 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Boudreaux v. GLI Holding Company5/3/2000
ant was seen by numerous physicians and treated at a comprehensive spinal program without success.
The Commission stated in its opinion that "while the chiropractic manipulations have offered claimant some benefit in the past, the evidence reveals that the benefit has only been temporary. . . . There is no evidence that claimant has received any type of permanent relief from the treatment rendered by Dr. Creel." We believe the temporary nature of the relief afforded by chiropractic treatment, standing alone, is not a reasonable basis for denying claimant these treatments, in the absence of any evidence that a more permanent alternative is available. See Haney v. Smith, Doyle & Winters, 46 Ark. App. 212, 878 S.W.2d 775 (1994). Therefore, we reverse on this point.
Appellant also argues that the Commission erred in finding that appellees are not responsible for that portion of Dr. Creel's bill related to treatment for his cervical complaints. He contends that Dr. Creel's adjustments are to his entire back, from his lower back through his neck, and that the issue of isolating the neck complaints was not raised at this hearing or at any earlier hearing in this case. However, appellant acknowledges there has been no finding that he sustained an injury to his cervical spine on January 12, 1991. Moreover, there is evidence is that appellee hurt his neck in June 1990, and his back in January 1991; and there is also evidence that Dr. Creel treated appellant for neck and back pain in the 1980s.
From the record before us, we have no way of knowing whether any part of Dr. Creel's charges are for appellant's 1990 neck injury or whether the charges relate fully to the 1991 compensable injury. Dr. Creel's correspondence indicates that he is treating appellant's lumbar and cervical areas, and appellant also testified that Dr. Creel was adjusting both his neck and his back. Because the Commission's opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief, we must affirm on this point. Appellees are not liable for any of Dr. Creel's treatment that is not related to appellant's 1991 compensable injury.
Reversed in part; affirmed in part.
Pittman and Crabtree, JJ., agree.
Page 1 2 3 4 Arkansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|