 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
S & S Construction5/24/2000
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
AFFIRMED
This is the second appeal to our court in this matter. In the first appeal, we remanded to the Workers' Compensation Commission. Appellant S & S Construction, Inc. appeals the award of benefits by the Workers' Compensation Commission to appellee Jerry Coplin ("Coplin"), and the Commission's holding that appellee Second Injury Fund ("Fund") had no liability. Appellant contends that there is no substantial evidence to support the Commission's determination that (1) Coplin was rendered permanently and totally disabled as a result of his on-the-job injury, and (2) the Fund had no liability for Coplin's award. We affirm.
This court reviews decisions of the Workers' Compensation Commission to see if they are supported by substantial evidence. Deffenbaugh Indus. v. Angus, 39 Ark. App. 24, 832 S.W.2d 869 (1992). Substantial evidence is that relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Wright v. ABC Air, Inc., 44 Ark. App. 5, 864 S.W.2d 871 (1993). The issue is not whether this court might have reached a different result from that reached by the Commission, or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary finding. This court will not reverse the Commission's decision unless fair-minded persons considering the same facts could not have reached the same conclusion. Golden v. Westark Community College, 333 Ark. 41, 969 S.W.2d 154 (1998). It is the function of the Commission to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Jeter v. B.R. McGinty Mechanical, 62 Ark. App. 53, 968 S.W.2d 645 (1998). However, the Commission may not arbitrarily disregard any witness's testimony. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. v. Brock, 63 Ark. App. 118, 975 S.W.2d 857 (1998). It is the responsibility of the Commission to draw inferences when the testimony is open to more than a single interpretation, whether controverted or uncontroverted, and when it does so, its findings have the force and effect of a jury verdict. Service Chevrolet v. Atwood, 61 Ark. App. 190, 966 S.W.2d 909 (1998).
Appellee Coplin was at work in appellant's employ on March 25, 1992, and sustained a back injury when another employee lost his grip on a ladder, resulting in the ladder striking Coplin in the back. Coplin testified that it struck him near the waistband area of his back; he lost consciousness for a short period of time; and, when he regained consciousness, the ladder was being removed from his back. He was referred to an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Grimes, who assessed him as having disc herniation at L4-5. After attempting two months of conservative treatment, on May 26, 1993, Dr. Grimes performed a lumbar fusion. Coplin was released to return to light-duty work in January of 1994, but Coplin was informed that he had been laid off. Though he testified that he still suffered from significant back trouble, he stated that he wanted to try to go back to work when he was released to return to work on light duty. Coplin testified that, at the time of the hearing, he continued to have pain on a daily basis and that his physical activities were severely restricted since his last injury. He could not lift anything, he could not perform housework, he had difficulty in staying in any position for extended periods of time, and his gait had become unsteady. Coplin was then receiving social security disability benefits and some small amount each month from the Teamsters Union. Appellant accepted the claim as compensable, paying all related medical expenses, temporary total disability benefits, and a twenty- percent permanent partial disability rating as assessed by Dr. Grimes.
On December 13, 1996,
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.
|
|