 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
White v. Cooper Tire & Rubber3/15/2000
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
AFFIRMED
Paul A. White appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission that denied his claim for benefits. He argues that the Commission's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
At the hearing, it was stipulated that White sustained a compensable injury on December 10, 1996, while trying to lift an iron skid that was stuck. He gave it a hard jerk and felt a pop in his shoulder. He immediately began having muscle spasms up and down his shoulder and into his neck area. He was originally treated by Dr. Craig E. Ditsch, the company doctor. After a negative MRI of his shoulder, Dr. Ditsch referred White to Dr. David N. Collins, an orthopedist.
Dr. Collins determined that White's problem was not in the shoulder but in the cervical area and referred appellant to Dr. Freddie L. Contreras, a neurosurgeon. An MRI performed on June 11, 1997, showed that White had a "small herniation at the C5-C6 with large extradural defect." Dr. Contreras performed an anterior cervical diskectomy on June 11, 1997. However, White's symptoms did not abate, and on November 18, 1997, Dr. Contreras performed an anterior fusion at C5-C6 vertebral bodies with removal of osteophyte, bone fusion, followed by placement of an Orion plate.
The administrative law judge held that White had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his cervical spine problems were related to his compensable injury of December 10, 1996. The Commission affirmed and adopted the opinion of the administrative law judge.
On appeal in workers' compensation cases, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission's findings and will affirm if those findings are supported by substantial evidence. Morelock v. Kearney Co., 48 Ark. App. 227, 894 S.W.2d 603 (1995). Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. College Club Dairy v. Carr, 25 Ark. App. 215, 756 S.W.2d 128 (1988). The issue on appeal is not whether we might have reached a different result or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary finding; if reasonable minds could reach the Commission's conclusion, we must affirm its decision. Bearden Lumber Co. v. Bond, 7 Ark. App. 65, 644 S.W.2d 321 (1983). Where a claim is denied because the claimant has failed to show entitlement to compensation by a preponderance of the evidence, the substantial evidence standard of review requires us to affirm the Commission if its opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial of the relief sought. Jeter v. B.R. McGinty Mechanical, 62 Ark. App. 53, 968 S.W.2d 645 (1998); Linthicum v. Mar-Bax Shirt Co., 23 Ark. App. 26, 741 S.W.2d 275 (1987).
We first note that appellant has failed to abstract the decision of the administrative law judge. Since the Commission affirmed and adopted the decision of the administrative law judge, it became the opinion of the Commission. Failure to abstract the order appealed from is fatal to appellant's case because we are not allowed to go to the record to reverse. Chambers v. Int'l Paper Co., 56 Ark. App. 90, 938 S.W.2d 861 (1997); Crawford v. Pace, 55 Ark. App. 60, 929 S.W.2d 727 (1996); Death & Perm. Total Disab. Fund v. Whirlpool, 39 Ark. App. 62, 837 S.W.2d 293 (1992).
If we did consider the appeal on its merits, we would still affirm the decision of the Commission because the record contains a substantial basis for the denial of benefits. On March 26, 1997, Dr. Bruce L. Safman reported that he had ordered an MRI on appellant and had also done an EMG and nerve conductio
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.
|
|