 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lambert Construction Co.2/27/2002
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
This is a workers' compensation case in which appellee, James Fitch, injured his right foot in 1996 while employed as a construction worker for appellant Lambert Construction Company. Appellants initially accepted the injury as compensable and paid benefits. However, appellants refused to accept as compensable the most recently discussed surgical procedure for appellee, a distal phalanx excision. Following a hearing in September 2000, the ALJ denied appellee's claim, finding that he had failed to prove that the proposed surgery was reasonably necessary for treatment of his compensable injury. The Commission reversed the ALJ's opinion and found that the distal phalanx excision surgery was reasonably necessary treatment for appellee's injury. For its sole point of appeal, appellants contend that " easonable men would not find the evidence presented to the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission to be adequate to support a conclusion that distal phalanx excision surgery is reasonably necessary in connection with the Appellee's compensable injury." We disagree and affirm.
In the argument portion of their brief, appellants subdivide their point of appeal into two subpoints. The first subpoint contends that "substantial evidence does not support the Commission's finding that distal phalanx excision surgery was reasonably necessary for the treatment of appellee's compensable injury."
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. Winslow v. D & B Mech. Contrs., 69 Ark. App. 285, 13 S.W.3d 180 (2000). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. The question is not whether the evidence would have supported findings contrary to the ones made by the Commission. Id. The determination of the credibility and weight to be given a witness's testimony is within the sole province of the Commission. Id. 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. Id.
Moreover, although many cases use the term "reasonable and necessary," the statutory language is actually "reasonably necessary":
(a) The employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical, surgical, hospital, chiropractic, optometric, podiatric, and nursing services and medicine, crutches, ambulatory devices, artificial limbs, eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids, and other apparatus as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee. Ark. Code Ann. ยง 11-9-508 (a) (Repl. 1996) (emphasis added).
The question of whether a medical procedure is a reasonably necessary treatment is a question of fact to be decided by the Commission. Cox v. Klipsch, 71 Ark. App. 433, 30 S.W.3d 764 (2000).
In making their argument to this court, appellants emphasize the medical testimony that supports their position. However, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the Commission's findings.
Here, appellee testified that he was fifty-six years old; that he had completed the eleventh grade; that he injured his foot in August 1996 while working for appellant, Lambert Construction; that he has a throbbing pain in his foot every day; that he has had the pain since his first surgery; and that he
Page 1 2 Arkansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|