 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Booth v. Sears Roebuck5/24/2000
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
AFFIRMED
Jimmie Booth sustained a compensable back injury on March 25, 1996, while moving a washing machine in his employment as an appliance salesman for appellee. Appellant underwent surgery for a herniated disc and received a nine percent permanent impairment rating. Although he returned to work on a part-time and light-duty basis, appellant earned less money in his commission sales job . The ALJ awarded appellant a fifty percent wage-loss disability, but the Commission modified this award by reducing it to eight percent. Appellant argues that the Commission's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree and affirm.
Sixty-one-year-old appellant completed three years of undergraduate studies in economics and mathematics but did not receive a degree. He owned a couple of furniture and appliance stores before accepting employment with appellee in 1994. When appellant injured his back moving a washing machine, appellee accepted the claim as compensable. Appellant's family doctor referred him to Dr. J. Zachary Mason, a neurosurgeon, who diagnosed appellant as having a herniated disc. Dr. Mason performed a lumbar laminotomy in June 1996, and appellant returned to work in August 1996 with restrictions on prolonged standing, sitting, bending, stooping or straining, and with no lifting in excess of forty to fifty pounds. Appellee complied with those restrictions by providing appellant flexible hours, light duty, and a chair to sit in as needed. However, appellant complained that he missed sales and could not work as many hours as he had prior to the injury . In modifying the ALJ's awarding of a fifty percent wage-loss disability, the Commission noted that the medical evidence attributed appellant's condition to the diabetes he had been diagnosed with in 1989 rather than his 1996 injury and subsequent surgery. As a result the Commission found that appellant had failed to prove that his injury was the major cause of disability from his current back pain. On the other hand, the Commission found that appellant had proven that the injury was the major cause of work- related disability due to the post-surgery activity restrictions. However, the Commission decided that these restrictions had only a small impact on appellant's future earning capacity considering the fact that appellee had made permanent light-duty work available within appellant's restrictions; that appellant's work history was in sales and not manual labor; and that appellant had chosen to work fewer hours without having been specifically restricted in such a way by his doctors. Considering other factors as well, the Commission found that appellant had sustained an eight percent wage-loss due to his back injury alone. All other findings by the ALJ were affirmed by the Commission.
When reviewing decisions from the Workers' Compensation Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission's finding and affirm if supported by substantial evidence. Welch's Laundry & Cleaners v. Clark, 38 Ark. App. 223, 832 S.W.2d 283 (1992). A decision by the Commission should not be reversed unless it is clear that fair-minded persons could not have reached the same conclusion if presented with the same facts. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999). The issue on review is not whether we might have reached a different result or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary finding; if reasonable minds could reach the Commission's conclusion, we must affirm its decision. Meister v. Safety Kleen, 339 Ark. 91, 3 S.W.3d 320 (1999).
Appellant argues that the C
Page 1 2 Arkansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|