 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McCormick v. Saline Memorial Hospital6/21/2000
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
AFFIRMED
Appellant Opal McCormick was employed with appellee Saline Memorial Hospital and was involved in incidents concerning her back on November 25, 1995, March 1, 1996, and April 30, 1997. The appellee accepted each incident as compensable and paid related medical expenses and temporary total disability benefits. However, the appellee discontinued payment of compensation on August 12, 1997, contending that Mrs. McCormick was not entitled to benefits beyond that date. Mrs. McCormick filed for additional compensation for continuing medical treatment, temporary total disability benefits, and benefits pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11- 9-505(a)(1) (Repl. 1996), which provides:
Any employer who without reasonable cause refuses to return an employee who is injured in the course of employment to work, where suitable employment is available within the employee's physical and mental limitations, upon order of the commission, and in addition to other benefits, shall be liable to pay to the employee the difference between benefits received and the average weekly wages lost during the period of such refusal, for a period not exceeding one (1) year.
After a hearing the Commission ruled that Mrs. McCormick was not entitled to any benefits in excess of those already accepted and paid by the appellee. Specifically, the Commission found that Mrs. McCormick failed to establish a compensable injury by medical evidence, supported by objective findings, as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-505(a) (Repl. 1996). The Commission further determined that, since Mrs. McCormick was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-505(a)(1)(Repl. 1996) was inapplicable.
Mrs. McCormick now appeals from the decision of the Commission, raising four arguments for reversal. First, she argues that the Commission erred in considering an issue not in dispute, and alternatively erred in finding that her compensable injury was not supported by objective findings. Next, she contends that the Commission erred in failing to find that the appellee waived its right to assert that she did not suffer a compensable injury. Third, Mrs. McCormick asserts that, even if the appellee did not waive its right to controvert compensability, it was estopped from doing so. Finally, Mrs. McCormick argues that the Commission erred in refusing to award enhanced benefits under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-501(a)(1) (Repl. 1996). We find no error and affirm.
When reviewing a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission and affirm if the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Hooks v. Gaylord Container Corp., 67 Ark. App. 159, 992 S.W.2d 844 (1999). In cases where a claim is denied because a claimant failed to show entitlement to compensation by a preponderance of the evidence, the substantial- evidence standard of review requires that we affirm if a substantial basis for the denial of relief is displayed by the Commission's opinion. Id. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Service Chevrolet v. Atwood, 61 Ark. App. 190, 966 S.W.2d 909 (1998).
Mrs. McCormick testified on her own behalf at the hearing. She stated that she first injured herself on November 25, 1995, when she was working as a nurse's aide and caught a patient who was falling. At that time, she felt pain in the left side of her back, and she reported the injury a couple of hours later. The next day, Mrs. McCormick reported to the emergency room and subseque
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Arkansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|