 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jarrell v. Stant Manufacturing2/16/2005
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appellant Kay Jarrell appeals the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission that denied her additional medical treatment. In an opinion filed August 27, 2003, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Jarrell failed to establish her burden of proof to show that she was entitled to additional medical treatment. The Commission upheld the ALJ's decision. We affirm the decision of the Commission. The well-settled standard of review for workers' compensation cases is as follows:
This court reviews decisions of the Workers' Compensation Commission to see if they are supported by substantial evidence. Deffenbaugh Indus. v. Angus, 39 Ark. App. 24, 832 S.W.2d 869 (1992). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of 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 will affirm if those findings are supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The determination of the credibility and weight to be given a witness's testimony is within the sole province of the Commission. The Commission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness, but may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony it deems worthy of belief. Farmers Coop. v. Biles, 77 Ark. App. 1, 4-5, 69 S.W.3d 899, 902 (2002). Further, the Commission has the authority to accept or reject medical opinions, and its resolution of the medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. Estridge v. Waste Mgmt., 343 Ark. 276, 33 S.W.3d 167 (2000).Poulan Weed Eater v. Marshall, 79 Ark. App. 129, 133-34, 84 S.W.3d 878, 882 (2002).
With this standard of review in mind, we examine the evidence presented to the Commission. Appellant Kay Jarrell slipped and fell on her buttocks on a concrete floor on February 23, 2000, while working for appellee Stant Manufacturing Company. Since the fall, she has had persistent pain in her lower back and buttocks region as well as vaginal numbness. Jarrell came under the care of Dr. Alexander on February 23, 2000. He diagnosed contusions of the buttocks and left wrist with a thoracic and lumbar strain. He prescribed medication and rest. Dr. Wilson then saw Jarrell on March 22, 2000. He diagnosed sciatica and prescribed medication and physical therapy. Dr. Wilson released Jarrell on April 24, 2000, after a normal MRI scan.
Jarrell saw Dr. Clark on March 3, 2000, and he diagnosed her with musculoskeletal low back pain and prescribed injections. Jarrell then saw Dr. Lytle on June 12, 2000, and he described normal x-ray results. Dr. Lytle diagnosed a hip contusion and possible contusion of the sciatic nerve. He prescribed exercises and medication. On August 10, 2000, Dr. Lytle saw Jarrell again for pain and he prescribed physical therapy, medication, and work restrictions. Dr. Lytle saw Jarrell again on September 5, 2000, and he referred her to Dr. Simpson. On September 11, 2000, Dr. Simpson ordered additional diagnostic testing that included a repeat MRI scan, myelogram, CT scan, bone scan, and EMG study. The tests came back normal. Dr. Simpson released Jarrell after an invalid functional capacity evaluation was conducted on October 30, 2000.
Dr. Lytle saw Jarrell again on September 18, 2001, at the request of appellee AIG Claim Service (AIG). Dr. Lytle noted that she was not a surgical candidate, and he commented that "she will have to live with this" problem. He assessed no work restrictions or permanent impairment.
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.
|
|