 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Caudle v. Hatfield Lumber Co.3/2/2005
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appellant, Darrell Caudle, was employed as a truck driver by appellee Hatfield Lumber Company. He was involved in a vehicular accident on May 8, 2002, in which his truck ran off the road when he fell asleep at the wheel. He suffered compensable injuries to his back and to his right knee and received benefits regarding them. However, he later sought additional benefits, claiming that he suffered a subsequent back injury that was caused by his compensable right-knee injury giving way in October 2002. At the start of the hearing, the parties reserved issues concerning permanent-partial disability, so we make no findings in that regard. Following the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge denied his claim for benefits. He appeals from the Workers' Compensation Commission decision that affirmed and adopted the ALJ's opinion. We affirm.
Standard of Review
When a workers' compensation claim is denied, the substantial-evidence standard of review requires us to affirm the Commission if its opinion displays a substantial basis for denial of the relief sought by the worker. Williams v. L & W Janitorial, Inc., 85 Ark. App. 1, 145 S.W.3d 383 (2004). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of the Commission, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commission's findings and affirm if they are supported by substantial evidence. Id. We will not reverse the Commission's decision unless we are convinced that fair-minded persons with the same facts before them could not have reached the conclusions arrived at by the Commission. Id. The question is not whether the evidence would have supported findings contrary to the ones made by the Commission; there may be substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision even though we might have reached a different conclusion if we sat as the trier of fact or heard the case de novo. Id. In making our review, we recognize that it is the Commission's function to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Id. Moreover, the Commission has the duty of weighing medical evidence and, if the evidence is conflicting, its resolution is a question of fact for the Commission. Id.
Causal Connection
For his first point of appeal, appellant contends that the Commission's determination, i.e., that his current back problems were not causally related to his compensable knee injury , and that consequently, he was not entitled to additional medical treatment or compensation for his subsequent back injury, was not supported by the evidence. We disagree. When the primary injury is shown to have arisen out of and in the course of the employment, the employer is responsible for any natural consequence that flows from that injury, and the basic test is whether there is a causal connection between the injury and the consequences of such. K II Constr. Co. v. Crabtree, 78 Ark. App. 222, 79 S.W.3d 414 (2002). The determination of whether there is a causal connection between the injury and the disability is a question of fact for the Commission to determine. Oak Grove Lumber Co. v. Highfill, 62 Ark. App. 42, 968 S.W.2d 637 (1998). Objective medical evidence is necessary to establish the existence and extent of an injury, but it is not essential to establish the causal relationship between the injury and a work- related accident. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999).
At the hearing before the ALJ, appellant recounted the history of his original May 8, 2002 accident and the resulting compensable knee injury. He described subsequent knee give-way falls and, in particular, an October 2002 por
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Arkansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|