 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Layes v. Wal-Mart Stores9/26/2001
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
AFFIRMED
The appellant in this Workers' Compensation case sustained a compensable hip injury on December 15, 1987, in the course of her employment with appellee Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Appellant underwent hip replacement surgery and received yearly follow-up treatment. Wal-Mart paid all medical charges up to and including those submitted in March 1997. In November 1999, appellant filed a claim for additional compensation in the form of payment of medical expenses for services assertedly provided in 1998 and 1999. After a hearing, the administrative law judge denied the claim, finding that it was barred by the statute of limitations. After conducting a de novo review, the Commission adopted the administrative law judge's findings and conclusions. From that decision, comes this appeal.
The applicable limitations provision, Ark. Code Ann. ยง 11-9-702(b)(1) (Repl. 1996), provides that:
In cases where any compensation, including disability or medical, has been paid on account of injury, a claim for additional compensation shall be barred unless filed with the commission within one (1) year from the date of the last payment of compensation, or two (2) years from the date of the injury, whichever is greater.
Appellant testified that she was seen by her physician on January 12, 1998, and argued that the limitations period therefore had not expired when she filed her claim for additional benefits in November 1999. On appeal, she argues that the Commission erred by rejecting this testimony simply because there was no documentary evidence to support it. The thrust of appellant's argument is that the Commission held appellant to a higher standard than the law allows by ruling that appellant's testimony that she visited her physician on the date in question was not sufficient to prove her case in the absence of corroborating documentation.
Appellant's argument fails because its premise is flawed. Two things appear clearly in the record: (1) the administrative law judge specifically found that appellant failed to prove she visited her physician on the date in question ; and (2) the administrative law judge did not believe that anything more than appellant's testimony was necessary in order for her to prove that the disputed visit had, in fact, taken place. This is demonstrated by the administrative law judge's statement during a colloquy with the employer's attorney. The employer objected to appellant testifying that she saw her physician on January 12 on the grounds that she was not testifying from her own recollection, but instead on the basis of a document not introduced into evidence. The administrative law judge stated that he did not know what appellant was testifying from and allowed the testimony. He also stated that:
THE COURT: Now, she can testify she went once a week. If I believe her, then I can find, I guess, that she went once a week.
Clearly, the administrative law judge understood that appellant's testimony, if believed, was sufficient to support a finding that she made the disputed doctor visit. Plainly, he did not believe her. Although he mentioned appellant's failure to offer supporting documentation as one factor entering into his credibility determination, that was not the sole factor. He also noted that appellant testified that she was informed by her doctor's office that the employer had failed to pay for the visit and that, in mid-1998, she received a statement for the charges assertedly incurred as a result of the disputed visit. He further noted that appellant had nevertheless failed to take any further action to confirm the charges had been paid or to seek assistance
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.
|
|