 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bell v. Pine Bluff Toyota5/24/2000
ously submitted on this patient.
Dr. Scott Harter compared the myelogram and post-myelogram CT scans taken on March 28, 1994, and March 27, 1997, to determine whether there had been any significant change after the October 18, 1996, back injury . In a letter dated December 29, 1997, Dr. Harter opined that there had been a slight improvement in the L5-S1 disc herniation between 1994 and 1997, but no other significant changes were evident.
We disagree with the Commission's conclusion that there were no objective findings of appellant's October 1996 injury . Although Dr. Miles's NCV/EMG studies reflected recent irritation following the October 18, 1996, accident, the Commission found that there was virtually no change in appellant's physical condition as a result of the compensable injury, and that there was no evidence that the recent irritation noted by Dr. Miles resulted from the compensable injury and not from appellant's pre-existing, underlying condition. We believe that recent irritation reflected on the NCV/EMG studies is an objective finding that could not come under appellant's voluntary control.
Nevertheless, we agree with the Commission that appellant cannot prevail because he has failed to meet his burden of proving that his 1996 injury was the major cause of his disability. "Major cause" is defined as more than fifty percent of the cause. Ark. Code Ann. ยง 11-9- 102(14)(A) (Repl. 1996). Appellant had undergone two back surgeries prior to suffering his compensable injury in 1996. The Commission found that given appellant's chronic lower-back problems that necessitated surgical intervention prior to the compensable injury, it could not find that the October 18, 1996, incident was the major cause of any changes detected through the NCV/EMG. We cannot say that this finding is not supported by substantial evidence.
Affirmed.
Robbins, C.J., and Bird, J., agree.
|