 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Estridge v. Waste Management5/17/2000
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
AFFIRMED
Appellant Jack Estridge appeals the denial of benefits by the Workers' Compensation Commission regarding an injury to his back that he alleged occurred while in the employ of appellee Waste Management. The administrative law judge determined that appellant sustained a compensable aggravation to his pre-existing degenerative condition for which he was entitled to benefits. After a reversal of that decision by the Commission, appellant appealed to this court. We affirm.
In reviewing the Commission's decision on a question of fact, we will affirm the Commission if its decision is supported by substantial evidence; substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Branscum v. RNR Constr. Co., 60 Ark. App. 116, 959 S.W.2d 429 (1998). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission and is given its strongest probative value in favor of the Commission's decision. Barrett v. Arkansas Rehabilitation Servs., 10 Ark. App. 102, 661 S.W.2d 439 (1983). The question is not whether the appellate court might have reached a different conclusion from the one found by the Commission if it were reviewing the case de novo, or even whether the evidence would have supported a contrary finding. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Disheroon, 26 Ark. App. 145, 761 S.W.2d 617 (1988). The Commission's decision should not be reversed unless it is clear that fair-minded person could not have reached the same conclusions if presented with the same facts. Johnson v. Democrat Printing and Lithograph, 57 Ark. App. 274, 944 S.W.2d 138 (1997).
As applied to this case, appellant had the burden to prove an accidental injury , caused by a specific incident that was identifiable by time and place of occurrence, that required medical services, arising out of the employment. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(5)(A) (Repl. 1996). To be compensable, appellant's back injury had to be established by medical evidence supported by objective medical findings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(5)(D). Objective medical findings are those that cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. Id. The burden of proof of a compensable injury is on the employee. Ark. Code Ann. § 11- 9-102(5)(E).
Appellant contended that he sustained a compensable injury to his back on September 28, 1994, when he was carrying and nearly dropped a railroad crosstie. Appellee contended that appellant either (1) did not sustain his burden of proving a work-related injury with objective medical findings or, (2) in the alternative, if appellant did prove a work-related injury, he needed surgery only due to a pre-existing condition and not an aggravation of that condition.
The evidence presented by the parties revealed the following events. Appellant, who at the time was in his mid-forties, reported the crosstie incident to appellee and was referred to Dr. Owens, who diagnosed appellant with a low back strain and radicular pain. This course of events is not in dispute. Dr. Owens documented no objective medical findings to support this diagnosis, but he prescribed Valium "as needed for muscle spasms." Radiographic studies revealed mild to moderate degenerative and hypertrophic changes. While no mention was made by the radiologist, Dr. Owens noted that the x-ray showed a straightening of the lordotic curve. Appellant was returned to work light duty, but an MRI was subsequently ordered when his pain failed to resolve. The MRI report stated that appellant appeared to have herniated discs at L4-5 and L5-S1.
A referral to neurosurgeon Dr. Mason followed, whose diagnostic tests revealed the sa
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.
|
|