 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dana Corp. v. Baker2/23/2005
ry on October 9, 2001. We attach significant weight to the opinion of the medical experts that the compensable injury caused the "slippage" at L5-S1. Dr. Bruffet opined that the compensable injury had aggravated the claimant's spinal condition. During surgery, moreover, Dr. Bruffet explicitly noted "loose elements" around the spine. The determination of whether a causal connection exists is a question of fact for the Commission. Jeter v. B.R. McGinty Mechanical, 62 Ark. App. 53, 968 S.W.2d 645 (1998). The Full Commission finds in the present matter that the objectively-documented "slippage" and "loose elements" around the claimant's spine were the causal result of the claimant's compensable injury.
As a general rule, the appellate courts defer to the Commission on issues involving the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. See Freeman v. Con-Agra Frozen Foods, 344 Ark. 296, 40 S.W.3d 760 (2001). Furthermore, it is well-settled that the Commission has the authority to determine its medical soundness and probative force. Willaims v. Brown Sheet Metal, 81 Ark. App. 459, 105 S.W.3d 382 (2003). The Commission has a duty to use its experience and expertise in translating the testimony of medical experts into findings of fact. Id. However, these standards must not totally insulate the Commission from judicial review because this would render this court's function meaningless in workers' compensation cases. Hill v. Baptist Med. Ctr., 74 Ark. App. 250, 57 S.W.3d 735 (2001).
That being said, when we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commission, we cannot say that, when confronted with the same evidence, reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion as the Commission without resorting to speculation and conjecture. Here, appellee admitted that he received treatment for his back prior to sustaining his compensable injury and that he had missed work due to back problems. However, appellee failed to convey this fact to Drs. Bruffet and Valley. Both doctors relied upon appellee's inaccurate medical history in rendering their diagnosis. Thus, the medical evidence relied upon by the Commission was based upon a falsehood. Based on these facts, we hold that appellee failed to establish causation. Therefore, we reverse the award of benefits and remand to the Commission for an order consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Gladwin and Robbins, JJ., agree.
|