 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnson v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation5/10/2000
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
DIRECT APPEAL IS AFFIRMED
CROSS APPEAL IS AFFIRMED
The appellant, Charles Johnson, appeals the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission, which affirmed and adopted the Administrative Law Judge's opinion. The Commission found that appellant had failed to prove entitlement to permanent, total disability benefits and that the "odd lot" doctrine does not apply to this case. The Commission awarded appellant a 20% wage-earning capacity loss. On appeal, appellant presents the following arguments: (1) that this court should not consider a surveillance videotape as evidence because appellee failed to present a narrative of it, thereby making it impossible to abstract; (2) that the Commission erred in finding that the "odd lot" doctrine does not apply to this case; and (3) that even if this court were to consider the videotape, the Commission still erred in failing to find appellant permanently and totally disabled. On cross-appeal, appellee argues that the Commission's finding that appellee controverted payment of anatomical impairment in excess of 10% is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
Appellant has been a power plant mechanic for over 25 years. His specialty is welding. He sustained a compensable low back injury in 1981. After surgery in 1983, he was able to continue working. In the 1990s, he began to have intermittent back pain. He worked light duty, with lifting, bending, and stooping restrictions. His back and left leg pain became worse, and he was finally diagnosed with a herniated disc. He refused to have surgery in 1992, opting for more conservative treatment. He received a 10% permanent impairment rating in 1994. In 1996, he was removed from work. In 1997, he had surgery, but it was not successful, and his pain continued. Dr. Saer opined that appellant reached maximum medical improvement in January 1998. In July 1998, Dr. Saer increased appellant's rating to 15% to the whole body, for the 1997 surgery. Appellee accepted the 15% impairment rating.
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 findings and affirm if supported by substantial evidence. Welch's Laundry & Cleaners v. Clark, 38 Ark. App. 223, 832 S.W.2d 283 (1992). Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. City of Fort Smith v. Brooks, 40 Ark. App. 120, 842 S.W.2d 463 (1992). A decision by the Workers' Compensation Commission should not be reversed unless it is clear that fair-minded persons could not have reached the same conclusions if presented with the same facts. Silvicraft, Inc. v. Lambert, 10 Ark. App. 28, 661 S.W.2d 403 (1983).
For appellant's first point on appeal, he contends that this court should not consider a surveillance videotape of appellant as evidence because appellee failed to present a narrative of it, thereby making it impossible to abstract. In reaching its determination regarding appellant's permanent disability status, the Commission relied heavily upon the surveillance videotape of appellant performing tasks that the Commission found to be inconsistent with appellant's claim of permanent and total disability. Now, appellant contends that it would be inappropriate for this court to consider the videotape in deciding whether substantial evidence supports the Commission's findings and conclusions.
Although appellant did not object to the admission of the videotape below, appellant now suggests that it was appellee's duty at the hearing to provide testimonial evidence in the form of
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.
|
|