 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fretueg v. White River Orthopaedic Clinic9/20/2000
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
AFFIRMED
Appellant, Theresa Fretueg, suffered a compensable injury to her left shoulder on April 21, 1986, while working as an x-ray technician for appellee. She was ultimately given a permanent anatomical impairment rating of twelve percent to the body as a whole, which appellee paid. However, appellee controverted appellant's contention that she was entitled to benefits for wage-loss disability in excess of her impairment rating. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that appellant was entitled to a five-percent wage-loss disability in excess of her twelve-percent permanent anatomical impairment, for a total of seventeen percent to the body as a whole. The Commission affirmed. Appellant appeals, arguing that the Commission should have found her permanently and totally disabled under the odd-lot doctrine, and that there is no substantial evidence to support the Commission's finding of only a five-percent permanent wage-loss disability. We affirm.
On appeal, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission and is given its strongest probative value in favor of the Commission's decision. Barrett v. Arkansas Rehabilitation Servs., 10 Ark. App. 102, 661 S.W.2d 439 (1983). The question is not whether the appellate court might have reached a different conclusion from the one found by the Commission if it was reviewing the case de novo, or even whether the evidence would have supported a contrary finding. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Disheroon, 26 Ark. App. 145, 761 S.W.2d 617 (1988). The Commission's decision should not be reversed unless it is clear that fair-minded persons could not have reached the same conclusions if presented with the same facts. Johnson v. Democrat Printing and Lithograph, 57 Ark. App. 274, 944 S.W.2d 138 (1997).
Beginning in 1981, appellant worked as an x-ray technician for appellee; she continued to work full-time in this position after the diagnosis of her injury. In March 1989, appellant was seen by Dr. J.R. Vander Schilden, an orthopaedic surgeon, who restricted appellant's normal work activities, particularly overhead and heavy lifting. Dr. Vander Schilden performed an anterior shoulder reconstruction on appellant's left shoulder in May 1989. Appellant returned to full-time employment after the surgery, with the restriction that she was to take x-rays for only part of the day. It was noted that appellant had a limited range of motion and occasional discomfort, but her prognosis for recovery was good. Dr. Vander Schilden opined that appellant reached maximum medical improvement on August 1, 1990, and he assigned her a twenty-percent permanent impairment to the left arm, which converted to a twelve-percent impairment to the body as a whole.
Dr. Vander Schilden's March 1, 1991, notes indicate that appellant's range of motion was extremely poor and that she was having night pain. Appellant was seen in Dr. Vander Schilden's office numerous times in 1991 for adhesive capsulitis secondary to her left shoulder reconstruction; she received steroid injections to alleviate her discomfort and to increase her range of motion on a temporary basis.
In February 1993, Dr. Vander Schilden again performed surgery on appellant's left shoulder. Following this surgery, appellant's pain was reduced but she had limited rotation of her shoulder, and she was unable to take x-rays because of weakness, pain, and loss of motion in her left shoulder. She continued to work at the same salary she received as an x-ray technician, until she was terminated in November 1994 due to a personality conflict with the office manager. Thereafter, she drew six months of unemployment benefits.
<
Page 1 2 3 Arkansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|