 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gaba v. Southern Refrigerated Transport3/16/2005
had suffered a back strain from the incident, for which he received treatment, then declined to initiate any follow-up treatment for seven months. Based on his complicated medical history and the fact that he did not seek treatment for the injury for seven months, the Commission found that appellant did not sustain a compensable injury. Rather, it found that appellant's problems were pre-existing. The Commission additionally found that even if appellant had proven he suffered a compensable injury, he did not prove he was entitled to temporary or permanent benefits.
In reviewing decisions from the Workers' Compensation Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission's findings, and we affirm if the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Smith v. City of Fort Smith, 84 Ark. App. 430, 143 S.W.3d 593 (2004). Substantial evidence exists if reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion. Id. at 432, 143 S.W.3d at 595. If reasonable minds could reach the conclusion of the Commission, its decision must be affirmed. K II Constr. Co. v. Crabtree, 78 Ark. App. 222, 79 S.W.3d 414 (2002). When a claim is denied because the claimant has failed to show an entitlement to compensation by a preponderance of the evidence, the substantial-evidence standard of review requires us to affirm if the Commission's opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief. Smith, 84 Ark. App. at 432-33, 143 S.W.3d at 595. We cannot undertake a de novo review of the evidence and are limited by the standard of review in these cases. Crabtree, 78 Ark. App. at 225, 79 S.W.3d at 416. The Commission has the duty of weighing medical evidence, and, if the evidence is in conflict, determining its resolution is a question of fact for the Commission. Whaley v. Hardee's, 51 Ark. App. 166, 912 S.W.2d 14 (1995). Additionally, the determination of the credibility and weight to be given a witness's testimony is solely within the providence of the Commission. Am. Greetings Corp. v. Garey, 61 Ark. App. 18, 963 S.W.2d 613 (1998).
Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Supp. 2003) defines "compensable injury " as " n accidental injury causing internal or external harm ... arising out of and in the course of employment ...." In order to prove a compensable injury, appellant had to prove a causal relationship between the injury and the employment. Horticare Landscape Mgmt. v. McDonald, 80 Ark. App. 45, 89 S.W.3d 375 (2002). Objective medical evidence is necessary to establish the existence and extent of an injury, but it is not essential to establish the causal relationship. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999).
In this case, the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence. The Commission noted appellant's long history of medical problems with his back and legs, as well as his collection of other medical problems. It found that although appellant truly believed his stenosis was caused by his work-related injury , the medical evidence presented pointed to a contrary conclusion-that appellant's stenosis was pre-existing and only possibly aggravated by the injury. The Commission was especially persuaded by the fact that appellant had not sought or received any additional medical treatment for his injury for over seven months after his initial treatment and release. Based on the evidence presented and our standard of review in workers' compensation cases, we are satisfied that reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion as the Commission. Because the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Hart and Crabtree, J
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.
|
|