that the IDET procedure was reasonably necessary medical treatment, and affirmed the ALJ's award of benefits. Appellants argue on appeal that there is no substantial evidence to support the decision of the Commission. They contend that appellee has a degenerative back condition resulting from injuries he sustained in 1989, that appellee continued to experience the effects of his 1989 accident through the time of his 1999 accident and beyond, and that the symptoms of which appellee complained, which ultimately led to the IDET procedure being performed, were a result of appellee's degenerative disc disease that developed from the 1989 injury , not the 1999 injury. Appellants also point out Dr. Moore's opinion that the IDET procedure was not appropriate for appellee's situation.
The standard of review in workers' compensation cases is well settled. When reviewing a decision of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission and affirm that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Cox v. Klipsch & Assocs., 71 Ark. App. 433, 30 S.W.3d 764 (2000). Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. The issue is not whether this court might have reached a different result from the Commission; the Commission's decision should not be reversed unless it is clear that fair-minded persons could not have reached the same conclusions if presented with the same facts. Horticare Landscape Management v. McDonald, 80 Ark. App. 45, 89 S.W.3d 375 (2002); Wheeler Constr. Co. v. Armstrong, 73 Ark. App. 146, 41 S.W.3d 822 (2001).
Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-508(a) (Supp. 1999) requires employers to provide such medical services as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the employee's injury. What constitutes reasonably necessary medical treatment is a question of fact for the Commission. Air Compressor Equip. v. Sword, 69 Ark. App. 162, 11 S.W.3d 1 (2
Page 1 2 3 Arkansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|