 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson v. Nucor-Yamato Steel Co.2/23/2000
sons could not have reached the same conclusions if presented with the same facts. Dalton v. Allen Eng'g Co., 66 Ark. App. 201, 989 S.W.2d 543 (1999).
Appellant lists eleven "points of appeal," many of which are hard to understand, were not raised below, relate to the earlier proceedings from which no appeal was taken, or involve concepts under the previous Worker's Compensation Act that are no longer applicable. The ALJ quoted from the January 13, 1998, MRI that was performed while appellant was in prison. The results of that MRI were:
IMPRESSION: The upper three lumbar discs are unremarkable. The L4-5 and L5-S1 discs are narrowed and desiccated. There are small hypertrophic spurs posteriorly at these levels. There is a left paracentral disc extrusion at L4-5 which is impinging upon the thecal sac. There is a small central disc protrusion at L5-S1. The spinal canal at both of these levels is mildly stenotic.
The following finding by the ALJ was adopted by the Commission:
here is no supporting medical report to indicate what additional medical treatment, if any, is recommended. As well, there is no medical opinion as to the cause of the claimant's current condition. There has been testimony by the claimant of a number of incidents where he was involved while in prison as well as a car accident. Any of these incidents could account for the claimant's current condition. After considering the testimony and evidence presented in this claim, I find that the claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that additional medical treatment is reasonable and necessary and related to the compensable injury in December 1992. The preponderance of the evidence weighs in favor that the various incidents the claimant has encountered with the car accident and since his incarceration, accounts for his need for treatment for his back condition if treatment is warranted.
Because the Commission's opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial of the relief sought by appellant, we would affirm even if his abstract were not flagrantly deficient.
Affirmed.
Robbins, C.J., and Roaf, J., agree.
|