 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Magnet Cove School District v. Henderson2/16/2005
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appellant Magnet Cove School District appeals from the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission's decision to award permanent-total disability benefits to appellee Oneta Henderson based on wage-loss factors. Further, appellant appeals from the Commission's determination that appellee Second Injury Fund was not liable because appellant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Henderson's pre-existing condition combined with her compensable injury to produce her current disability status. Appellant argues that the Commission's findings were not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
Henderson, who was sixty-four years old at the time of the hearing, testified that she was employed as a cook for the school district, having worked there as either a cook or head cook for almost twelve years. In her job , she cooked, served, and cleaned. She was required to be on her feet all day and to bend, lift, stoop, push, and pull. On August 24, 2001, Henderson was putting away groceries, lifting six cases by herself that weighed forty-two pounds each. She was also responsible for putting down and taking up long tables, and she put up nine tables by herself. She testified that she injured her back while lifting the tables. Ultimately, appellee underwent a decompression and spinal fusion, and she was assigned a 13% permanent-impairment rating.
Before the Commission, Henderson asserted that as a result of her compensable injury , she was entitled to wage-loss benefits. In adopting the opinion of the administrative law judge, the Commission found that Henderson was permanently and totally disabled as a result of her injury and that her pre-existing condition did not combine with the most recent compensable injury to produce her current disability. Appellant challenges both findings.
When reviewing decisions from the Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission's findings and affirm if supported by substantial evidence, which is evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Douglas Tobacco Prods. Co. v. Gerrald, 68 Ark. App. 304, 8 S.W.3d 39 (1999). In considering an employee's entitlement to "permanent partial disability benefits in excess of the employee's percentage of permanent physical impairment," the Commission "may take into account, in addition to the percentage of permanent physical impairment, such factors as the employee's age, education, work experience, and other matters reasonably expected to affect his or her future earning capacity." Ark. Code Ann. ยง11-9-522(b)(1) (Repl. 2002). Thus, when a claimant has been assigned an anatomical-impairment rating to the body as a whole, the Commission has the authority to increase the rating, and it can find a claimant totally and permanently disabled based upon wage-loss factors. Whitlach v. Southland Land & Dev., 84 Ark. App. 399, 141 S.W.3d 916 (2004). Wage-loss factors are the extent to which a compensable injury has affected the claimant's ability to earn a livelihood. Id. The disability is based upon a consideration of medical evidence and other matters affecting wage loss, such as the claimant's age, education, and work experience. Id. The Commission may also consider the claimant's motivation to return to work, since a lack of interest or a negative attitude impedes assessment of the claimant's loss of earning capacity. Id.
Appellant argues that the Commission's decision to award permanent-total disability benefits to Henderson based on wage-loss factors was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. Henderson was sixty-four years
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.
|
|