 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Arvest Bank Group5/11/2005
ding a possible surgery. In his report dated November 11, 2002, Dr. Hart specifically stated that he disagreed with Dr. Reddy's assessment of maximum medical improvement. Dr. Hart also noted that Ashcraft's arachnoiditis had not been addressed, and additional appropriate studies were necessary. Dr. Hart criticized Dr. Reddy's conclusion by stating, "So to simply tell Ms. Ashcraft to get up and go back to work without these issues being resolved was not medically appropriate...." Finally, under the care of Dr. Peek, Ashcraft underwent additional diagnostic testing and a lumbar fusion.
Based on the testimony of medical experts, the Commission concluded that these additional medical treatments were reasonable and necessary and that Ashcraft was still within her healing period and totally incapacitated from earning wages. Therefore, the Commission concluded that Ashcraft was entitled to temporary total disability benefits from the date such benefits ceased until she reaches the end of her healing period, a date which is yet to be determined, including the period of time that she received the unauthorized medical treatment. There is more than substantial evidence to support this conclusion. Accordingly, the Commission's decision is affirmed.
Finally, we turn to Ashcraft's allegation of error on cross appeal. She presents an interesting question for our review involving the power of the ALJ to impose punitive measures against Ashcraft-in the form of a denial of otherwise compensable benefits-for failing to obey an order of the ALJ. The "order" in question was filed on November 26, 2002, and commanded Ashcraft to undergo an evaluation by Dr. Winston Wilson. This order further stated that "no further medical procedures shall be considered `authorized' until such time as the claimant presents for the examination as ordered herein." The ALJ construed this provision as a temporary restraining order on additional medical treatment until the parties had the benefit of a psychological evaluation. Ashcraft was examined by Dr. Wilson on December 5, 2002.
However, despite the order, Ashcraft continued with her scheduled surgery on December 3, 2002. In response, the ALJ deemed the treatment Ashcraft received between November 26, 2002, and December 5, 2002, as "not authorized." The ALJ determined that Arvest was not liable for any medical treatment Ashcraft received during this period, including her medically necessary fusion surgery. Although Ashcraft indicated that she was appealing the ALJ's contempt finding, the opinion filed by the Commission indicated that Ashcraft had abandoned the issue on appeal. As such, the Commission did not consider the merits of Ashcraft's claim of error. Now, Ashcraft attempts to raise the issue on cross appeal to our court. However, she failed to present our court with a record sufficient to support her allegation of error. At a minimum, we would need to examine the claim that she presented-or specifically abandoned-in her appeal to the Commission.
It is the appellant's burden to produce a record sufficient to demonstrate error. Johnson v. State, 342 Ark. 357, 361, 28 S.W.3d 286, 288 (2000). Here, Ashcraft has failed to present us with a record containing sufficient evidence to resolve the question of whether the Commission properly concluded that she abandoned the issue. Without such a record, it is impossible for us to reach the merits of the issue on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Commission is affirmed in all respects.
Affirmed.
Glover and Baker, JJ., agree.
|