 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
White v. Russellville Company5/10/2000
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
AFFIRMED
Appellant, Jerry White, appeals from the Workers' Compensation Commission decision denying his claims for reclassification of benefits for impairment to earning capacity exceeding his permanent physical impairment rating, and for enhanced benefits pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-505(a)(1)(Repl. 1996). We affirm the decision of the Commission.
Jerry White suffered an admittedly compensable work-related back injury on April 10, 1996. On July 2, 1996, Dr. Terry Green performed a decompression and diskectomy on the right side at L4-5. Dr. Green returned appellant to light-duty work on August 19, 1996. On September 13, 1996, Dr. Green opined that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement, released him to full-duty employment, and assessed a nine percent whole-body permanent physical impairment. Appellee accepted this permanent impairment rating without question.
When appellant returned to full-time duty on September 16, 1996, he was involved in an altercation with a co-worker, Roy Griffin, who was also his father-in-law, because he heard that Griffin had accused him of being a "wife-beater." As a result of this altercation, both appellant and Griffin were terminated for violating appellee's policy that prohibits fighting on company property.
Subsequent to his termination, appellant began to experience pain in his left leg and was referred to Dr. Thomas Fletcher, a neurological surgeon. Dr. Fletcher ordered an MRI, which revealed a recurrent lumbar disc herniation with adhesions and scarring at the L4-5 level. It was Dr. Fletcher's opinion that these problems stemmed from appellant's April 1996 work-related accident. On September 11, 1997, Dr. Fletcher performed surgery to remove the disc. Dr. Fletcher opined that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement on January 26, 1998, and assessed a fifteen percent permanent impairment to the body as a whole. Appellee accepted the increased permanent impairment as well.
Appellant requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) on the issues of whether the benefits paid between his first and second surgeries should have been classified as permanent partial disability payments or temporary total disability; whether he sustained any impairment to his earning capacity in excess of the fifteen percent permanent physical impairment accepted by appellee; and whether the respondent unreasonably refused to return appellant to work, thus entitling him to enhanced benefits under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-505(a)(1) (Repl. 1996). The ALJ ruled against appellant on all issues; the Commission affirmed and adopted that decision. Appellant appeals to this court, arguing that the Commission erred on all three points.
On appeal, this court must determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the Commission's result. Harvest Foods v. Washam, 52 Ark. App. 72, 914 S.W.2d 776 (1996). Substantial evidence is that relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. 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-mi
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.
|
|