 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dison v. Therral Story Well Service11/9/2005
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appellant Robert L. Dison, Jr., claimed that on July 7, 2003, he injured his back while picking up a piece of pipe on the work site. The Worker's Compensation Commission adopted the opinion of the Administrative law judge, finding that appellant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained an injury as a result of a specific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence as required by Arkansas Worker's Compensation law and denying appellant benefits. Appellant asserts that fair-minded persons could not have reached the decision of the Commission and brought notice of appeal in a timely manner. I would affirm.
Appellant, Robert Dison, was employed by appellee as a derrick hand. The duties of the derrick hand vary from day to day, but appellant testified that his job mostly entailed lifting pipe. The appellant testified that on July 7, 2003, while attempting to pick up pipe two feet above his head, he felt a pull in his back. The pipe appellant usually picked up averaged around two and 7/8 to two and 3/8 inches and twenty-eight to thirty-two feet long. Appellant informed his supervisor, Raymond Buford about the injury , but continued to work, thinking that he had simply pulled a muscle.
Appellant opted to take Tylenol rather than see a physician and continued to work for three weeks. Midmorning on July 24, 2003, appellant informed Mr. Buford that he could no longer work because of his back pain. Mr. Buford notified his supervisor, Richard Barnes the "tool pusher." Mr. Barnes called John White to come and get appellant. Appellant testified that he had felt another burn in his back that morning, but that he could not pinpoint any particular moment on either date as the moment when his back problems began.
Appellant got in his truck and went straight to the emergency room. In the emergency room, Dr. Edwards took some X-rays of appellant's back. The X-rays were unremarkable, and the doctor diagnosed appellant with muscle spasms. The hospital report states that appellant gave a three-week history of experiencing lower back pain and that appellant indicated that he lifted heavy equipment at work. Appellant also advised hospital personnel that he was unsure of exactly how he hurt his back. Appellant eventually went to see a chiropractor, Dr. Butler. Dr. Butler performed another X-ray and placed appellant on heat and stretching treatments for a possible herniated disc. Dr. Butler suggested that appellant get an MRI. The MRI showed that appellant had a bulging disc. Appellant then went to see Dr. Antoon, who treated the plaintiff conservatively.
Raymond Buford testified that on July 24, appellant did indicate that his back was hurting and he needed to stop working. Mr. Buford also testified that appellant did not mention that his back problems were related to his employment duties. Richard Barnes also testified that appellant told him that his back problems were related to an old injury . Appellant testified that he had been in an automobile accident in 1998, but that he did not seek medical treatment for his injuries.
The Worker's Compensation Commission adopted the opinion of the Administrative law judge, finding that appellant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained an injury as a result of a specific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence as required by Arkansas Worker's Compensation law and denying appellant benefits.
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 that
Page 1 2 3 Arkansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|