 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Horner Enterprises v. Allen6/1/2005
lumbar spine was performed on October 27, 2003, which shows a large disc protrusion at the lumbosacral level on the right. Her major problem is intractable sciatica." He recommended decompression and excision of the disc herniation.
Dr. Ryan Kaplan saw appellee on a consult. In a letter dated December 5, 2003, he noted that on September 24, 2003, appellee was unable to get out of bed because of excruciating pain radiating down her right leg. She reported to him that she had right-foot numbness, which was new since September 24. She also stated, however, that she had "no trauma or any strange happenings in the days or weeks preceding this." He determined that appellee had a right lumbosacral radiculopathy.
Appellee sought additional medical and temporary-total-disability benefits. In an opinion adopted by the Commission, the administrative law judge concluded that appellee proved by a preponderance of the evidence that "her current back problems are causally related to her compensable low-back injury " and awarded benefits, which included the surgery recommended by Dr. Chakales. In challenging this ruling on appeal, appellant notes that initial testing showed a herniation to the left side at L5-S1 while the later tests showed a herniation to the right side. Appellant states that until December of 2002, appellee complained about her left side, not her right side, and that appellee had an "incident" on September 24, 2003, after which she could not get out of bed due to pain in her right leg. Appellant asserts that " here is no evidence connecting" appellee's "current right leg complaints to her compensable injury."
In his letter dated October 27, 2003, Dr. Chakales thought it possible that she had a recurrence of herniation at the lumbosacral level, and the MRI confirmed his opinion. He concluded that her major problem was "intractable sciatica." Dr. Chakales described her herniation as a "recurrence." A recurrence is not a new injury ; it is another period of incapacitation resulting from a previous injury. Crudup v. Regal Ware, Inc., 341 Ark. 804, 20 S.W.3d 900 (2000). A recurrence exists when the second complication is a natural and probable consequence of a prior injury. Id. Further, while the IDET provided appellee with some relief, the relief was temporary, as her condition deteriorated. Also, she previously reported to Dr. Chakales right-sided pain as early as December of 2002. We further note that appellee reported that she did not suffer any trauma prior to the pain she had on December 24, 2003. On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commission's decision and affirm when that decision is supported by substantial evidence. Id. Here, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Commission's findings because appellee suffered a recurrence, that is, another period of incapacitation resulting from a previous injury.
Affirmed.
Gladwin and Roaf, JJ., agree.
Page 1 2 Arkansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|