 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stone County v. Jason9/1/2004
000). The claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to the treatment for which he is seeking compensation. See Dalton v. Allen Eng'g Co., 66 Ark. App. 201, 989 S.W.2d 543 (1999).
Appellants argue that the 1989 incident is the cause of appellee's present problems, and point out that the only testimony supporting appellee's claims is that of appellee himself and of Dr. Valentine. They contend that Dr. Valentine based his entire opinion on his speculation that appellee had not experienced significant back trouble for around eleven months prior to the March 13, 1999, accident, and that speculation and conjecture cannot substitute for credible evidence. They also argue that appellee's own testimony was self-serving.
Appellants fail to recognize that questions of credibility and the weight and sufficiency to be given evidence are matters within the province of the Commission. See Smith-Blair, Inc. v. Jones, 77 Ark. App. 273, 72 S.W.3d 560 (2002). The Commission has the right to believe or disbelieve the testimony of the claimant or any other witness, and may accept and translate into findings of fact only that portion of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief. Teague v. C & J Chem. Co., 55 Ark. App. 335, 935 S.W.2d 605 (1996). Furthermore, the Commission has the duty of weighing the medical evidence as it does any other evidence, and its resolution of the medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sands, 80 Ark. App. 51, 91 S.W.3d 93 (2002).
The Commission noted that appellee was involved in an automobile accident in 1989 and that he was shown to have degenerative disc disease at L4-5 and L5-S1 in 1992. However, the Commission went on to specifically note that appellee credibly testified that he had recovered from the 1989 accident. The Commission also made specific mention of the medical opinions that conflicted with that of Dr. Valentine: "The Full Commission recognized Dr. McBride's opinion in 2001 that the claimant's continued complaints of pain were related to degenerative disk disease. We also note Dr. Moore's subsequent opinion that IDET was not an appropriate treatment option for the claimant." The Commission announced that it attached more weight to the opinion of Dr. Valentine, noting that Dr. Valentine became claimant's primary treating physician, that he described an annular tear at L5-S1 following the compensable injury , and that the doctor's description of an annular tear was objectively confirmed by a post-discogram CT scan taken in October 2001. The Commission also noted that Dr. Valentine had recommended the IDET procedure and that claimant credibly testified that his condition improved following that treatment.
On this record, we cannot say that there is no substantial evidence to support the finding of the Commission that the IDET procedure was reasonably necessary medical treatment. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Bird and Griffen, JJ., agree.
|