 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jennings v. United Parcel Service9/21/2005
l treatment for this injury he received back on May 28, 2002.
The claimant has had extensive physical therapy and according to Dr. John Wilson had benefitted from that. While Dr. Wilson initially found some muscle spasms on examination with the claimant, those spasms seemed to have resolved when further reviewing the medical reports.
Dr. Ward indicates in his medical reports that he suspects or believes that the claimant is having spasm but there is no notation in Dr. Ward's reports that he ever observed spasm while examining the claimant. The medical evidence viewed as a whole simply does not lend itself to the claimant's assertion that he is in need of continuing medical treatment for this compensable injury he sustained on May 28, 2002.
The Commission has the duty of weighing medical evidence, and the resolution of conflicting evidence is a question of fact for the Commission. Stone v. Dollar General Stores, Ark. App., S.W.3d (June 8, 2005). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commission, appellant is unable to demonstrate a causal connection between his May 28 injury and his current neck problem; therefore, he fails to demonstrate that further treatment was reasonably necessary. Accordingly, we affirm the Commission's finding that the treatment rendered by Dr. Ward was not reasonably necessary.
Appellant also argues that the Commission erred when it found he was not entitled to further temporary-total-disability benefits. Temporary total disability is that period within the healing period in which the employee suffers a total incapacity to earn wages. Fred's Inc. v. Jefferson, Ark., S.W.3d (Mar. 31, 2005). The healing period is that period for healing of an accidental injury that continues until the employee is as far restored as the permanent character of his injury will permit, and that ends when the underlying condition causing the disability has become stable and nothing in the way of treatment will improve the condition. Poulan Weed Eater v. Marshall, 79 Ark. App. 129, 84 S.W.3d 878 (2002). The determination of when the healing period has ended is a factual determination for the Commission and will be affirmed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. Id. These are matters of weight and credibility, and thus lie within the exclusive province of the Commission. Id.
In order to be entitled to temporary total disability, appellant was required to show that, as a result of his May 28 injury , he suffered additional injury. Because appellant is unable to establish a causal relationship between his May 28 injury and his current problems, he fails to establish further injury. Furthermore, appellant was released to full duty on August 19, 2002. All the medical testing done after that date, except that from Dr. Ward, indicates that appellant's injury had stabilized. Thus, when we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commission, we can not say that appellant remained in his healing period. Accordingly, we also affirm the denial of appellant's claim for temporary-total-disability benefits.
Affirmed.
Hart and Vaught, JJ., agree.
|