 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. Halstead Industries8/30/2000
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
AFFIRMED
This is an appeal from a decision of the Commission affirming and adopting the opinion of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) finding, inter alia, that appellant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence (1) that he had been permanently and totally disabled as a result of his compensable lower extremities injuries; (2) that he did not make a prima facie showing that he falls in the odd-lot category for the purposes of permanent and total disability; (3) that appellees are estopped from denying responsibility for a whole-body impairment rating for the compensable injuries; and (4) that appellees did not controvert any of the benefits. From the Commission's decision, comes this appeal.
We find that there is substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision. Therefore, we affirm.
Appellant, Robert Smith, is sixty-seven years old and worked for appellee Halstead Metal Products from 1963 until 1995 when he first retired. Appellant sustained an admittedly compensable injury to both lower extremities on September 18, 1984, when heavy sheets of metal fell on his legs. Appellant underwent seven surgeries as a result of his injury, the last of which occurred on January 10, 1998.
At the hearing before the ALJ, appellant contended that he was totally and permanently disabled as a result of his September 18, 1984, compensable injury and that he was entitled to indemnity benefits based on a 50% whole-body impairment and should not be limited by the statutory schedule. Appellant contended that he fell within the odd-lot doctrine because his injury occurred prior to 1993, and he was totally and permanently disabled. Appellant further argued that because appellees paid him a 12% whole-body impairment based on a 1987 rating, they should be estopped from denying responsibility for a 50% whole-body impairment rating assigned in 1998. Appellant also sought temporary total disability benefits from January 10, 1998, through July 2, 1998, and a controverted attorney's fee. Appellees argued that appellant was not permanently and totally disabled and that they were not estopped from denying liability for the 50% whole-body impairment rating.
Appellees stipulated at the hearing that appellant sustained a compensable injury on September 18, 1984, and that he was entitled to a maximum rate for temporary total disability (TTD) and permanent partial disability (PPD). Between 1984 and 1998, appellant underwent five surgeries for his work-related injury. At the end of 1987, Dr. Taylor assigned appellant a 12% whole-body impairment rating. On March 20, 1992, Dr. Glenn Richardson increased the impairment rating to the left lower extremity to 30%. In 1998, Dr. Richardson increased the impairment rating to the right lower extremity to 60%. In 1987, appellees paid appellant PPD benefits in the amount of $8,313.00 based on the 12% whole-body impairment assigned by Dr. Taylor. In 1992, appellees paid appellant additional PPD in the amount of $6,052.20 as a combination of the 12% whole-body impairment and of the 30% increase to the lower extremity. The PPD benefits paid totaled $14,368.20.
Appellees further stipulated that appellant would be entitled to PPD in the amount of $18,156.60 for the 30% rating to the left lower extremity and the 60% rating to the right lower extremity. Because appellant had already been paid PPD in the amount of $14,368.20, he would be entitled to the difference of $3,788.40. Appellees stipulated that the 1998 surgery was compensable and because of the additional impairment, appellant was entitled to the $3,788.40, which represented the increased impairment to the right lower extremit
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Arkansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|